I would partially disagree on this front given quite how extensive the activities/program library is on the scouts.org.uk website, plus the badges are well defined and left to leaders to decide if a young person has done enough (with no-one up the CoC to question if they’ve really done enough 
)
Hopefully this will be one thing the admin portal will sort out - as I completely agree - asking if VA will be claimable feels a little wrong somehow…
1 Like
The RAFAC isn’t an employer, though, and shouldn’t be financially rewarding people for effort. That’s called a job.
I beg to differ (especially about the first aider…). A CFAV on a course is still a CFAV. Put simply, we’re still expected to lead cadets, and act as a member of staff would, regardless of if they are organisers or participants.
Putting the organiser in charge of deciding who is getting the higher pay is a recipe for disaster. They run the risk of someone calling foul, and potentially committing fraud.
It’s not that silly really, though. Look at it holistically. The Sqn Ldr may have more experience and skills than the Sgt, it’s just that on this occasion, the Sgt is instructing and the Sqn Ldr is the student. It’s no different to pay scales in the workplace.
Are you joking… you know it’s not employment right? Even in the days of VR(T) we never recieved pension, sick, etc…
No I’m not.
Looking at it holistically, I’d say the Sqn Ldr is not using their skills or experience in this case, which makes those skills completely irrelevant. So why are they deserving of more money than the person who does possess and is using the relevant, superior skills?
That is, or should already be, the case. Before the WExO signs off someone’s F80 they ought to be confirming that the person actually performed the duty for which they are claiming.
I know of a few examples where we’ve told the WExO “Don’t authorise any claim for this person because they: didn’t turn up/didn’t contribute anything/were only present for 2 hours.”
If we adopted a two-tier system like the SCC it would be an easy decision as to who gets what:
Director - The person(s) responsible for running that course/event/sub-event.
Enabler - Those people who were necessary for the event to run - instructors, extra staff for ratio, fire piquet, &c
Student - No claim.
I think that the director/enabler approach has merit. When I run a course my staff team work hard to deliver it; but their work is from the time they arrive to the time they depart, plus a very small amount of a pre/post admin. As the person putting the course together my work load includes all the hours of preparation to create the course, and then all the post-course admin such as course reports, in addition to the few days we are there.
1 Like
ACP 300. Annex A No 308
This alongside a bit of common sense should see you right in terms of what you can claim for. Worst case scenario is you put a form in and it gets bounced.
I’d love it if they paid pension.
Even matched at 5% would mean…
40 years uniformed service.
Average 20 days pay per year.
Call it a rank average of £2000 gross per year.
That’s a £80k gross payment for 40 years.
10% of which is £8000. With compound interest prob maxing out at a pension pot of £14k.
Take as a lump sum at 65 and draw down the rest.
Not millions, but still free money.
Disagree with the SCC bit of ‘student’ not getting VA.
I attend a weekend course to enable me to offer something more / better to my Cadets going forward. That should attract VA. If it doesn’t, there will be an awful lot of uniform staff never do a course as a student…
5 Likes
I know but it still is a bit awkward in my Wing. Probably more for Sqn activities tbf like if I were to run some air rifle SAA lessons on a weekend, would that count. It’s over and above what I do on an evening but theoretically nothing to stop me doing it in an evening on Sqn you just can’t do as much.
As do I, frankly.
Which is one of the reasons I’m wary about people pushing for change… Someone might get the idea of just following our senior service colleagues.
Some are great, some dreadful and some non existent. But overall Scouting not structured in the way that ATC or ACF is, with 1st Class, Leading etc. One of my first tasks I was given as a new scout leader was to create a 3 year plan for an ‘average’ Scout. Oddly it wasn’t a million miles from what we do in Cadets!
If you are running or helping in ANY activity that meets the criteria for claiming in ACP 300 and you do enough hours then yes it counts. It doesn’t matter where you do it or which cadets you do it with.
Don’t worry about it being awkward, only your OC and the full time staff at wing see the form. If they say no all you get is a red pen on the form saying no and why. How you claim your days is your business.
My Wexo hates me as i am normally pretty forgetful about claiming and end up sitting down and filling in forms from 6 months before. I normally get a snotagram telling me in future to send them sooner, but i still get the money so it hasn’t made me change my ways.
2 Likes
I meant that as a product, the Sqn Ldr should bring more to the organisation (Yeah, I know 
) than a Sgt, and therefore should be able to claim more money for their time. Obviously there will be times when that isn’t the case, like the AFA course example. I guess it all depends on your opinion of what the VA should actually be awarded for.
How would that work for things like AEF, or the D1 course? I do much less work escorting cadets to an AEF than I would managing the Sqn on our Wing Training Days, but would I be able to claim more for the AEF day? Just interested really.
I guess the only really fair way, as I think someone has already said, would be to convert the VA to a flat rate attendance allowance, claimable by all. But then a lot of people will end up taking away less money, and one incentive to go into uniform will have been removed. It’s a toughie!
Only full bore shooting is authorised specifically in ACP300. But, drop your WExO an email, requesting permission to claim pay, and they will either authorise it, or say no. If they do authorise it, print a copy of the email, and staple it the F80!
1 Like
I would submit the F80 and let them authorise or not directly based on that form.
I’ve never had one bounced.
2 Likes
personally i think it should recognise effort put in at an event.
what you class as an event is up for debate;
and if so I would throw into the mix that 12 attendances at evenings parade = 1 event (thus those who only ever do Parade nights/can’t do weekends for whatever reasons can claim).
although generally i would recognise the same events we have currently listed
As we know effort is not equal for every event and therefore have this split two ways (director and participant) to distinguish between those who made the event happen and those who attended.
this i am on board with providing it is less flat but stepped once as “higher” and “basic”
in your D1 and AEF example, your involvement is “basic” and therefore get the “flat rate” - everything is considered “basic” or “flat rate” unless the CFAV did something specific to make the event run thus recognising the effort put in.
absolutely and in reality we have no reason to complain. I pocket £1000+ thanks to claimed days every year which i receive as a bonus. that is money i am grateful for and know as a volunteer it is a contradiction to receive the VA (or pay in the HMRC eyes).
I think the system isn’t perfect by definition that volunteers are receiving financial gain - so to find a system which is fair is even harder when the start point isn’t fair
Doesn’t necessarily need to be claimable by all, it’s a volunteer allowance and an organization can choose how to apply it. In our situation the organization could choose to limit the allowance to uniformed volunteers and, as it does today, choose which activities attract payment.
A lower flat rate allowance would remove the tax and NI liability of the volunteer and the organization. That money could then be used to increase the number of claimable days so someone who does say 40 days but got paid for all of them would be no worse off and new volunteers would know no different and be making an informed choice.
Or call it pay and give the volunteer the opportunity to do what they want with it.
Young, on 0 hours or part time, want it for kit or to take the OB somewhere nice take the income. In a position where it’s not really need it allow them to have it straight into a pension maybe.
I intend to make a one off payment each year into my private pension equivalent to the VA earnt and jump through the hoops with HMRC but will still lose about 10% because of NI. I’d much rather it could be paid directly and not have the Hassel but everyone’s situation is different.
Employment law has changed, and therein lies the problem. If it is deemed, or admitted to be, pay then all those additional protections become an additional burden to the organization has to bare, and that could reduce what we can do even further as less funds which is why if they are to reform I would rather they negotiated a slightly better scale rate and put more into delivery.
CI here 
It always fascinates me when I see VA being debated (here and elsewhere).
Very occasionally, it grates on me that I’m not entitled to VA. I’ve been the only person not entitled to claim VA on annual camp (still did my allocated night duty, before anyone asks 
), I’ve paid my fair share for activities alongside others who have (later) received VA for that day, and I’ve delivered training to staff where most of the people I’m delivering to have received VA and I haven’t. On the last course, I put in all the hours organising and dealing with the admin, while the other trainer did nothing but rock up on the day to deliver the training. He received VA, I was entitled to nothing but reimbursement for training materials.
If that sounds like a whinge - it really isn’t. If I was doing this for financial gain, I would have gone into uniform a long time ago. I do what I do for the benefit of the cadets, my reward is seeing them grow and develop.
Sure, it would be nice if VA were extended to CIs, but my biggest concern about that is, perhaps crudely, where the money would come from for potentially a large swathe of additional VA recipients?
With money borrowed to pay for the pandemic, I cannot see the RAFAC budget increasing any time soon, so would those who choose to stay in uniform accept a reduction in their entitlement to pay for CIs’? Would activities covered by public money have to be cut?
2 Likes
From everything I’ve read here, they absolutely wouldn’t. Which is where the statement of “if you want VA go into uniform” comes from.
I do generally agree with that statement too. I just think that even if we are giving VA to volunteers that their costs of volunteering should still be appropriately covered. I know @Paracetamol used the example of buy 4 scopes for range days. I just feel buying stuff like that should be directly paid for by the org, not though people’s VA. Same with uniform/uniform upkeep. That should be all paid for. No 3s and boots/shoes.
4 Likes