§ 17. Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an officer of the R.A.F.V.R., though paid as 837 such while under training for the A.T.C., has, on being injured during such training, been offered non-effective benefits at Home Guard rates; and whether it is intended to deny them R.A.F.V.R. rates of pension, etc.
§ Captain BalfourThe non-effective benefits of A.T.C. officers who serve on a part-time basis are similar to those of the Home Guard. I see no reason for changing these arrangements which are the same as those adopted for officers of the Army Cadet Force and Sea Cadet Corps.
§ Mr. KeelingIs my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that these officers entered the R.A.F.V.R. without any indication that if they were injured, they would be treated differently from ordinary R.A.F. officers? Will he consider improving this niggardly treatment which must be saving the Treasury only a very small sum of money indeed?
§ Captain BalfourNo, Sir. The main issue raised by this Question is whether non-effective benefits of A.T.C. officers should be assimilated with those of full-time serving officers, or other part-time workers. It is a considered policy that they should be assimilated to other part-time workers like the Home Guard.
§ Mr. KeelingWhy were they not told that when they joined the R.A.F.V.R.?