Clause 64.—(SCANDALOUS CONDUCT OF OFFICER.) (Hansard, 17 February 1955)

§ Mr. Bing
I do not propose to delay the Committee unduly on this Clause because we have already debated it in connection with the Army Bill, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this aspect of the matter. The Air Force is only too willing to copy exactly what the Army does. This is a responsibility of the Select Committee which, in fact, reproduced exactly the same Clause for the Air Force as it produced for the Army.
The arguments against this Clause were deployed on the Army Bill, but they are really stronger in the case of the Air Force. We ought not to part with the Clause without expressing the arguments against it. Take one which was expressed in the Select Committee. When we asked the witnesses to suggest any offence which an officer could commit and which could be dealt with under this Clause and not under any other, they suggested indecent correspondence.
728 I understand that on an aircraft there is a device called "George" which enables the machine to fly automatically. Let us suppose that the captain of the aircraft is an N.C.O., and, as so often happens, the navigator is a commissioned officer. The automatic pilot being put into operation, they both sit down to write a letter, and, by chance, they write identical letters. Is it suggested that in such circumstances one would commit an offence and the other would not? How utterly nonsensical it is to suggest that in an aircraft of such an N.C.O. is in charge, one of his crew can commit an offence which makes him liable to be removed, but which, if committed by the captain, he being of non-commissioned rank, is not an offence, and that therefore there is no penalty.
The basis of the Clause is that there are certain offences which can be committed by somebody who is commissioned and cannot be committed by somebody who is not commissioned. In other words, the captain of an aircraft can go free while his subordinates can commit an offence for which they can be removed from the Air Force. This is nonsense and is snobbery run to its final degree.
Here is a chance for the Under-Secretary of State to say, "This may be the right thing in the Army, where they have years of tradition, where they have the Guards and all that, where we have to preserve tradition, but in this newer Service, the Air Force, we can get away from it and, as an experiment in this Service, we will drop the Clause and see whether the discipline of the Air Force is any worse in the absence of the Clause than the discipline of the Army, which has such a Clause."

§ Mr. Hale
My hon. and learned Friend was a member of the Committee. Would he say in how many ways one can behave scandalously which are becoming the character of an officer and gentleman?

§ Mr. Bing
My hon. Friend is taking a rather unfair advantage of me. I was a member of the Committee. I said—and it is clear from the Report—that this is a mistaken Clause; and some of my hon. Friends hoped that it would not be included. We had a difference of opinion on this Clause.
I am proposing a compromise—to put it in the Army Bill and leave it out of the 729 Air Force Bill. That seems a very reasonable approach to the problem, and it is all the more reasonable because this will be the better Bill for its omission. We know that many people go into the Army—I hope I shall say nothing controversial—because they believe that there is certain social position attached to it, and possibly they feel a certain advantage in having a Clause like this. We had a very emotional speech in defence of it. I can understand the feelings of officers who have served for a long time in the Army, and who feel that this is a safeguard of the officer's position.
But in the R.A.F., where every day we see aircraft commanded by N.C.Os., it is ridiculous to include a Clause which penalises a member of the crew but does not catch the commander of the aircraft. Here is a compromise which the Undersecretary could accept—put the Clause in the Army Bill and leave it out of the Air Force Bill. After five years, when we have to review, we shall see whether a great number of offences have been committed by Air Force officers which would not have been committed had the Clause been in existence; and if a great number have been committed, we can put the Clause back.
We discussed such a suggestion on capital punishment. Why not try it on the subject of "an officer and a gentleman"? Why not try a moratorium for "an officer and a gentleman" in the Air Force for five years and see whether they cannot behave themselves—if I may put it in that way without offence—without the Clause? I am certain that the officers in the Air Force do not require this disciplinary measure to apply 1:0 them once they are commissioned.
There are sergeant-pilots and warrant officers in the Air Force holding responsibilities equal to those held by people who, because they do different jobs, are commissioned. I think it is a little insulting to the warrant officer in the R.A.F., who possibly occupies an even more responsible position than the warrant officer in the Army, that he should be treated in a different way from that in which the commissioned officer is treated.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree to drop the Clause from the Air Force Bill, if only from the point of view that the Air Force, which in connection with this Bill started on the same basis 730 as the Navy and not on the basis of the Army, should in this one respect at least be prepared to be different from the Army.

Mr. Ward
I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) but clearly, even if I felt it right, it would be impossible for me to accept the Amendment and to drop the Clause while it remains in the Army Bill. But I do not think it would be right to drop it. This quality is the most difficult thing in the world to put into words. It is intangible, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. But I firmly believe that to leave the Clause in the Bill is a reminder that a certain standard of behaviour is still expected from an officer—a high standard of behaviour which commands the respect of his men.
Having established that high standard of conduct, his leadership will not be disputed; and when he and his men go into action, whether in the air or on the ground, they will feel that they are following a man who accepts a high standard of conduct below which he feels ashamed to fall. If he does fail we feel that he is not fit to hold the Queen's Commission. The dropping of this Clause would have an extremely bad effect on both Services. It serves as a reminder that officers are still expected to behave like gentlemen, and I hope that they always will.