Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 28th June 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 11th July 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to be speaking to a Bill for the Armed Forces. The welfare of our service personnel is one of the most important responsibilities of government and one that we take very seriously. The Government are determined to meet their obligations to our brave service men and women and their families. Part of this commitment is ensuring that their service meets the needs of modern life and helps to secure a better work/life balance.
It is evident that there now exists, in society, a desire and need for greater choice in how individuals run their lives, and this, of course, extends to the Armed Forces. Of course, total and unlimited choice is not possible in the disciplined environment of the Armed Forces where the requirement to serve the needs of the country is paramount, but there are ways in which our traditionally inflexible approach to working can be improved. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill is our response to this. It is not the panacea for the challenges we face in the recruitment and retention of our people, but it is a step in the right direction to offer our people more control over how they serve.
We know that one of the top reasons why people choose to leave the Armed Forces is the impact of their service on family life. Regular personnel who are unable to meet their unlimited military commitments for periods of time sometimes have no other choice than to leave the services. They lose a well-earned career; we lose their hard-won knowledge, skills and experience. Self-evidently, this is detrimental to maintaining operational capability and to the cost of defence, so why would we not make the lives of those who proudly serve our nation easier?
The Bill will help to ease their lives. It offers our people a solution when they are faced with complexity in their personal life. Flexible working will alleviate some of the strain at critical times and help the services retain more of the people they need to keep, such as women who are considering starting a family or men and women with caring responsibilities. Importantly, the services believe that flexible working opportunities will help them to compete with modern organisations and attract the best people to join our Armed Forces. To continue to deliver crucial operational capability, the Armed Forces must be seen as a modern and attractive employer if they are to recruit the quality and quantity of people they need from across the breadth of the UK society that they serve. This is getting harder to do against an increasingly competitive backdrop, with the competition for talent expected to increase in the years ahead. In short, flexible working opportunities will enhance the delivery of operational capability through improved retention, a more diverse workforce and a broader spectrum of commitment levels when and where we need them.
So what does this small Bill do? There are two main provisions. The first clause amends Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which makes provision regarding terms and conditions of enlistment and service. The amendment extends the existing regulation-making power to enable enhanced flexible working opportunities, within which regular service personnel would be able to apply to work part-time and/or to restrict their geographic employment by limiting the time they are separated from their permanent place of residence or home base. In practice, these new options will be temporary, limited to defined periods and subject to service needs to maintain operational capability. That last point is crucial. Although we recognise that modernisation for the Armed Forces is essential, maintaining operational effectiveness is our absolute red line. The Bill therefore also provides for the services to vary, suspend or terminate the arrangements in circumstances to be prescribed in new regulations. Of course there will be instances where flexible working arrangements are simply not practicable, for example while serving at sea or in a high readiness unit. The Bill will not therefore enable every service person to work flexibly, but it will create an obligation for the services to consider and decide on applications from personnel to serve under the new flexible working arrangements. It will also create the requirement for the services to record the terms of an approved application, such that there is clarity for both parties in the arrangements.
Clause 2 will make small consequential amendments to existing legislation to provide for regular personnel temporarily serving under flexible working agreements to continue to be automatically excused jury service.
The provisions in the Bill are based firmly on evidence. Since 2015, some elements of the services have been conducting a flexible duties trial. The ongoing trial is proving the need for both a reduced liability to deploy and less than full-time working. The majority of participants describe the trial as a positive experience, particularly for those with children, and the Army reported a noticeable correlation between flexible working, improved relationships and team morale. Here I must make clear that the services are greatly involved in the development of flexible working. These proposals, which have the support of the service chiefs, have been designed, and continue to be developed, by the services for the services. We should not forget the bedrock of those who follow and support our Armed Forces: their families. I am pleased to tell the House that the Families Federations have said they welcome the MoD’s plans to improve flexible working opportunities in the Armed Forces:
“The drive for a better work/life balance amongst Service families is one of our focus areas and we eagerly await the further development of this initiative”.
The Bill would allow service personnel to provide their service in a more flexible way to better suit their lifestyles. Service personnel will be able to temporarily reduce the time they are required for duty—for example, by setting aside one or two days a week where they will not work or be liable for work—or to restrict the amount of time they spend separated from their normal place of work.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the case for flexible working for the Armed Forces is principally about recruitment and retention. It is not—I say this particularly to the Benches opposite—a money-saving exercise. As I have made clear, it is a novel way to support the Armed Forces in the changing demands of modern life. Our aim is to help service families attain a better work/life balance. Flexible working would provide breathing space for other responsibilities. In particular, we believe the Bill would improve the lived experience of female personnel and help the Armed Forces work towards their 15% recruitment target for women by 2020.
On the back of these measures for regulars, we hope in time to build further opportunities for members of the reserves to expand their experience, which will move us closer to a whole-force approach. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that, although this is a small Bill, it will have far-reaching consequences in helping to modernise our great and illustrious Armed Forces. I look forward to an interesting debate this afternoon and to the detailed scrutiny we shall give the Bill later in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, this is, as the Minister says, a small Bill, but one that has the potential to make far-reaching improvements to the quality of life of our service men and women while also having consequences for the operational capability of our Armed Forces. On the face of it, it appears to be modern, innovative and in line with employment practices seen in much of business and industry today. It follows the commitment in SDSR 2015:
“We will ensure that a career in the Armed Forces can be balanced better with family life”.
One has only to read the 2017 Armed Forces continuous attitude survey, which lists the top five reasons why service personnel leave, to find that number one is the impact of service life on family and personal life. Some 62% of those surveyed listed this as the main reason, although I would add that 43% also blamed poor service morale.
At this stage, the jury is out as to whether the Bill is likely to change those statistics at all. In SDSR 2015, the Government said:
“We will make the changes necessary to enable our Armed Forces to work flexibly, reflecting the realities of modern life”.
The question that the Bill must answer is simple: will it do that? I, for one, have serious doubts and concerns that it will not.
In my innocence, when I read SDSR 2015, I envisaged flexible working practices similar to the flexible working that we see in much of the public and private sector, but the Bill is far removed from that. Flexitime working means that employers and employees have an arrangement to work in such a way that the full complement of hours is put in by the employee, but the hourly work pattern can be varied to suit the employee’s needs. This measure proposes no such arrangement, because those granted flexible working will have pay deductions and their pensions reduced. Indeed, the example given on pages 4 and 5 of the paper headed “Policy and Scope” states that,
“a Service person who chose to reduce their commitment from 100% to 60% of a full-time equivalent would see a 40% reduction in their salary … A regular who dials down”—
that is a lovely term—
“their commitment will see their pension pot for that period proportionally reduced”.
When I read that, I wondered if we are all in the same world—the real world. How many service men and women, who have endured 1% pay rises for some years, could take a pay cut of 40% to gain some flexible working?
We were told in yesterday’s very helpful briefing—I thank the noble Earl, as usual, for arranging these excellent briefings—that the Ministry of Defence did not expect a great many personnel to take up this new flexible working offer. In those circumstances, small wonder. What assessment has been made of the number expected to take up the offer? Can he give us figures for each year, say, for the coming five years? How much does the Ministry of Defence expect to save on its budget in that period? We were told yesterday that savings can be reinvested, so I assume some work has been done to estimate how much will be saved. Focus group surveys gauging reaction to the plan have been carried out, and another one was launched only yesterday, I believe. Will they be published before Committee?
In truth, I am left asking whether this is the seemingly benign and modern approach to flexible working as promised in SDSR 2015, or the thin end of the wedge and the first step towards zero-hours contracts for our Armed Forces. Is it all about saving money on an already overstretched defence budget? There is agreement across this House that more needs to be spent.
The policy and scope document confirms what most noble Lords know: personnel unable to meet unlimited military commitments for periods of time leave the services. The loss of their knowledge, skills and experience impacts on operational capability and increases defence costs. Has this been measured? How many skilled personnel left the services, say, last year? Further, what skills have we lost and what was the financial impact of losing them on the defence budget?
The same document tells us that the new policy will build on existing flexible working opportunities within the services and gives examples of late starts, early finishes, compressed hours and working from home. Can the Minister tell us more about this existing flexibility? How many personnel have availed themselves of it? Has it saved money or cost more?
In fairness, the Government deserve our support in saying that they want the services to be more representative of the people. How will that be achieved? We know there is a target to improve gender balance, but what about increasing ethnic mix and encouraging LGBT recruits? Another objective we would support is attracting and retaining people with skills that the forces may lack. Can the Minister say in which skills areas we are short of personnel at present?
We were told that future flexible working opportunities derive from the flexible engagement system project, which is part of the Armed Forces people’s programme. In Answer to a Written Question I submitted in February, the Minister said that the Government were committed to developing a new Armed Forces offer, adding:
“It will better reflect the realities of modern life and the UK’s current financial position”.
Can the Minister tell us something about this project and if it has contributed to the thinking behind the Bill?
Can the Minister also comment on the fact then when the MoD advertised for a head of the Armed Forces people’s programme, one key responsibility was,
“leading on resource planning, using innovative thinking to support project teams to deliver over £l billion of savings”.
I am sure that I am not alone in hoping this is not all about the Government cutting defence spending. I feel sure the noble Earl will want to reassure us on that again when he winds up.
Clause 1 amends Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to enable flexible working and limited geographic employment for limited defined periods. Can the Minister explain what “limited geographic employment” means and what is meant by “limited defined periods”? Will this put a maximum limit on the number of days, weeks or months in any given period that flexible working will be allowed? The clause covers the regulations that will be needed.
Paragraph 5 of the policy and scope paper refers to the,
“existing Defence Council regulations … for terms and conditions of enlistment and service for persons enlisting, or those who have enlisted”,
and states:
“The regulations do not provide a comprehensive list of all the terms and conditions of service. Rather, they provide, for example, for the types of engagement a Regular may be enlisted to serve on, the duration of those engagement types, the ability to extend them”.
As the regulations do not provide a comprehensive list of terms and conditions, can the noble Earl assure the House that this ambiguity does not mean that the Bill will give the Ministry of Defence the power to extend the flexible time of a service man or woman against their will, or even impose flexible working when people are unwilling to take part? Can he categorically state that this flexible working will not be used to cut spending?
Paragraph 6 of the paper tells us that applications for flexible working will be considered by a “competent service authority”. Is that the headquarters level approvals board, mentioned in paragraph 7? Can he say more about the composition of this authority? Similarly, an appeal against a refusal will be considered by a “higher authority”. Is that the Defence Council? There is much more that we will want to explore in Committee.
There is one final point which I ask the Minister to comment on, or at least reflect on by Committee stage: refusal of an application. Paragraph 7(f) of the document states:
“An application is likely to be refused if personnel are at a high state of readiness to deploy to an operational theatre, or if the loss of their capability cannot be absorbed at unit level such as when serving on a ship, or in a high readiness role”.
That is perfectly reasonable and understandable, but how will the scheme affect forward planning, in particular, planning for a deployment at short notice? Service chiefs may consider that they need a particular combination of forces for an operation, only to discover because of flexible working that this is not immediately available. Again, yesterday we were told this measure would not interfere with operational continuity. I think the Minister has his work cut out on this matter, and I am sure that I am not alone in needing to be reassured and convinced.
Finally, the Bill will depend almost entirely on the use of regulations to achieve its objective. The Government propose that the SIs needed will be under the negative procedure. We are opposed to this and will seek to persuade the House in favour of the affirmative procedure.
The SDSR 2015 offered the prospect that this policy would be universally welcomed and supported. Instead, we have a measure that, while seemingly offering flexibility, will in effect penalise our Armed Forces by cutting pay and pensions, forcing service men and women to choose between taking time off to care for a sick wife, child or elderly parent, or cutting their living standards—and all this parading under the guise of offering flexible working in a modern setting.
The Prime Minister today called for other parties to contribute, not simply to criticise. Yesterday, in the other place, Labour’s shadow Defence Secretary, Nia Griffith, responded positively, offering to work with the Government on improving Armed Forces pay. I, too, respond positively and tell the Minister that we on this side will work with him, other parties in this House and, most especially, noble and gallant Lords on the Cross Benches, many of whom have first-hand experience of the services. We will work with them all to reshape this Bill into one that offers genuine flexibility without cutting the pay and pensions of brave service men and women.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the aims of the Bill before us today. There is no doubt that there is a desire from service men and women for measures to be taken to enable them to balance the demands of serving our country with the realities of family life. As I mentioned in my response to the gracious Speech, the results of the regular Armed Forces continuous attitude survey were published a couple of months ago, painting a picture of low morale, both personal and in serving units, citing the impact on family and personal life as one of the key reasons for leaving the service. I commend the attempt in this very short Bill to provide an opportunity for flexible working for members of the Armed Forces. We hope that it will go some way to improving the circumstances of some individuals, encouraging them to remain in the Armed Forces and encouraging others to join in the first place. In particular, we hope that it will help in maintaining, and possibly even increasing, the number of women.
My speech will not be long. I have a few reflections, followed by quite a few questions, but I am happy for the Minister to write and place a letter in the Library, if that suits his convenience.
The flexible offer can show itself in either reducing the number of hours worked per week or in restricting a service to a particular geography. That could be to assist with caring responsibilities or to allow for ease of access for work to home; it could also be to enable professional development in part-time higher education opportunities. It is at the discretion of the commanding officer and chain of command. However, myriad other measures can be taken to enable members of the Armed Forces to be able to work in a more flexible manner. Could flexible working include working from home? I know of instances where this could happen, and indeed does already. These days, with mobile phones and laptops, what is to prevent this happening if the CO is content? Perhaps primary legislation would be required to apply this further. It may simply be that a change in culture, and some investment in technology, is needed to make such changes.
How will the Bill be rolled out across the Armed Forces, and how will members be aware of these opportunities? I believe that it needs to be dealt with carefully and sensitively, if it is not to have unintended consequences. What work has been done thus far to reduce unintended consequences? How do the Government estimate that they will ensure that no burden is placed on full-time serving personnel backfilling, and that operational capabilities are not affected, whether this be by excess or deficit in a unit? There is a 5.1% personnel deficit, with some units up to one-third under strength. It will need to be ensured that there is enough slack within units to allow this flexibility. Commanding officers might think twice. Can the Minister give some clarity to the specific meaning of the expression “manning crises”, which have the ability to terminate those flexible working arrangements? And what might be considered reasonable notice?
What work has been done to predict uptake in the three services and to ascertain the potential impact on the viability of an operating unit? How many would be anticipated each year? Is there a limit? Likewise, I am sure that the House would be interested to understand what the predicted financial impact would be. I note that issues such as pension and leave are accounted for in the Bill, but how is seniority affected? Clause 1(3) calls for the right conferred in the Bill to be,
“varied, suspended or terminated in prescribed circumstances”.
I can understand why that might be so, but where will the meaning of “prescribed” be found? Who will be the arbiter of the interpretation, and is there a right of appeal? How will these new provisions be advertised? Will one be able to join the service and opt straightaway for flexible working?
Finally, a concern has been raised with me of disquiet among full-time regular members of the services who might become disgruntled. Care will need to be taken that any loss of capacity is filled in order to remain effective and ready for action. As I said, we know that personnel numbers are below the target, so some clarity here would be welcome.
The Bill’s introduction is timely, but we should not forget that there is much to be done in this area that requires no legislation at all, just a will to make it happen. In Committee, I look forward to examining areas for development and improvement.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for yesterday’s very helpful briefing session on the Bill and for the background material that has been made available. This has all helped to work out what this short Bill is all about and what it is not about. It is clear that the underlying purpose is to improve operational capability through the retention in service of some personnel, whose personal circumstances would otherwise have led them to retire from the Armed Forces prematurely. It is presumably with this overall aim in mind that we are led to understand that the service chiefs support the Bill.
However, I believe that the flexible working provisions which the Bill would enable must be used sparingly, and be seen to be the exception and not the rule. There are dangers to unit cohesion—and therefore to morale and overall effectiveness—if the attitude develops that individuals can pick and choose what they will, or will not, do in terms of participating in exercises, deployments and operations. So there is a balance to be struck between increased flexibility and overall capability.
It is also my understanding that this flexibility will create something of a two-way street, with regulars opting for a period of reserve service, and reservists opting for a period of regular or full-time service. On the face of things, this would seem eminently sensible but I believe there is a potential danger here. In the case of the Army, the largest employer of service manpower, it can be said that the closer integration of the 80,000 regular soldiers with the 30,000 trained reservists produces an Army of 110,000. If we add to that some 30,000 regular reservists with a call-up liability then the Army is apparently some 140,000 strong. With the current disinclination to commit large numbers of boots on the ground—and no current operational imperative to do so—the case can quickly be made that an Army of 140,000 is simply too large and too expensive. The most expensive element of this large Army is the regular component and, in a period of continuing pressure on the defence budget, programmers could well be considering options to reduce the size of this. However, this move towards greater flexibility and the blurring of the distinction between regular, reserve and regular reserve service must be treated very carefully, because the core of the operational capability of the Army is its full-time regular component. At fewer than 80,000 that regular component is already too small, and any attempt to further reduce that number, supposedly mitigated by more flexible use of the reserve or regular reserve, is nothing short of a dangerous illusion.
Given that this Bill is about maximising the operational capability of our service personnel, there is one more matter that I feel bound to put before your Lordships, and I have already indicated to the Minister that I would do so. This relates to service personnel suffering from mental illness, and I stress that this point relates to serving personnel, not veterans. Serving soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines suffering from mental illness are under the care of the Defence Medical Services and, more specifically, the department of community mental health. A hundred years ago, we did not understand mental health—they called it shell shock—but today we understand anxiety, depression and PTSD and encourage people to come forward for treatment. However, when one of those serving individuals experiences a severe mental health event out of hours—potentially, a suicide event—the advice is to contact the local medical centre, if there is one, go to the local NHS A&E department, or otherwise ring the Combat Stress helpline. I am not alone in believing that this is completely unacceptable. The department of community mental health should be able to provide a 24/7 service to its patients. It is often at night and at weekends that people are at their most vulnerable.
I have raised this issue before and I am told that to provide this service would require the employment of some 40 additional mental health-trained staff, and that this would cost about £2million per annum. I am also told that in 2016, fewer than 50 serving personnel needed out-of-hours help. Fewer than 50 probably means 45, so I ask the question: is £2million really too much to help 45 serving Armed Forces personnel at a moment of crisis in their lives? In 1917, they shot soldiers who ran away with shell shock. In 2017, there are still too many cases of soldiers with PTSD who kill themselves. I do not believe that £2 million is too much for the Ministry of Defence to spend to discharge its duty of care to its serving personnel with mental health illness, let alone meeting its responsibilities under the Armed Forces covenant. Some of those serving personnel have asked the question: if the MoD can spend £6 billion on two aircraft carriers, surely there is £2 million that can be spent on us?
I apologise if I have digressed away from the Bill, but if its purpose is to maximise operational capability through more flexible arrangements for certain individuals, let us not forget other individuals whose circumstances need a more flexible approach, and that flexibility does not include ringing up a charity’s helpline.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I have very few military credentials I can burnish, in contrast to many noble Lords making valuable contributions today. However, I want to add my voice to those welcoming this Bill because, as a former leader of a local authority, I am utterly convinced that we need to do more to support families under pressure. This is a good way to describe military families, most of whom cope extremely well with the challenges they face, not least because of the supportive culture in which they are often immersed—often, but not always—on a military base.
The Armed Forces covenant and other measures, including the flexible working trials instigated under the new employment model that this legislation builds on, are all evidence that this Government do not want to take that supportive culture for granted. On the contrary, they want to strengthen it by modernising working practices so that they bear more resemblance to the terms and conditions available to many in the civilian population. The majority of service personnel will rejoin that civilian population, and we want to do all we can to ensure that family relationships are not undermined by the pressures of military life to the extent that they are unable to make a good transition once the forces’ support structure is no longer in place.
One big pressure on these personal relationships arises from the fact that families and the military would both be described by academics as “greedy institutions”: that is, groups which seek undivided loyalty and encourage weak or no ties with other people or organisations. Currently, many of the demands placed on forces personnel are not negotiable or optional. This can severely tax families who feel that they always come second, and serving personnel who constantly experience role strain: being a good soldier may seem incompatible with being a good husband and father now that societal norms have shifted so much that being a good provider is no longer enough. The introduction of flexible working should make important inroads into the prevailing sense that families, by default, must play second fiddle.
However, these new working patterns will not in themselves be enough to address the high relationship breakdown rates in the military, just as the right to request flexible working introduced in April 2002 in the general population has not made a significant dent in our internationally high divorce and separation rates. Neither has parenting quality vastly improved. Family support has to go beyond welcome efforts to help parents to balance work and family lives and offer them help when relationships are under strain or in real difficulties.
Statistics indicate that divorce rates, especially for those under 30, are much higher in the military in comparison with the general population, not least because marriage rates are also much higher. Moreover, when families falter while still in service, the worry and distraction can have a knock-on effect on a fighting force’s operational strength. When spousal relationships fail, this drastically undermines the support available to military personnel on the home front.
Other service-related pressures include those arising from deployment and combat. Deployment in itself need not necessarily have a long-term negative impact on relationships, but longer deployments and deployment extensions can play a part in poor mental health in the spouse left behind. Also, if there were pre-existing relationship difficulties, this makes it more likely that deployment will be linked to lower satisfaction or other problems. Finally, where deployment and combat are associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, these secondary factors seem to be what is driving poor marital satisfaction.
Surely deployment and combat are integral to military service. Perhaps more interesting and relevant to today’s debate is the finding that if the belief is held by serving personnel and spouses that the military is not supportive enough, this itself is a risk factor for breakdown. So too is perceived lack of support from spouses.
Yet many people come into the services, especially the Army, with a history of childhood family relationship adversity. They may not have had good relationships modelled by their parents, so it is perhaps not surprising that they will struggle to be the supportive wife, husband, partner—or parent—they long to be. Many of those left behind at base will need to learn how to provide meaningful support for their deployed partners and how to help their children become resilient and flourish.
Some relationship and parenting help already happens informally within the military community, and money from the Armed Forces covenant LIBOR fund has enabled Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Marines charities to team up with Relate. Serving personnel have seven free counselling sessions, whether face to face, by telephone, on webchat or through webcam, so that those deployed overseas do not miss out. Professor Jan Walker, who carried out research with British forces posted overseas in Germany, emphasises the very important role that webchat can play, given that many personnel do not want their commanding officer to know that there are problems. She also highlighted that spouses and partners back home during long deployments could benefit greatly from support—someone to talk to about their relationship who has had good training—even if the relationship is not in difficulty. In the forces culture, the wider societal view that family problems are a sign of weakness is, if anything, amplified, so confidentiality is essential but not always available in the goldfish bowl of life on a base.
This arrangement with Relate can be only temporary, which is why I ask for the Bill to be expanded a little to include a statutory offer of family support, with help for a couple as well as for parenting relationships. Organisations such as the Centre for Social Justice and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, as well as my noble friend Lord Farmer, have long argued for family hubs where someone will have answers for parents with children of all ages who are struggling.
Making effective and early family support statutorily available for this important group of families would establish a bridgehead of support that we can build on in the mainstream population. When the Government commissioned the consultancy giant PwC to draw up plans for multiplying the provision of parenting support to meet the perceived high national level of need, PwC advised that the only way significantly to build capacity was by drawing on employers. Does the Minister agree that the MoD has a unique opportunity to set an example in this area that other employers can follow?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I do not bring a great deal of experience of the military to the debate but I bring a degree of experience in negotiating. In my former life as a general secretary of the Civil Service trade union, I negotiated on part-time and flexible working. I was seen as quite progressive in the 1970s when I pressed for a move from full-time employment in the public services towards more flexible arrangements. The employer was opposed to it; the Inland Revenue, now HMRC, where I worked, opposed it in the first instance; and, within my union, the hard left—I would not associate Don, my noble friend Lord Touhig, with this—similarly opposed the change from having people on a full-time to a part-time basis. They felt perhaps that they would not quite be able to control them in the way that they had previously. So I was in the middle of the debate, but I believed that it was the right way forward as we started to see more of a welcome feminisation of public service.
Without any doubt, once we had reached an agreement, the employers changed their mind and started to welcome part-time working because, after they had put it into practice, they saw clearly that it was of great assistance to them in recruitment and retention. Without doubt, if we had not had part-time working in the Civil Service and many other parts of public service during the 1980s, employers would not have been able to maintain the complement required to keep the public service working. So it was most certainly a move in the right direction.
Today, I support what is being proposed for the Armed Forces in a number of areas and for very obvious reasons: they have to move at a different pace and sometimes in a marginally different direction from the rest of the working community. Underlying that, when we have to recruit and retain, we have to be cognisant of what is happening elsewhere and endeavour to match it where possible—or at least to amend arrangements to fit the circumstances in which the forces find themselves. Knowing who the Minister is, I am reasonably confident that he will ensure that we have a set of terms that are applicable to the forces and that fundamentally meet the requirements and move towards more flexibility and more part-time working, and I will give him full support on that.
Of course, there are problems. Based on experience, I share the view that there will be resentment among full-timers when they see people moving to part-time working. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, made the point that that must be taken into account and handled very carefully to make sure that such resentments are avoided as far as possible. However, it is a flexible working world and arrangements have to apply in every area within our domain of employment. Therefore, they have to apply, appropriately adjusted, within the Armed Forces, and I hope that this change will move forward quickly.
Picking up on the endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, to extend this afternoon’s debate a little beyond the terms of the remit, I shall take the liberty—I have given the Minister notice of this—of seeing whether he is prepared to be flexible in his approach to the Bill.
Tomorrow I have the pleasure of moving a Private Member’s Bill on the misuse of honours. This was first promoted 12 months ago by Gareth Johnson in the House of Commons, where it was given a close examination by a Select Committee and the Defence Committee. They came back with a very strong recommendation that the change introduced by my Government in 2006, before which the wearing of medals for the intent of deceit was a criminal offence, needs to be readjusted to bring us back into line with the practice in other countries, where, if people do that, they are liable to criminal sanctions. I will be moving a private Member’s Bill to that effect, very similar to that of Gareth Johnson, who has given his agreement.
The Bill was substantially filleted in Committee in the Commons and reduced in size to a fairly small focus. But, happily, it was given the support of the Government—they were prepared to find time for it. Unfortunately, a number of MPs talked it out, regrettably on the Tory side. But it is a very worthy Bill that should come here. It did not make it, so tomorrow I will present it to this House. It seems highly unlikely that we will find time for the Bill to be taken in the Lords—I was 53 out of 64 in the ballot, so there is not much chance. However, knowing how open-minded and flexible the Minister is, and how anxious he is to try to meet the needs of those who have been in the Armed Forces and who have been honoured for their valour and courageous past, I hope he will be prepared to look at it.
I come to this subject primarily on the basis of my close association with the family of Peter Fontaine. He served in the Royal Signals for seven years, where he was picked up very quickly, commissioned and became a captain. He was out in the Far East, and was awarded the Burma Star in Lord Slim’s “Forgotten Army”. He was a great man who, having served in World War II, came back and made a career as an actor. He lived until he was 95 and continued to be alert and interested in making a contribution to society. As recently as 2015, he walked and participated in the VJ Day celebrations. He died in 2016.
To our regret, a man posing as a wing commander—he wore the wings and seven medals as if he had been in Afghanistan and many other places—inveigled himself into the family and became their close and intimate friend. When Peter died, this man ended up carrying the coffin. It subsequently emerged that he was a total imposter. The nearest he had been to the Armed Forces was doing some work with Air Cadets—and yet in this country he is permitted to deceive and hurt people in this way. For a widow who had supported her husband for so many years to discover that this had happened, it was absolutely devastating. It is totally wrong that that is permitted to happen in this country in a way that it cannot elsewhere. It could not happen in this country until 2006, and that must change, with a marginal extension of the Bill—either the Minister could move an amendment or I would be happy to. I am sure that the House would fully support such a change, which should not cause too much trouble for the Government.
I have done much business in the past with the noble Earl. He has often wanted to meet me as best he could but has been inhibited by factors such as European Union regulations. In this instance there will be no inhibitions whatever because the Government have said previously that they would find time for this to be accommodated. So I hope that, now that it has been left with him, he can persuade his colleagues this time around that the Government will take the time to add this to the Bill. I hope that he is willing to consider that.
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for giving us a comprehensive briefing yesterday. However, as we are going to hear from the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Stirrup, who know their former services better than me, I will focus my comments on the Army perspective, and I hope to be brief.
I am very uncomfortable about this Bill. On the one hand, as we have heard, it is proposing to introduce a form of flexibility which is modern, is in keeping with more enlightened businesses and institutions and will be welcomed by those who can take advantage of it. It has the potential to keep within the service high-quality people who need a break or geographical restrictions to their deployment for the very human reasons, which we have already heard about, that family life often throws at us. It is only natural that folk should seek stability in their lives when they have young families or if they have seen a great deal of separation from their wives and partners. It gives them a chance to recharge their batteries, which can be good for them and for the Army.
On the other hand, as is becoming clear, the devil is going to be in the detail of the regulations drawn up to operate the system. There are many unanswered questions to be resolved. Part of the contract between the individual and the Army is that he or she must be prepared to deploy to some far-flung place at a moment’s notice, for it is always the unexpected that we must deal with. He or she must be physically fit, mentally prepared and properly trained for the particular type of operation that they are going to take part in. They have to fight along the roughest edges of humanity. Being half ready, half trained and undermanned will not do. Reshuffling unit strengths at the last minute damages cohesion, and is unsafe and unfair to our soldiers.
At the end of the last century, the Army used to have what was called a manning margin. This allowed individuals to go away on long-term educational courses and be replaced in the unit so that it would not be under strength. As efficiency savings have bitten over the years, that manning margin has dwindled to nothing. Units are therefore routinely under strength because people are away taking various courses. If the units now lose a percentage of that strength through the introduction of this Bill, as well as a further 4% reduction as of May this year in strength, which is the undermanning of the Army as a whole, we are beginning to talk about serious undermanning, with all the consequences that that means for preparedness and levels of training.
So the questions are mounting in my mind. Will there be a cap on the percentage of strength that may take advantage of this new proposal? Do we have any idea of the impact that geographical restrictions will have on unit cohesion and deployability? We have heard that the pay arrangements will mean a pro rata reduction against full-time pay. What will prevent the individual taking up other employment while away from his unit, and is that viewed as acceptable? Will it become a soft landing into other employment? Is this just another means, although the noble Earl declares that it is not, of reducing manpower costs, because it is buried in the wider new joiner effort which claims to have to reduce the sums spent on manpower so that we can be sustainable into the future?
Who is going to recommend an individual to the approving or denying authority? I assume that it will be the commanding officer of the individual, but instinctively he is going to want to keep his unit as well manned as possible. Will those who are covering for the absence become disaffected and choose to go? Notwithstanding an appeals process, are we opening a door to legal claims for discrimination from those who are told that they cannot have a break or that they must deploy outside their geographical area more than a certain number of times?
In recent operations, we have seen severe pinch points in the manning of certain specialist roles, such as petroleum operators and human intelligence resources. Will those roles be exempt? It seems to me that role dependency should be a critical element of the proposals. If so, are we going to include it? To lighten things, it is not just the front line we are talking about. I was talking to the director of the Corps of Army Music last week. He told me that if he loses his bass drummer his band is hors de concert. Folk in the Army are often tasked to do things they would prefer not to. Is it just possible that this new-found flexibility might be used to escape some unpalatable task?
I risk being accused of failing to enthusiastically espouse a modern practice that is shown to work well in other professions. My defence is that the Army is not like other professions. It is about people having to put their lives on the line in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is the Government’s responsibility that they are as best equipped, well trained and well manned as possible, and psychologically prepared for the horror of death on the battlefield. Initiatives such as this have often had unintended consequences, and I fear this may be one, particularly if we do not have an assurance that it has been analysed from every possible angle.
I understand the Australian and New Zealand armies have embarked on this policy but that it has not been long for either of them. Even so, I was told anecdotally last week that those of our own officers working with the Australian army see that it is already beginning to lose its operational credibility. If this is so, would it not be sensible for us to have more time to examine the Australian experience? It would be a crying shame if we were to find our Army losing its world-class operational credibility and its self-esteem because we had failed to carry out a sufficiently rigorous analysis of the likely impact of this Bill. We owe our men and women better than that.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Earl for the helpful briefing yesterday and for his introduction to this Bill. As treasurer of the All-Party Group for Children and a trustee of a mental health charity for adolescents, I welcome very warmly the Bill’s intention to strengthen service families.
The noble Earl referred to the general principle of a work/life balance. I visited the German Reichstag with a party of parliamentarians this year. We know how productive the German nation is, yet what was most striking to me was that a Berliner I spoke to pointed out that if one works beyond six o’clock in the evening in Germany one’s colleagues will say, “Well, you are not being very efficient, are you?” All shops in Germany are shut on Sundays. Indeed, businesses are not permitted to email office workers after working hours. In that example, it seems that by allowing people to have a good work/life balance they can be more productive and more effective. I hope we can keep that in mind more generally in the debate about productivity in this country.
What I say now is highly tentative. I note my deep inexperience of the armed services, so I pay great attention to the concerns of my noble and gallant friends and those of other noble Lords. I will certainly look to the Minister for every assurance on the important concerns they have raised on these matters. However, because of my interests I will say a few tentative words about the possible advantages of what is being offered. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said most of what I would have liked to have said about families. Perhaps the Minister could say something in his response about parental leave: how does that apply to members of the armed services? Perhaps he might like to write to me on that point.
One issue that stood out for me in preparing for this debate was ex-servicemen experiencing mental health issues in their 40s and 50s. The noble Baroness talked about allowing relationships within families to be strengthened and allowing service personnel to spend more time with their families at times of family crisis. I can see how that might strengthen the family so that, later on, it is still intact. It might prevent more servicemen in their 40s and 50s encountering mental health difficulties. Another bonus of what the Government propose is that it might be possible to improve the transition from life in the armed services to civilian life. It might allow one to continue working in the armed services but to spend a day, and then two days, in civilian employment during the last year or so of service. That might help ease the transition. The Minister made an eloquent case for the advantages, but I listened with great attention to what my noble friends and noble and gallant friends have said and look to the Minister for careful responses to those concerns.
I was grateful to the Minister for indicating that he is taking on board concerns from the Royal British Legion about ex-spouses of service personnel. Ex-spouses are not given the same rights as spouses in terms of housing access. It is important that they should have such access. I am glad that the Minister is considering that. Perhaps he could confirm that this matter has been raised with him and that he is giving it attention. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, there is little not to like about this Bill. It extends to regular armed service men and women some of the rights which others in the services and in other walks of life currently enjoy.
It is not detailed and it is not prescriptive. It enables the Armed Forces to extend flexibility to their workforce as they see fit and in ways which they believe will work for them. I listened carefully to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, but control of who can and cannot be allowed flexibility remains firmly with the management of the forces. This workforce has hitherto been bound to working practices which are arguably no longer always needed in the modern world of warfare and peacekeeping in which we find ourselves.
I know that some noble Lords have a feeling of disquiet about the Bill. There is a sense that to be a committed member of the Armed Forces, to be prepared to put one’s life at risk for one’s country, to achieve the camaraderie and togetherness that are needed where one puts one’s trust and one’s life in the hands of others, nothing other than 100% full-time commitment will do. Personally, I think that this approach denigrates those who make the Armed Forces or any other walk of life their life’s work. It suggests that you cannot be 100% committed and have a full family life, too; that you cannot be 100% committed and be sensitive to other things going on in your life and the lives of those around you. This approach has taken its toll on the home life of our Armed Forces personnel. Why should anyone be forced to choose between one’s family and one’s career? It has taken a toll on their families. I understand that operational necessities may mean that one’s spouse, daddy or mummy may be stationed in inaccessible places for months on end.
We should not forget that one’s comrades can be one’s family too, but the main reason for this enabling legislation is, in my view, because of the toll that it is taking on the Armed Forces themselves, in the form of stress, which leads to poor decision-making and performance, and in the form of torn loyalties. Many people expect far more from relationships than they did 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Many fathers want to play a much larger part in their children’s lives; many mothers want to continue their careers after having a child, to use the skills for which they were trained; and the forces really need their skills. They need rounded individuals capable of making good decisions. They need diversity in their workforce, because lack of diversity leads to poor decision-making, and poor decision-making leads to loss of effectiveness and ultimately to loss of lives.
Our previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, understood this well. He set the Armed Forces the target that 15% of new recruits should be female by 2020 and they are making progress towards this target. However, the percentage of women in the Armed Forces is currently only 10.2%, so there is a way to go, and however well they do on recruitment, improvement will be limited if women keep disappearing just at the time when their skills and abilities are at their peak and they are needed most. So this enabling legislation is very welcome, but it will take more than legislation and subsequent changes in the rules regarding flexible working to have the desired effect: it will take a culture change, a change away from the attitudes I described at the beginning of my remarks, a kind of “TSB bank” change—a change that likes to say yes.
As the nature of warfare and the threats we face change, the variety of skills and abilities we need will change. Women will have these abilities, often just as suitably for the job as men will. The greater diversity of talent will give us greater ability to meet these threats and these opportunities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I would like to know what plans exist to recruit more BAME, LGBT+ and disabled people.
I wish the Bill well, but even more, I wish the modernisers in the Armed Forces well in their quest to transform our armed services into a diverse and effective fighting—and caring—force, a force equipped with all the human resources it needs to respond to all the diverse challenges that it faces in keeping us safe, and keeping vulnerable, threatened peoples safe, in the changing and challenging world in which we find ourselves today.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this is, indeed, a very short Bill and its purpose seems sound. It is, as the noble Earl has explained, expected to help make service in the Armed Forces more attractive to the younger generation and is seen as an aid to recruiting and retention. It has the backing of the senior leadership in the services. In principle, I support the idea of introducing some specific, limited opportunities for individual service personnel to take a break for personal reasons from their 24/7 commitment. However, it will be important not to sacrifice operational effectiveness. Any application of the scheme must seek to strike a balance between operational demands and the reasonable interests of individuals. Ultimately, the former must be the principal consideration.
With such a short piece of primary legislation, the detail of what is intended must be covered by secondary legislation, by DCIs and/or by Queen’s Regulations. It would be helpful to have available, in Committee and at later stages, draft examples of the SIs and DCIs that will support the Bill’s application. I hope that the Minister will arrange that.
The phrase “flexible working” is clear in the Bill’s title but does not appear anywhere in the text. Instead, “part-time service” and “part-time basis” appear in Clause 1. A more general interpretation of “part-time” refers to so many hours in a day, days in a week or even possibly weeks in a month, but less frequently, if at all, to six months or a year or more away from work. Is it intended that the absences to be allowed are day breaks—possibly half-day breaks, for example—with all breaks of whatever length being measured in comparatively short time periods and never as a sabbatical?
The policy statement refers at paragraph 9 to,
“specified periods of time when they are simply not required for duty (and cannot be lawfully”—
I emphasise “lawfully”—“ordered to attend)”. It says elsewhere that a commanding officer is able to terminate an arrangement. Is there not some inconsistency there? “Part-time” also does not seem to cover the limited geographic employment mentioned in the Minister’s letter of 30 June about the second part of these proposals.
Is there a connotation to “part-time” that I am missing? I would prefer to stick with “flexible”, or “flexibly” where appropriate. This would allow for further variations of flex-working if ever required. Alternatively, could these absences be better described as “unpaid leave”? Leave is a well understood service arrangement, whereas part-time working can, albeit mistakenly, imply that the individual’s commitment to their service is just that: part-time. That is altogether different from a 24/7 commitment and might all too easily be misconstrued in a headline describing this Bill, were it to pass, as suggesting that the modern Armed Forces are now part-timers. Would it not be better to avoid any use of the words “part-time” and “part-timers”?
Maybe unpaid leave or short career breaks are already allowed by Queen’s Regulations. If so, this heavyweight but skeletal primary legislation would be unnecessary to cover these alternative career management arrangements. If the breaks were to be grouped as unpaid rather than part-time leave, some of the potentially adverse criticisms could be avoided without any recourse to primary legislation to deal with one specific type of flexible working. If the Minister will nevertheless hold to “part-time”, then there should be a definition of it in Section 374 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which is entitled “Definitions applying for purposes of whole Act”.
Clause 1(3) inserts the words “A right conferred”, referring to new paragraphs (ha) to (j) of Section 329(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I feel that “right” is a bit strong. Bearing in mind that such so-termed rights may be varied, suspended or terminated by a commanding officer, they are not inalienable. Might it not read better instead as “a term of service conferred on a person”, or alternatively as “a type of service conferred on a person”?
The secondary legislation policy statement sent by the Minister mentions at paragraph 3,
“improving opportunities for Reserves to commit more to make more effective use of all their knowledge, skills and experience”,
but the Bill is about Regular Forces and the reserves do not even get a mention in it. Perhaps the Minister can deal with this in his winding up.
I turn to other points to be dealt with by secondary legislation and instructions. How far will an individual who has taken his or her leave of absence remain subject to Armed Forces law? Are they deemed to be transferring to the reserves pro tem or do they remain regulars? Presumably pay, allowances and pension entitlements will all have to be recalculated. Will service medical and/or dental support be available? It is envisaged, is it not, that individuals will be covered if they are injured while away and will be entitled to the full equivalent compensation as if they were on full-time service? Will continuous occupation of service accommodation be allowed? Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes refers to protecting,
“regulars from being separated from their permanent place of residence for prolonged periods”.
How is a “permanent place of residence” to be defined? To give confidence in approving the Bill, which lacks all such detail, it would be helpful in Committee to have draft examples of the intended further legislation, Defence Council Instructions and/or Queen’s Regulations.
Finally—I say this just to avoid any misunderstandings —the Bill, as I read it, is solely about the entitlement of a Regular Forces individual to apply for and make use of flexible working. It cannot be treated as a sort of Trojan horse that would allow the MoD or a senior budget holder to transfer a number of individuals, or even a unit, on to it as a savings measure to reduce the pressure on the defence budget at a particular moment; or even to defer or delay an individual’s return to full-time service as an economy measure—I stress that I do not read this into the Bill. The initiative about starting and ending this break rests with the individual, not their service. Is that correct? For the avoidance of doubt when it comes to subordinate legislation, an assurance now that the Bill is not a potential Trojan horse would be most welcome.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I have no interests to declare because my commission was retired last Friday. Ill-informed public perception might be that my noble friend the Minister, if I do not toe his line, could have me called up and sent to South Georgia to be a lookout. Of course, we know perfectly well that he can do no such thing.
Earl Attlee
I am confident that my noble friend cannot do any such thing. I am also reasonably confident that he would not do so.
I strongly support the Bill for the reasons so expertly laid out by my noble friend the Minister. When my noble friend is on the Government Front Bench, he can make the Bill look like the best thing since sliced bread. But of course when he is on the Opposition Front Bench, he can make the Bill look like it is full of holes. But this is a good Bill.
Some have argued that the Government would not do this if there was plenty of resource for the MoD. That may be true but there is nothing wrong with giving the system a good wire-brushing. Even if we did have plenty of money for defence, I believe that we should still be doing this. My noble friend the Minister was at pains to make it clear that this was not a cost-saving measure. I accept that claim but I have to tell the House that it will save money because if we avoid someone prematurely retiring from the services, we will not need to train a replacement and training people is extremely expensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and others referred to the loss of income for service personnel on a reduced commitment. He is right that their income will be reduced, but this could be offset by significantly improved circumstances for the spouse. Perhaps the new arrangements would facilitate the spouse securing a much more advantageous employment position, perhaps just by being able to give a commitment that the family will not need to move to another location.
How will it work? I am in a position to suggest to the House how these arrangements might work, and in a way that my noble friend the Minister is not really able to. The first point is that these new arrangements will not really be applicable to junior service people in their first few years of service. We need to remember that in the Army we have large numbers of soldiers who serve only three, four, five or six years, and this system is really not for them. In the Army, junior NCOs cannot continue to serve past a certain age if they do not get promoted to sergeant. It is called the manning control point. The reason is that we cannot afford to have 45 year-old lance corporals in an infantry unit. However, suppose an RAF flight sergeant, a highly trained technician, realised that a reduced commitment would enable him to continue to serve in circumstances where he would otherwise have to retire prematurely. He, or she, would apply through his unit. However, most importantly, I expect that the decision about whether to grant the application would be made by the RAF personnel centre, not at unit level. The decision would take account of the overall needs of the service, and other services will obviously have similar arrangements.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker of Aldringham, asked about how unit cohesion would be maintained. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that flexible working would be granted to a solider serving on regimental duty in a unit, for precisely the reasons the noble and gallant Lord outlined. However, I very much doubt that the Minister will back me up on this point because he will want to maintain maximum flexibility. That is the reality: you cannot be part-time at regimental duty.
What gets me excited is Ministers claiming that combat effectiveness will not be reduced by having women serve as combat infantrymen in the Army. It is simply ridiculous. I will need to have a friendly chat with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the physical requirements of military service. Even more ludicrous is female Royal Marine commandos. I have never in my entire life been fit and strong enough to be commando trained, and despite this, until I turned 45, there were very few women who were as strong as me. I cannot understand how you are going to have female Royal Marine commandos without reducing combat effectiveness.
Going back to the decision made by the service personnel branch regarding whether to grant flexible employment conditions, the most important consideration will be whether there are sufficient deployable personnel available in the relevant career employment group or equivalent. There will be input from the unit, but the decision will be made by career managers at the centre.
I touched on the issue of high-volume junior ranks, but numerous staff and training appointments are not deployable. They are eminently suitable for part-time working arrangements. We must not forget that one of the flexibilities is a geographical restriction, so perhaps an officer could be posted to be commandant of a training camp. All he needs is an agreement that he will not be posted somewhere else, and he could continue to serve. Why should we lose really experienced officers just because of their family and personal circumstances?
I give my full support to the Bill, but despite that we will need to look at it very carefully indeed, as we look at every Bill in Committee and at later stages.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the intention behind this Bill. As the Minister has explained, the Armed Forces are currently losing talented and experienced personnel who might be retained if they were able to secure some temporary flexibility in their conditions of employment. This is perhaps particularly, although not exclusively, true for female personnel. Although such flexibility might not by itself lead to a dramatic growth in the overall numbers of women in the military, it might allow the services to retain more of those who are highly capable, who could then go on to increase the percentage of females in the most senior ranks. This would be very welcome.
However, while supporting the Bill in principle, like other noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords, I am concerned that the proposed changes should not detract from the UK’s overall military capability and effectiveness. We must remember the purpose of employing people within the military: it is not to produce goods or services for consumers on an everyday basis, but to deliver targeted military effect when and where the Government require it. The day-to-day outputs of military formations are very often in preparation for their real purpose, not an end in themselves.
I also wonder about the title of the Bill. In response to one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, do we not already have a degree of flexible working in the military—people producing a full output but with varying start and finish times, and even through working from home? Is this Bill not rather about flexible terms of employment? That would certainly make the variations in rates of pay and so on more easily understood by a wider audience.
However, although I have stressed the crucial need to maintain military capability and military effectiveness, this does not in my view mean that the nature of military life and its processes should not change. The Armed Forces that I left some six or seven years past looked and felt in many ways very different from the organisation that I joined half a century ago. Yet I defy anyone to say that its 21st century personnel, in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, have not displayed at least the same level of professionalism, commitment and courage as their distinguished predecessors.
Accepted norms change over time, and no military can allow itself to become too far removed from the society that it serves and from which it springs. Yet militaries are, and have to be, different. These two axioms lead to the requirement for a difficult balancing act, setting individual needs and aspirations on the one hand against operational demands and duties on the other. The question we must address in considering the Bill is whether that balance has been appropriately struck—and the answer is that we do not know.
The Bill is simply enabling legislation. It sets out the desired ends, but says virtually nothing about the ways and means. These will be the subject of secondary legislation and military regulations, but it is they that will enable us to reach an informed judgment about the balance to which I have referred. Without knowledge of the detail, the Bill falls into the, “Trust me, I’m a doctor” category. Let me give some examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
What percentage of people will be allowed to move on to flexible terms of employment? In the very helpful briefing arranged by the Minister, we were told that the services expect the take-up to be small—perhaps 0.5% to 1% of the force—based upon experience elsewhere. But no other military has operated such a system fully, and certainly not long enough to judge how take-up might change as people become accustomed to the idea. The figure of 1% seems small given the very large proportion of people who cite the strict current conditions of service as the principal reason for their leaving the military.
It is true that a reduction in salary is likely to act as a deterrent to many, but that still leaves us uncertain of the final take-up. It is therefore important that the Armed Forces conduct an analysis to determine what part of their establishment—how many and where—could be subject to flexible terms without undermining operational capability. This would at least establish a clear limit beyond which we should not go. Can the Minister tell the House whether such work has been undertaken, and if so what are the results?
We also need to consider the broad conditions that should govern the application for a move to flexible terms of employment. I understand that the current intention is not to require people to specify the reasons behind any application, since it might involve personal issues that they would rather remain private—I understand that.
On the other hand, if the availability of such opportunities is limited—owing to operational pressures, for example—how are the services to judge between competing demands? How are those involved in the appeal process to judge the merits of a case if they do not know all the relevant details? Ought we not at least to be specifying the reasons that would be considered a valid basis for applying for a period of flexibility, or perhaps setting out the motivations that would not form such a basis?
Flexibility is very much to be welcomed, but it often leads to increased complexity. If a particular job is currently being done for five, or perhaps more, days a week, what happens if the incumbent is suddenly working for only three days out of every seven? I assume that there will still be work that needs doing, else one must conclude that the organisation was overmanned in the first place. How is this burden to be met? Perhaps in some cases it can be addressed through the increased use of reservists, but probably not in all. What other measures will be required to deal with the challenge?
Whatever mechanisms and procedures are put in place, they will surely lead to increased pressures on the personnel management staffs. A great number of posts within the military simply could not be occupied on a part-time basis: crews of Royal Navy warships, the personnel of combat units in the Army and the members of front-line squadrons in the Royal Air Force, to name just three instances. That means that, in many cases, someone moving to flexible terms of employment will need to be posted elsewhere—perhaps to a job with a current incumbent who has been in post for only a short time and who will have to be moved on. All this will require careful handling.
I understand that the services are currently examining the implications for their personnel management processes and organisations, but as yet have reached no definite conclusions. I should be grateful if the Minister could keep the House informed once they do. There may be consequences for staff numbers and there will undoubtedly be issues for the joint personnel administration system.
In passing, I question one of the assertions that has been made regarding the financial consequences of the proposed arrangements. It has been said that any savings resulting from the reduced pay bill when personnel move to part-time arrangements would accrue to the budget of the appropriate service, which could then use it to pay for backfilling arrangements or on some other expenditure of its choice. This seems to me to be wishful thinking. The more likely outcome, particularly given the pressures on the defence budget, is that the central staffs will reduce the service’s overall budget allocation by a commensurate amount. It is true that if they did not act in such a fashion, an opportunity cost would fall somewhere—the central staffs, after all, do not get to keep any of the money. But I would discourage the idea that the Bill will somehow automatically lead to increased financial flexibility for the individual services.
Other noble and noble and gallant Lords have raised further important issues, and I could add to them. I will not at this point, but instead reiterate what is perhaps the central theme in this debate. For us to judge the appropriateness of the Bill’s proposals, we need to know much more than we do presently. The devil is in the detail, and in this case the Prince of Hades is hiding in undecided, and certainly unseen, secondary legislation and regulation. We therefore need to see and discuss this detail before reaching a firm conclusion on the Bill. I accept that a list of detailed technical amendments to existing regulations will not serve this purpose, but some explanation of and debate about how the new system would work in practice is in my view necessary before the Bill should be allowed to pass on from your Lordships’ House.
I have asked many questions and sounded several notes of caution. I have done so not because I resist the legislation but because I want us all to be able to give it our enthusiastic backing. As I said, I support the Bill in principle. I hope that the Minister will be able to come back with proposals for further consultation that will allow me to do so in practice.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate at this time; I realise that I have only four minutes. I asked the noble Earl yesterday why we are having a Bill at all. I understand that there was a time when it was considered unnecessary. As several noble Lords said, if, in effect, the Bill had just been to give help to women joining the armed services, nobody would have been at all surprised, and it would have made a great deal of sense.
We want still to be considered the finest fighting force in the world. In this country, total public support for the armed services covenant is hugely important—and the X factor. They are special. Why? Because the armed services are totally different from any other organisation in this country. The people who join have a special ethos. In this day and age, we increasingly have to look at how we are regarded in other parts of the world. Russia, China or any of the other major countries have a highly trained, professional, full-time military, and that is what we are up against.
The term, “part-time”, has been commented on by many noble and gallant Lords. It is interesting that they are concerned about how the armed services will be considered in years to come. Regardless of Brexit, our friends in Europe—I use the word “friends”—are without doubt very interested that we should continue to be by far the most powerful hard power. Eastern European countries would unquestionably like that. The feeling is exactly the same in Washington. One of our problems in years to come will be that gradually and publicly, somehow or other, the background of the armed services will be considered to have changed.
People keep using the term “being modernised”. In a large number of major companies, including my own in the past, huge numbers of colleagues serve abroad. They are away for weeks at a time, on ships, or whatever. I question the idea that their home life is being interfered with, but it is very important that we have the finest professional armed services in the world. That is what young people want to be part of.
I cannot resist the chance of saying that one of our problems is that we do not have enough money. The armed services are being continually hollowed out. There is plenty of evidence of that. We are told that a number of our best people are leaving the armed services. I would like some detail on exactly the sort of people who are leaving and why. I am not saying that I disagree or do not trust that it is happening, but I want to know who is moving, and into which areas. I have contacts with quite a number of such people and it seems to be lack of morale in the longer term. We need more money, and to pay highly skilled people to do the job.
My final point is that we cannot compare this with the reserves. There are certain elements of the reserves which are tremendous because they have specialised skills, but the idea of saying one can slip into one or the other is not on. If we are to retain the ethos and the standing of our armed services in the world, we have to think so carefully about what we are doing. We may live to regret it for a long time.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like most noble and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I welcome the Bill, but with a degree of caution. I have a few more questions to add to the myriad that the Minister already faces. I, and the Liberal Democrat Benches as a whole, are less sceptical about the proposals than the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, but we have some concerns, and we might even agree with him on at least one point.
The Bill is intended to assist with recruitment and retention, and may help in particular with the recruitment and retention of women. As several noble and gallant Lords have pointed out, the devil is in the detail—or, at least, the devil would be in the detail if we could find any detail. At the moment, we are still waiting. The issues in the Bill are potentially profound. They may be extremely beneficial to those people who are able to use flexible working, but they raise concerns for all the services, and for those members of the Armed Forces who are not making use of flexible working. That is something that I want to come back to with regard to the impact on morale of those still doing their normal hours. Will they face further constraints and difficulties?
We have a set of issues about morale, particularly those raised by the regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey results from 2017. While family life and work/life balance may be important, other factors are also important—most notably, accommodation. As several other noble Lords have sought the indulgence of the House to raise other issues, such as mental health, families and counselling services, I crave the House’s indulgence for a moment to ask the Minister what work the Government are doing to deal with one of the biggest issues that affects service families—the nature of accommodation and, in particular, the maintenance of service accommodation. There are still regular complaints and a very serious sense that CarillionAmey does not deliver. One issue is that its contract is not sufficiently well specified. But if you have cold water instead of hot water or a cooker that does not function, there are real questions about how quickly it will respond. What scope is there through this Bill—although it will probably not be through this Bill—or through the course of this Parliament to look at ways in which to enhance service accommodation? That is one issue that affects family life in the services and, by extension therefore, morale, and potential questions of retention.
Accommodation is one issue, but pensions is another and pay is another. There is a range of issues that need to be dealt with. This Bill deals with a very small aspect of morale—the issue of flexible working. One question that I would like the Minister to address, which has come up and on which, although I hate to suggest it, there is a degree of confusion on some Benches, is about the elision there seems to be between part-time and flexible working. My understanding is that those two things are distinct and that flexible working would not necessarily entail a reduction in pay. Part-time work would, as it would in any walk of life, but engaging in a degree of flexible working, which could entail home working or flexible hours, would not in and of itself necessarily entail a pay cut. If the Minister could clarify that, it might be helpful to the progress of the Bill.
There are clearly questions of recruitment and retention. These proposals—assuming that the detail is appropriate—may assist with retention. Serving men and women may at the margins think that the ability to undertake flexible hours or to take leave to deal with caring responsibilities would help them to make the decision to remain rather than leave the services. That clearly could be beneficial to the individuals and the services, as well as to the UK as a whole, if we are not losing skilled people.
My noble friend Lady Jolly raised the question of information. How do serving men and women find out about this? The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey suggests that only about one-quarter of servicemen and women actually think that leading officers give them adequate information. That has been one of the problems with the new employment model: there is a feeling among service men and women that they do not necessarily understand the detail. What is going to be different about this flexible working Bill? How are service men and women going to find out about the provisions? Are they going to have some general information? How far are we going to get into the details with them of whether there is going to be a cap on the number of service men and women who will be allowed flexible working at any one time?
The positive side is retention of people who may be looking for flexible working, but what about full-time regulars who may have to take on an additional burden if some of their colleagues are no longer available for deployment outside a particular geographical area or for a certain amount of time? That could give opportunities for reservists to be called up, as the Minister suggested, but it also raises questions about people who are still doing full-time work. I have had feedback which suggests that full-timers may then feel under additional pressure. If that is the case, what impact will it have on their retention rates? Have the Government undertaken any work into the impact on retention for full-timers?
I will look next at recruitment. Some work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers on public opinion suggests that there are very high levels of trust in the Armed Forces, right across the spectrum, but younger people are slightly less prone to trust them. About 80% of respondents thought that the Armed Forces are important for jobs, skills and training. Once again, as with trust in the Armed Forces, fewer young people are aware of the skills and training available. What are the Government doing to make recruitment more attractive; to enable young people—particularly young women—to understand the potential opportunities? I will correct something that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, touched on. He seemed to imply that my noble friend Lady Burt had suggested that we could let in women or other people who did not meet the appropriate physical standards. What my noble friend actually said was that, as the nature of warfare changes, so the variety of skills and talent may change. For example, for cyberwarfare you do not need the physical attributes of a Royal Marine. There may be people from all sorts of backgrounds who would never have dreamed of joining the Armed Forces. They are not necessarily opposed to the Armed Forces or disagree with them—they are not pacifists—but they would never want to do some of the physical things. They are so computer savvy that they would be brilliant recruits, but they are not about to go along to the local recruitment office. What are the Government doing about a wider approach to recruitment?
Many questions have already been raised and I do not want to reiterate them. We clearly need to think about manning levels generally and ensuring that flexible working does not damage operational capabilities. I assume that Her Majesty’s Government have looked into this and believe that the proposals being put forward will not create any problems for operational capabilities. The Minister certainly suggested that they are evidence-based, yet they have raised several concerns. Can the Minister reassure the House that they are not aimed at cost saving; that manning and deployment proposals have been thought through; and that the high-level support for flexible working will be there through the ranks? Like the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the Liberal Democrat Benches would like to see regulations subject to affirmative rather than negative procedures. It is important that this House and the other place can actually see what is being proposed. We would also like to know how the military regulations are promulgated and scrutinised, as was touched on earlier.
In conclusion, these Benches give the proposals a cautious welcome. My noble friend Lady Burt said, in effect: “What’s not to like”. There is very little in here to disagree with, but we clearly need to be very careful to ensure that the proposals are fit for purpose. We therefore look forward to the clarifications that the Minister will give this evening. We look forward even more to elaboration in Committee on the many questions that have come up this evening.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing the Bill and for the briefing he provided. He has always been careful to provide very thorough briefings. However, the constant theme that has arisen during this debate is the lack of detail. Many concerns have been raised as a result of the great trouble that we have envisaging how the measure will work in practice and be compatible with military requirements.
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. Although it does not have the longest of speaking lists, it was a matter of “feel the quality, not the width”. It was good that noble and gallant Lords spoke in a way that brought us up short. We so often have conversations about the military as though we are talking about industrial production and it is just another profession. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, hit the point when he said that this is about targeted military action. The noble Lord, Lord Sterling, talked about having the finest force in the world. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the military is about having personnel who are able to kill people, and who are willing to risk their own lives doing so. Other than a very small part of the police force, no other sections of our community are employed to do this; it is a very special way of working.
There were one or two outlying speeches, but curiously enough they came back to this special point. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, talked about mental health and its problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, talked about family support. I think this comes back to the fact that when you put people in these difficult environments, which we believe is essential to our nationhood, for want of a better term, you have to peculiarly and specially support them. So I look forward to possible amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and, indeed, from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, if he ventures some—because we should treat these people whom we are asking to do special tasks in a special way.
Talking about individual speeches, I am afraid that I must dissociate myself and these Benches from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which apparently suggested that women should be excluded from various tasks. I trust the military—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, to be clear: certain tasks. The Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman alluded to my speech, and did so very carefully. There are plenty of roles in the Armed Forces that women are brilliant at, but in my opinion there are some to which they are not suited.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank the noble Earl for that intervention. I will go on. Where it is reasonably practical, I do not believe that it is appropriate to exclude women on the basis that they are female. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for the military to set standards of physical performance required for a task. I entirely accept that will mean that in some areas the probability of women achieving those standards may be quite low, but the test should be: are they capable and is this reasonably practical? In that sense, I dissociate myself from the noble Earl’s remarks.
But underlying all this, we support the principle behind the Bill, as I think does everybody. The Armed Forces have distinct, often highly demanding, working conditions. However, the distinct nature of life in the forces does not mean that we should not offer our loyal service men and women opportunities to work flexibly when circumstances allow. The world is changing about us and our institutions must change. My noble friend Lord Brooke described how reluctant organisations had subsequently found flexible working to be of value to them and their employees, and how problems could be overcome. Nevertheless, while accepting the general principle, we have reservations.
We have concerns that this shift may present a slippery slope that eventually coerces or even forces service personnel to reduce their hours to save the MoD money. I have total faith that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would not do this, but I do not have total faith that subsequent generations would not do it. In my career I have employed large volumes of labour to do jobs where the demand changed. Frequently, I would have given my right arm to have flexibility—to have that labour solely when I needed it and not to have to employ it when I did not. Flexibility is a way of saving money. Indeed, a number of noble Lords mentioned that—including the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, himself said that while this is not a money-saving issue, it will save money in recruitment and retention. But the fact that it is there and the continuous pressures on budgets will mean that people will be tempted—and it will not be straightforward; it will be pressures at various unit levels—to coerce and to use these devices to save money.
We on these Benches worry that junior personnel, who have already been subject to pay caps, may lose out if the introduction of flexible working is used to justify a decrease in the X-factor payment. Most of all, however, we worry about the lack of detail in the Government’s proposals. Once again, I thank the Minister and his officials for the documents that they have provided so far. However, given that this commitment originates from the Government’s 2015 strategic defence and security review, it is disappointing that your Lordships’ House has not been presented with either a more substantial Bill or indicative regulations. The department’s policy statement mentions that these proposals were drawn up following “consultation with service personnel”. Again, we have not seen the detail. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to a trial. Where was the trial, what sort of units were involved, and what was the impact on those units?
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, over and over again, that we need to see the detail. The Minister should know that there is one thing your Lordships’ House does well, and that is detail. We need that in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will be more generous in providing information before Committee. Colleagues have asked legitimate questions during today’s debate, and I hope that they will receive detailed answers, either in the Minister’s remarks or by letter.
While the scope of the Bill is narrow, this debate has given us an opportunity to consider some related issues. In their 2010 SDSR, the Government committed to cutting 25,000 civilian jobs in the MoD by 2015. Unfortunately for the former Defence Secretary and current Chancellor, a miscalculation necessitated a further reduction of 3,000 civilian roles in order to come in on budget. Previous Governments of both parties have pursued a thoroughly sensible programme of getting the military out of uniform where they were effectively doing civilian jobs. It was a splendid programme that meant that you did not have people in uniform doing certain jobs, particularly in the increasingly complex areas of procurement, programming and all the various support roles the modern military needs. Instead they went into civilian jobs, where they could have a lifestyle like civilians, with the same flexibilities, and in general they cost less. There was almost a philosophy building up that people in the military—people in uniform—were the ones who did the real, active military stuff. They were deployed overseas at notice, fought in the front line and manned combat platforms. I wish that that had gone on, because if it had, we would have a clearer distinction to talk about now.
Combined with the lowest-ever recorded levels of satisfaction with the basic rate of pay and pension benefits, it is little surprise that some see their future outside the Armed Forces. I hope that this is one of the areas being looked at as part of the wider Armed Forces People Programme, because the introduction of flexible working can be only part of the answer to the ongoing retention problem.
We all know that service personnel form close bonds with their units. These bonds see our service men and women go to great lengths for each other, working not only for Queen and country but for each other. This includes, at times, laying down their life to save that of a comrade. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that these arrangements must be used sparingly; the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said that there would possibly be unintended consequences; and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, was uncomfortable about how these geographic arrangements would work. We hope that all these issues can be overcome but, before we pass this legislation, we need to know just how it will apply.
This may not be a reason to oppose these measures but can the Minister confirm whether any thought has been given to the possible impact of some personnel in the same fighting unit having significantly different working patterns from those of their comrades? Can he say a few words about what steps, if any, would be taken by commanding officers to mitigate any issues that arose? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talked about these matters and was worried about the concept of part-time working. He felt that the words themselves were somehow incompatible with commitment.
Can the Minister also commit to providing more information about the specific criteria against which applications will be judged and about how each of the forces will go about the constant task of assessing the compatibility of flexible working with their operational needs?
In conclusion, Labour supports any attempt to strengthen the rights of working people, whether in civilian life or in the Armed Forces. It is vital to ensure that the Armed Forces can recruit and retain the best talent. Providing flexible working opportunities has a potentially important part to play, but it is certainly not the only answer.
In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, referred to by my noble friend earlier, we very much look forward to working with the Minister and his team to improve this Bill and to improve the lives of our hard-working service men and women. However, we will need much more detail to understand exactly how the legislation will work.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as always, and as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly said, we have had a good debate, and I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions. I was very grateful for the supportive comments of many speakers regarding the Bill’s purport.
I will try my best to respond to as many as possible of the questions and points that have been raised but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I do not manage to address each and every one today. I will of course write to any noble Lord where I have something to add.
I begin with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. I was disappointed by his sceptical reaction to the Bill. In fact, uncharacteristically, his remarks came over as sceptical bordering on the cynical. I just ask him to give some credit to the services. I believe that we need to support them, in the first instance, for having identified a gap in the current offer to the Armed Forces and, secondly, for coming up with proposals to address that gap in a way that reflects best employment practice in industry and commerce.
Indeed, I stress one key point to the noble Lord and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker. The new flexible working options have the full backing of the three services. They have been consulted and engaged throughout the design process, and they will continue to be involved as we implement the changes. As I said earlier, the chiefs of the services support these proposals, and they have regularly provided direction and guidance during their development. That development work continues, which is why I do not currently have all the answers requested by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
As I said, we have consulted the services throughout this project and their advice has helped to shape the design of the new flexible working arrangements. We recently engaged with the three services’ families federations, which have collectively said that they welcome the MoD’s plans. We continue to engage with a range of key stakeholders, and that process will intensify as we continue to develop and finesse our policies in the lead-up to the introduction of the new arrangements in April 2019.
Let me deal with another misconception. There is no question of the services or the MoD imposing flexible working on anybody. Flexible working will only happen following an application by an individual. Far from imposing on regular personnel, these changes provide further protections to personnel in enabling them to achieve a better work/life balance to suit their circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, suggested that this could all be a plot to reduce the pay bill and/or deprive people of pay. No it is not. The new arrangements have been designed with cost neutrality in mind. As I have stressed before, this change is predominantly about giving service personnel more choice over the way they serve. It will help the Armed Forces to retain our current personnel and to attract and retain future joiners. I thought that the question posed by my noble friend Lord Attlee was very apt: why should we lose personnel because of their family set-up? The answer is, we should not, and I hope the Bill will help us to address this.
Of course, those wishing to vary their commitment will see a commensurate variation in their reward. That variation will be fair and reasonable, both to those who work flexibly and to those who do not. Pay will be calculated on a proportional basis. Further work is under way to determine the precise impact on pensions and the full range of allowances, against the principle that the outcome will be fair and proportionate. We already offer the ability to undertake flexible start and cease-work times for no loss of pay. However, the Bill is designed to offer the ability to work less than others. Therefore, it is right and fair to others to reduce pay proportionately.
As I have just said, flexible working should be seen as filling a gap in the flexible working arrangements already available in the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was right to point out that flexible working is something of an umbrella term in this context. A number of formal flexible working arrangements, such as variable start and cease-work times, have been available for some years subject to local chain of command approval, but these invariably involve doing the same amount of work over a different working pattern, rather than a formal agreement to work less for less pay. We recently introduced a number of progressive flexible working changes, including new leave options and improvements for those taking career breaks, but these flexibilities are limited in their applicability and do not go far enough. As a snapshot, some 2,000 applications were approved across the services in the last six months, covering the various arrangements currently available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked whether the Bill could enable other types of flexible working, such as working from home. I have largely dealt with that and, as she will appreciate, that is not necessary because we already offer opportunities to work from home, as I know she is aware of from her own experience.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked some detailed questions, including on entitlement to service accommodation. I reassure him that entitlement to service-provided accommodation is a key element of the conditions of service that support the mobility of personnel, and that entitlement will not change as a result of flexible working because it will not change personnel mobility.
The noble and gallant Lord also asked what this will mean for reserves. Reserves are already able to serve in a range of different commitments, so legislative change is not required for them. Under Future Reserves 2020 we have expanded reserves’ terms and conditions of service to meet developing service needs, and there will be no change in entitlement to medical and dental services. Regulars will remain subject to service law at all times, even when they are working part-time. As the noble and gallant Lord knows, the duty to serve and obey, enforced through disciplinary action, is central to the functioning of the Armed Forces. It will remain essential for commanders to be able to issue lawful commands to personnel undertaking part-time or geographically restricted service. Those commands must be followed. However, it will clearly not be lawful for a commander to order a regular to attend for duty on one of their agreed days off or to serve outwith the prescribed maximum number of days of separation.
Keeping part-time regulars subject to service law at all times has the added advantage of absolute clarity for all. There will be no difficult questions for personnel or commanders to consider about whether someone is or is not subject to service law on a given day. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked me a number of other questions and I hope that he will allow me to write to him on those.
However, what I can and should say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, with great respect to him, is that this is not about flexible terms of employment. Regulars are not employed, so the legislation refers to terms and conditions of service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about levels of uptake. The answer is that we expect a small but significant number to take up the new arrangements. We will manage expectations and explain that applications will be approved only where the MoD can accommodate the arrangements without unacceptably affecting operational capability. We expect that the majority of service personnel will remain on full-time commitment arrangements. So in answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, there will not be a specific cap on numbers, but the services will have full control over the number of people they can allow to work flexibly and will have the controls to vary this over time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and others asked about implementation. We plan to allow the first applications from 2019, as I mentioned earlier, and we anticipate that applications and the services’ ability to accept them will grow slowly. This will take careful management and a change of culture in some areas. Implementation will include a communication campaign, along with training and guidance for commanding officers and potential applicants alike.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, asked about the decision-making process. Commanding officers will not make the final decision on applications to work flexibly. They will be considered by an approvals authority within each service at headquarters level, which will be informed by advice from the chain of command, manpower planners, career managers and other relevant parties. The process is still being finalised, but our aim is for an agile system that will be able to administer applications efficiently.
As regards the applications that are considered, of course some will be refused, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, rightly anticipated. A new flexible working application is more likely to be refused if personnel are in a role that is delivering a critical output or is highly deployable, such as on a ship or in a high-readiness unit, or have already been warned to be ready to deploy to an operational theatre. An appeals process will be put in place to reconsider applications that have been rejected. Each service will have its own separate appeals review body, which will include career managers and other subject matter experts. Personnel will retain their right to enter a service complaint if their appeal is unsuccessful, which will have the oversight of the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman.
Let me stress again that maintaining operational capability will be at the forefront of any decision on allowing a serviceperson to temporarily reduce their commitment. We will also retain the ability to recall personnel to their full commitments in cases of national crisis. We judge that in time this will enhance our national defence as it takes effect and we experience the benefits of improved retention, a more diverse workforce, and the ability to deploy a broader spectrum of our people, both regular and reserve, when and where we need them through the flexibility which this initiative will bring.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked whether personnel will be able to join the services and take flexible working straightaway. My noble friend Lord Attlee was quite right on that point. We envisage that personnel will be expected to complete both their initial and trade training along with a period thereafter to settle in and consolidate their training before flexible working is considered.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, asked about the legal risks of refusing applications. Decisions on applications will be subject to a robust process, taken at a senior level on advice, and, as I said, with an appeal available. A disappointed applicant will have avenues available to them to seek a remedy. Those appeals or complaints will be considered carefully, with oversight as necessary from the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman. As a result, we would not anticipate a rise in discrimination claims in this context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raised an interesting point about workloads, wondering, if I can put words into her mouth, whether these arrangements will mean there will be more work for those who do not avail themselves of flexible working. We will manage the levels of flexible working permitted and therefore will be able to ensure that the right levels are maintained to deliver defence outputs. It is envisaged that capacity surrendered to flexible working arrangements will either be within reducible capacity or otherwise be sourced through other means, such as employment of reserves. Like other organisations with part-time workers, the organisation will change over time to better accommodate flexible working.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, asked what skills have been lost so far. I simply say that all personnel who depart take hard-won skills and experience with them, as he will know. Saving any of those skills will clearly help. While figures on the number of skilled service leavers are not held centrally, the Ministry of Defence is absolutely committed to ensuring that our personnel who leave the Armed Forces make a successful transition to civilian life.
The noble Lord also indicated that he would propose that new Defence Council regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The changes will be made by amending existing Defence Council regulations, which are subject to the negative procedure. The matters to be set out in new regulations will be procedural—the right to apply, the right to appeal and so on. The negative procedure is appropriate in this context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked what the prescribed circumstances would be to vary or terminate the new arrangements. These will be set out clearly in new Defence Council regulations, scrutinised as necessary by Parliament. The new arrangements will be terminated only when absolutely necessary—for example, as I indicated, in a national emergency or when there is a major manning crisis.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, suggested that we should prohibit those availing themselves of flexible employment from undertaking secondary employment. I simply say to him that this Bill is not about enabling secondary employment. Regulations already exist with stringent controls over the types and forms of employment that may be accepted, but only with authority. As in all cases, service duty takes precedence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked whether flexible working would affect someone’s chance of promotion. Many factors affect promotion, as she is aware, but a period of flexible working will not of itself impact on promotion. In designing the new arrangements we have agreed a number of principles with underpinning activities aimed at ensuring that very thing. These include that we would wish to avoid intentional or unintentional career penalties for those who undertake flexible service. We will create the opportunity for individuals to maintain or regain career momentum. We will seek to maximise accessibility of transfer between the regulars and reserves in both directions by minimising negative career impact. When one thinks about it, a decision on promotion is very largely forward-looking, rather than looking back. It is very substantially about the person’s potential.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, asked whether personnel would be able to dodge deployments. In the right circumstances some will be able to avoid being deployed, but a request on those lines will be approved only where the service can continue to deliver its operational capability. It will be refused where that cannot be achieved. Protection from deployments for a limited period where possible will retain some of our skilled personnel.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how personnel would find out about flexible working. We have a communications plan in force already to build on the reality of the flexible duties trial, but I shall be able to give her further particulars of that in due course.
My noble friend Lord Sterling raised the important issue of service ethos and was worried that our proposals might damage it. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, I can convince him that that will not be so. In fact, we expect that the arrangements will enhance ethos over time by helping us to retain and recruit the best people for defence. The evidence that we have gathered from published research literature, consultation with our people, surveys and an ongoing trial tells us clearly that personnel have reported consistently that the impact of service life on family and personal life is the most important factor that might influence them to leave. The three most frequently cited benefits of flexible working are that it helps employees to reduce the stress and pressure they feel under, it enables better work/life balance and it encourages people to stay with their current employer.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Eaton for her contribution about family stability and support. I will write to her about the points that she raised. I should be glad if she could provide evidence of the gaps that she feels exist and that are not currently provided for by other statutory bodies in family support, so that I can understand what type of additional support she feels is needed by service families. We need to understand whether families want that additional support, because finding a balance between paternalism and an intrusive approach against making that support readily available is clearly very important.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who argued for better mental health service availability for serving personnel. I will gladly follow up the points that he raised after this debate. I also listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, regarding his Private Member’s Bill on the abuse of military honours. The Government were well disposed in principle towards the Bill introduced in the previous Parliament; I should be happy to talk to him about the introduction of a similar Bill in your Lordships’ House and the scope for giving it appropriate debating time, which of course is a matter for the usual channels. We explored whether it might have been possible to amend this Bill in the sense that he has suggested, but the advice that I had was that it was not within the scope of the Bill’s Title. As I have said, I would be glad to talk further to the noble Lord.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Where the Minister responds in writing to Members, I would be grateful if he could copy it electronically to all of us who have taken part in the debate.
Earl Howe
I should be glad to do so.
I am conscious that in the time available I have not responded to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his concerns about families, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on BAME recruitment and other matters, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on families’ accommodation. I will do so, however, in writing.
I hope that, despite the reservations that have been voiced, this Bill will receive a fair wind from your Lordships. Our Committee proceedings will doubtless enable us to explore a number of areas of detail about which, quite understandably, noble Lords have raised questions. Until then, however, I commend the Bill to the House.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 12th September 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 82KB) - (8 Sep 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: Regular forces: part-time service and geographic restrictions
Amendment 1
Lord Craig of Radley
““(ha) enabling a person serving with a regular force—(i) to serve on a flexible basis; or(ii) to request periods of unpaid leave of absence;”, and”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 3 and 5, which are in this group. The amendments in this group are tabled in my name and those of my noble and gallant friends Lord Boyce and Lord Walker, neither of whom is able to be present today, but I speak on their behalf.
As I suggested at Second Reading, I question the sense and the potential for misunderstanding and for belittling the reputation of the Armed Forces if the phrase “part-time” is specifically used in the mixed and more flexible working arrangements. Could a better, less questionable word or phrase be used instead? First, let me confirm my acceptance in principle of flexible schemes which are viable, enjoy service support and do not detract from the operational 24/7 capability of the Armed Forces.
The first sub-paragraph of Amendment 1, sub-paragraph (i), seeks to retain the general concept of flexibility without specific reference to “part-time”. As the Minister has explained, the purpose of this short Bill is specifically to sketch out an additional flexible working scheme, described as serving on a part-time basis. Even so, it was notable that in his opening 10-minute speech at Second Reading, the Minister mentioned “part-time” only once, but he used “flexible” and “flexibility” at least 17 times, so it seemed worth reflecting that balance by referring to flexibility in a general way. It could be the basis for introducing further types of flexible working in the future.
The second provision of this amendment is to promote the use of unpaid leave of absence as an alternative approach to part-time. In his letter of 21 July, the Minister made specific reference to existing use of unpaid leave for flexible working. It said:
“Options already available for flexible working include both working patterns and the use of paid and unpaid leave”.
At present I am unclear about what so distances this Bill’s part-time basis from these other examples.
The Minister described “part-time” at Second Reading and in his letter of 21 July. In his speech he said:
“Service personnel will be able to temporarily reduce the time they are required for duty—for example, by setting aside one or two days a week”.—[Official Report, 11/07/2017; col. 1176.]
In his letter, he referred to women starting a family or those who wish to undertake long-term studies. These suggest to me a variety of periods and lengths of approved absences and—in part—appear to be more widely drawn than civilian-style part-time working. Fact sheet 2 also states that periods would be limited,
“to no more than 3 years at any one time”.
Will the request for absence be measured in reducing the 24/7 commitment to, say, 24/6 or 24/5, for example, over a period of weeks or months? A member of the Armed Forces does not sign up to work so many hours in a week. Would it not be confusing to measure “part-time basis” by a reduction in the number of hours worked? The commitment is to be available for service 24/7.
The Minister has stated that “part-time basis” would be of a different order to the existing forms of unpaid leave, but that is difficult to accept given the Minister’s examples of existing flexible working schemes and those in the fact sheets. Indeed, for clarity, a different definition of part-time service in Section 376 of the Armed Forces Act—definitions applying for purposes of the whole Act—would, I believe, be necessary if this subsection (2)(a)(ha) were ever inserted. Does the noble Earl agree?
Whatever the length and periods of absence, the noble Earl suggests that it is unlikely to involve much more than a thousand or two individuals at any one time. The noble Earl says:
“In practice, these new options will be temporary, limited to defined periods”.—[Official Report, 11/7/17; col. 1175.]
Surely this is so small scale; can this new scheme not be brigaded with other unpaid leave of absence arrangements? The Committee is familiar with the problems of unexpected consequences following enactments. Are there foreseen but undisclosed consequences for the Armed Forces Act which this Bill is to amend? The House has been assured that there is no intention to achieve savings in defence expenditure by this measure. Of course I accept that assurance, but it can only be for this Administration. The Armed Forces Act amended by this Bill will be renewed annually and re-enacted quinquennially into the foreseeable future. The Committee needs to be very satisfied that there is no devious hostage to fortune secreted in this Bill. To conclude on Amendment 1, leave is a well-understood and established arrangement for the Armed Forces, whether as a term for a holiday from work or a break from duties. Its meaning and purpose has been expanded to cover other types of absence, both paid and unpaid—even so-called gardening leave. Why complicate matters, and risk disparaging reactions and misleading reporting, by introducing a concept that suits working arrangements for civilian employment, with a working week of, say, 38 or 40 hours, but is alien to the fundamentally different concept of a commitment to 24/7 service? I expect that the noble Earl will try to justify the distinction that he seeks to draw between “part-time basis” and “unpaid leave”. A lot has already been said and written. I hope that other noble Lords will see merit in the “unpaid leave of absence” descriptor for this small addition to flexible serving arrangements and will speak in support of Amendment 1.
I turn to Amendment 2. When checking what was to replace Section 329(2)(i) of the Armed Forces Act, I found that this subsection in the Act provides for,
“enabling a person to restrict his service to service in a particular area”.
This Bill’s replacement submission provides for,
“enabling a person’s service with a regular force to be restricted”.
“To be restricted” to service in a particular area: why is this significant change being proposed? The original wording seemed to be in tune with assurances given at Second Reading which indicated that the flexible initiative lies with the individual, not the Ministry of Defence. I refer to my earlier comment about the risk of untoward outcomes from this legislation. The Committee should learn why the original phrasing has been replaced. Might it become a convenient handle with which to enforce reduced service or as a savings measure at some future date? I commend Amendment 2 to avoid this trap.
Amendment 3 proposes deleting the phrase,
“to be subject to other geographic restrictions”.
It has been suggested that this is to arrange for the individual not to be separated from their normal place of residence. Why cannot this be included in the meaning of the phrase “service in a particular area”? It seems an unnecessary complication. The purpose of this probing is to seek a fuller explanation of the proposed geographical restrictions. How would they assist individuals more easily to combine military and private commitments? Why are they not satisfactorily covered by the existing phrase,
“service in a particular area”,
which, as I suggested, could include location of family accommodation? I also note that the wording of Section 329(2)(j) says that a person may be required,
“to serve outside that area … not exceeding a prescribed maximum”,
but the replacement paragraph makes reference only to serving outside a “geographic restriction”, not a particular area. Why is the latter omitted by the Bill and said to differ from the former?
Finally, on Amendment 5, I questioned the use of the word “right” in new subsection (3A). The only reference to “right” in Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act is in subsection (3), which refers to,
“any right conferred … by … subsection (2)”,
which includes paragraphs (i) and (j), which this Bill seeks to replace. Why is it not satisfactory to rely on this overarching, less-deterministic phrase rather than introduce into Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act subsection (3A) with a specifically identified and explicit right applying to only three of 10 paragraphs in subsection (2)—a right that the noble Earl admits in his letter of 21 July is not absolute? Fact sheet 2 says that personnel will not have the right to work under the new flexible working arrangements. This amendment seeks an alternative approach to the matter of rights conferred while retaining the varied and other circumstances of new subsection (3A). I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, who, because of the Statement immediately after Questions, has got herself in the wrong place at the wrong time and has had to go into the Chamber. It is a very straightforward amendment. It asks for information to be provided by the Defence Council at least a year in advance to all members of the Armed Forces, giving them information about the scheme, how it will operate, how to apply and what alternative forms of flexible working are available.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, when I spoke at Second Reading I indicated that I was supportive of the principle that the Bill seeks to enshrine. After all, who could argue against increased flexibility? But I did have a number of caveats and cautions. It seems crucial that whatever we do does not undermine the ethos that is essential to a successful fighting force. I raised a number of issues, not all of which have been dealt with to my satisfaction, but I set those to one side for the moment to focus in particular on Amendment 1.
At Second Reading, the noble Earl took me to task for using the term “flexible employment”. He pointed out to me that service personnel are not employees as such. He is of course quite right, although the waters are somewhat muddied when the MoD itself uses terms such as “new employment model”. Service men and women have always understood and accepted that they are liable to be called to duty at any time— 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. The Bill seeks to change that. In doing so, though, it introduces the term “part-time” and part-time is a concept which in the military has never been recognised for regular service. It implies something that is completely removed from the ethos that is essential to a fighting service.
We all know what the Bill is talking about. We all know that it does not intend to undermine that ethos. But we also know that Bills which become Acts can have unintended consequences, and this Bill has to be treated with a great degree of caution, in my view, because of the fundamental nature of the changes that it introduces. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has already pointed out, the use of such terms as part-time is anathema to the military. Why use such a term when much more appropriate terms are there, ready to be employed? I therefore support very strongly Amendment 1.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend Second Reading but I have since talked at length to the Chief of the General Staff about the implications of the Bill for the future Army. He introduced me to an interesting phrase that I had not been familiar with: portfolio career. He said that the Bill would enable people joining the Army in future to enjoy what he described as a portfolio career, thanks to the flexible working.
I am very glad that my noble and gallant friend has questioned the use of “part-time” because when you look at the medical cover for the Army, for example, 80% of it is reservist and that is not part-time in the true sense of the word; it is reservist and it is a mixture of the regular and the reservist. I am worried about the term part-time, as my noble and gallant friend is.
In talking to the Chief of the General Staff, I was also interested in knowing, when the Bill is enacted and flexible working is enabled, who is going to be in control? I was very pleased to have his reassurance that the Army Board was going to be in control of the Army part of it, and I suspect that exactly the same line will be taken by the other two services because it is extremely important, if there is this flexibility, for somebody to be in control, to make certain that the services are always available, as my noble and gallant friend said, 24/7/52 in order to carry out their essential duty on behalf of the country.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will just comment on Amendment 5. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, challenged the use of the word “right” during the pre-meeting we had in July. The idea here is that we relinquish the principle of having a right in favour of a “working arrangement”.
Of course, we all understand that rights in this context can never be absolute. The Minister made that comment in his response to questions raised in the meeting. But the protections that are afforded to regulars will give rise to some legal rights, as the Minister has said. These regulations give enlisted regulars the right to apply for part-time working or geographically restricted service. Refusal of that request will give rise to a right of appeal. To my mind, the meaning of that is absolutely clear. I suggest to the Committee that this should not be fudged.
Lord Craig of Radley
If the noble Baroness reads carefully Section 329(3), “any right” is referred to and that refers to all those in Section 329(2). The amendment does not remove all rights. It relies on the existing “any right” in Section 329.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that clarification. However, I would still suggest to the Committee that substituting the principle of a right for that of a working relationship in any context in which it occurs in these new elements of the Bill would not be helpful at all. As I have said, it would fudge the issue. I urge the Minister to reject the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I humbly confess—your Lordships may think that seemly for a priest—that despite the weighty contributions of noble and noble and gallant Lords, I am confused about the problem apparently being raised by describing those who serve in the Armed Forces as part-time.
Of course, part-time is a slippery term that seems to relate to the actual hours of delivery so that even those of us who claim to work full-time certainly do not. Working occupies only part of our day, whether we are in the Armed Forces or we are politicians, doctors, priests or whatever. So soldiers, sailors and air force personnel have a whole-time, sometimes decades-long commitment to the security of our nation regardless of the number of hours they are working and on duty in any week or month. In the same way, my local GP practice has more doctors who work part-time than full-time, but that is no measure of their skill and competence. Surely we are long past the point when part-time might suggest second rate. My surgery offers a whole-time service and capability through a blending of people working different patterns and hours.
My own clergy have a whole-life vocation. They may be called upon at any time but they minister in a variety of flexible patterns, including part-time. Part-time is well understood to be an accepted and honourable working pattern, including among those whose service and work is a vocation.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, we are in Committee. It is always tempting to make a Second Reading speech but I will resist that. However, before I make some brief remarks about the amendment, if the Committee will indulge me, I would like to thank the Minister and his officials for their engagement so far.
At the end of Second Reading, the Minister and I were far apart on agreeing the merits and demerits of this piece of legislation. Indeed, he said that my remarks were,
“sceptical bordering on the cynical”.—[Official Report, 11/7/17; col. 1205.]
But, as always with this Minister, he has sought to assuage my concerns and those of other noble Lords, and while I still have some reservations and share some of the concerns expressed today, especially by those with first-hand experience of command at a very high level in our Armed Forces, I am more positive about the measure now than I was at Second Reading. We have received some very useful briefings and the Minister has sought and welcomed comments, criticism and discussion. I am encouraged that he is prepared to take these issues seriously and I look forward to his response.
I am sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Terminology is all-important in matters of this sort and the Minister did indicate, I believe, that we would be given more details on the current options for flexible working. The Minister has gone some way towards responding to that with the helpful papers that have been produced in the past week or so, but there is a powerful argument for putting something concrete in primary legislation, even if it is not strictly necessary because such definitions may already be covered by the Queen’s Regulations. The amendments tabled by the noble and gallant Lord are important because we need to understand the proper definitions of what we are talking about. I hope that the Government will give them the fullest consideration and, if they are not able to respond positively today, to do so on Report.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, through this group of amendments, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, questions the wording of the Bill in a number of ways. I hope to persuade him that Clause 1 has been drafted with careful consideration of the effect that the Bill would have on implementation of flexible working.
Amendment 1 seeks to remove new Section 329(2)(ha) and replace it with new wording, which would provide the Defence Council with different powers. Those different powers would enable the Defence Council to make regulations enabling flexible rather than part-time service for enlisted regulars and for a regular to be able to request periods of unpaid leave. The noble and gallant Lord raised these points at Second Reading, and the aim, as I understand it from his remarks today, is to move away from the language of “part-time service” and replace it with “flexible service”, the underlying thought being that it would be more appropriate to label this change as another form of unpaid leave.
Regulars can already serve on a flexible basis. The options which exist are several: variable start and finish times; compressed hours; home working; and career intermissions. The first three of those are essentially a means to rearrange the working day or week, while career intermissions involve unpaid leave for up to three years for, say, a period of study. The Bill is doing something quite different from those arrangements. It is creating part-time service, as commonly understood. That is why the language used has to be the right language.
The effect of Amendment 1 would be that all flexible working arrangements for regulars would have to be provided for by way of Defence Council regulations. We regard that as unnecessary, and it would require a major rewrite of the existing terms of service regulations to deliver. I cannot agree with the noble and gallant Lord that the term “part-time” is belittling, nor do I think that it will undermine service ethos. I was grateful for the pertinent observations of the right reverend Prelate in this context.
We have to remember several key things here. We are envisaging that only a modest, albeit significant, number of our people will apply to take up the new arrangements once they are introduced; the majority of regular service personnel will continue to serve on a full-time commitment basis. Personnel whose applications to work part-time are approved will do so for a temporary period only. They will remain subject to service law at all times and will be subject to recall under defined circumstances. We need constantly to bear in mind that this measure will, par excellence, help us retain and recruit the best people for defence. Currently people choose to leave when their circumstances change and the current system cannot accommodate them. We know this from extensive surveys that we have done. One therefore has to see this in the wider context.
As for unpaid leave, as the noble and gallant Lord rightly said, regulars can already request this; for example, by asking for a career intermission. While we agree that leave is of course a well-understood service arrangement, the part-time working arrangements to be delivered under the Bill go beyond unpaid leave, which is why they require special provision. They go beyond unpaid leave for very particular reasons. Under the unpaid leave arrangements, the individual has no formal level of protection from recall to either full-time duty or deployment other than that of being on leave. The right to apply to work part-time to be delivered under the Bill goes considerably beyond that. It will provide more certainty for the individual, affording them rights to remain on a flexible working arrangement which can be revoked, as I said, only under certain circumstances, such as a national emergency.
The noble and gallant Lord’s second amendment seeks to remove some of the language in new Section 329(2)(i) and replace it with wording to make it clear that only the regular can restrict their service to service in a particular area. I take this amendment to be driven by a view that the current language in the Bill would permit defence to place geographical restrictions on a regular’s service against their will—potentially—although I was grateful for the noble and gallant Lord’s concession that the present Government do not intend that, but I hope to persuade him that no Government could do it. This is certainly not the intention behind the existing language, nor is it its legal effect. Section 329 is there to provide protections for regular service personnel, so it is clear that these new regulations will be able to make provision for this new form of service only for the benefit of the regular, subject to the other restrictions permitted by the Bill. It cannot be imposed upon them. In fact, the Bill would ensure that service personnel are in control over whether to choose to apply to take up the new flexible working options. They would have the right to apply but there is absolutely no provision to make service personnel take up the new flexible arrangements.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, listening to the Minister’s comments and reflecting on the discussions on the Bill, I understand that the children of many service personnel have quite difficult journeys into adulthood, with a lot of disruption. Looking at the new provisions in Clauses 1 and 2, am I right in thinking that the Bill will make it easier for parents with young children to remain close to those children if they choose to do so, and might it reduce the disruption to those children’s lives? Might that be the effect of the Bill?
Earl Howe
Certainly. Although that is not the whole rationale, the provisions that we are proposing to introduce are designed to be family-friendly—for example, for women considering starting a family or those with caring commitments, or those who are bringing up a family and, for any reason at all, there are personal circumstances that create difficulties for them. That could be a very good reason for somebody to apply to work part-time on a temporary basis. So I agree with the noble Earl.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for what he has said. I am not sure that I followed it all completely so I look forward to reading it. I would just make one or two comments, if I may, at this stage.
On Amendment 1, the noble Earl’s addiction to “part-time basis” and part-time service is clear, but I am not sure that I understand why it has to be in primary legislation. If the Government want to have a number of flexible working arrangements, most of which are already in place and have been put there as a result of secondary legislation or Queen’s Regulations, why does this particular one have to be singled out, causing the amount of exposure that worries a great number of us?
On the amendment dealing with “restrict” and restrictions, I am still uneasy. Section 329 of the 2006 Act provides for,
“enabling a person to restrict his service to service in a particular area”,
whereas the amendment says very precisely,
“enabling a person’s service with a regular force to be restricted”.
It seems to me that that can put the individual in a position where he is being told that it will be restricted rather than he saying, “I would like to do this form of restricted service”. I think that that needs to be looked at very carefully, and I will look at exactly what the Minister said on the point.
The other point is on rights. Clause 1(3) refers to,
“A right conferred on a person by virtue of subsection (2)”—
and subsection (2) will include (2)(ha), (2)(i) and (2)(j). So it seems to me that the overarching new subsection (3) gives you the right that you were looking for. Therefore I suggest that we can drop new subsection (3A).
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would be very happy to write to the noble and gallant Lord on all those points—in so far as they were not made clear in my original response—and in particular on why we need primary legislation, and perhaps explain further the reasons why we think the Bill is correctly worded in this clause. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will allow me to do that between Grand Committee and Report, and I will of course copy in noble Lords to that correspondence.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Jolly
“( ) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) With regard to the rights conferred on a person by subsection (2)(ha) to (j), the regulations must specify—(a) whether and for how long a person must have served in a regular force before being entitled to apply for those rights;(b) to whom and in what manner a person must apply;(c) how many times a person may apply to exercise those rights;(d) whether there is any limit on the number of times a person may have an application approved;(e) for what specific periods of time a person will not be required for duty or liable for overseas deployment;(f) if the application is approved, for how long the agreed arrangements may remain in place;(g) the factors that may be taken in account when considering an application;(h) how the agreed arrangements may be altered or suspended; and(i) if an application is refused, how a person may appeal the decision.””
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, Amendment 4 is a probing amendment. I am very grateful to the Minister and his team for the meeting that we had—it seems a very long time ago—just before we rose for the Summer Recess. We went through these issues with him. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, employment patterns are changing. The idea of joining the service man and boy—or perhaps it is girl and woman these days—seems very much a thing of the past, or at least not what is always expected. We want to understand exactly how this works and what the Government’s intentions are behind it—hence the probing nature of the amendment. We are after the what, the how, the how long and the how many.
The devil in this sort of thing is very often in the detail. We on this Bench have some concern that a lot of the detail will be in secondary legislation. I know that we will be dealing with that and I know that my noble friend Lady Smith will be dealing with those issues later. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to these points—he has had the summer to look at them with his team—and then we will see how we can move forward from there.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, Amendment 6 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe relates to the powers conferred on the Defence Council by Clause 1. It is a simple but important amendment and it is one that has the full support of the House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. If I may, I will echo the comments made in the Chamber last week about the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who chaired the committee when it produced its report. We all wish her well and look forward to her speedy recovery and return to Parliament.
In its report on the Bill, the committee noted:
“These powers are conferred without any detailed provisions on the face of the Bill limiting or restricting how the powers are exercised. In the circumstances we consider that the affirmative procedure should apply”.
The timing of the Bill, with the so-called repeal Bill and its many proposed delegated powers, which was approved in the other place in the early hours of this morning, is significant. We in this House always pay attention to the granting and use of delegated powers and it is only right that if additional powers are conferred on the Defence Council or on Ministers, a proper level of parliamentary scrutiny is guaranteed.
Following meetings and discussions with the Minister, it is my understanding that the Government intend to accept that view and will either agree to this amendment or table a similar one; we will wait for the Minister to tell us. The introduction of part-time working and reforms to geographically restricted service represent fundamental changes to the terms and conditions of our Armed Forces. By ensuring appropriate scrutiny of the forthcoming regulations, the House will be fulfilling its duty to our hardworking service men and women.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendment 4. We certainly do not oppose the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, but much of the information it seeks is in the supporting documents that the Minister has provided. The key question that we want the Minister to answer is to assure us that this information will be put into regulations. If that is the Minister’s intention, it may not be necessary to put this provision into the Bill.
I do not know whether it is the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to speak to his amendment, but I shall say a brief word about it because he and I discussed it last week. I agree with him that there are too many instances where legislation is passed and commencement never seems to occur. I certainly sympathise with him on that point. However, I believe that the Government have made it clear that they want this option to be available from 2019, and in those circumstances I wonder whether that might well suffice.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s forbearance with my amendment. I have some slightly difficult personal circumstances which mean that I have not been able to prepare quite as well as I would like, and therefore I shall not speak to my Amendment 18.
If these two proposed new subsections to affect the main clauses in the Bill were part of the wider quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, would we look at them in such great detail? I think that if we are honest, we would say probably not. I can understand the thinking of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in recommending the affirmative procedure. The committee rightly recognises that your Lordships will want to look closely at the detail. However, as drafted I believe that even the most minor amendment in the future would have to be debated by both Houses, and I am not convinced that that would be a good use of parliamentary time. Worse still, a situation may arise where some minor change is desirable but the change is delayed, or even worse not made at all, because of the effort required. Noble Lords should be aware that putting an affirmative order through Parliament is not an exercise in rubber stamping; it is a complicated process. Would it not be better to use the affirmative procedure for the first set of regulations and then revert to the negative procedure for subsequent amendments? I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to consider that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 tabled in my name and to Amendment 6 which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. The amendments are similar. In contrast to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, we believe that it is important that Parliament should play its full role in legislation. If the Defence Council is to have new powers conferred on it, it would be appropriate to make an affirmative decision rather than use a negative instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, took the words out of my mouth. I was in this Room last week taking part in a debate about reporting on the process of Brexit. The issues being discussed included questions about the role that Parliament plays in that. The Henry VIII clauses which are in the EU withdrawal Bill cover a bigger set of issues, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has asked, “If these clauses were part of a bigger Bill, would we be bothered about them?”. Perhaps not, but that is not the point. At the moment there seems to be a tendency on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to say, “If the Government have an idea, it should be accepted without any amendment or scrutiny”. It is important that your Lordships’ House and Parliament as a whole play their part in scrutinising legislation, and it is right that this should be done through the affirmative procedure.
On reports, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us that there now is information; I am grateful to the Minister for ensuring over the summer that further information was provided regarding the sort of questions we were looking for. As my noble friend Lady Jolly said, Amendment 4 was a probing amendment, but obviously, the more information that can be given and made available to people and the more detail we have, the greater the opportunity for this to be successful.
Lord Touhig
Perhaps I may comment on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. His suggestion would not be the right way. He discussed it with me last week. The Bill substantially depends on regulations to bring in its measures, and how would one decide what we would bring in the first tranche and the second tranche, and so on? Therefore everything that relates to this matter should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the first amendment in this group, Amendment 4, seeks to place in the Bill information to define how flexible working should be implemented. I agree that it is important that we have clarity over exactly how the new flexible working opportunities will be administered. I reassure the Committee that the policies and processes that will support the changes brought by the Bill have been designed by the services for the services. We have done a great deal of work with the services to develop policies that work for them and their people, and we will continue to refine them in the lead-up to their introduction in 2019 and after to ensure that they are clear and fit for purpose. In doing so, we will continue to consult our people.
As noble Lords will recall, I outlined at Second Reading how we envisage the new flexible working arrangements will be administered following their introduction in 2019. In my subsequent written responses to Peers, I also promised that my officials would publish some additional information over the summer that would explain in more detail how the new arrangements would work in practice. I hope that noble Lords have received that information and found it helpful, and that it has answered the points raised in this proposed amendment.
It might just be helpful if for the record I went through some of the processes that we envisage. We have a position on how we intend that flexible working arrangements will operate in practice. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that at this stage the detail remains subject to adjustment as a result of the ongoing policy refinement with the services, further work in the light of surveys and other feedback and, indeed, the need to account for the views of Parliament. In summary, however, the policy is intended to operate as follows.
We believe that regular service personnel must have completed their basic and professional training and a period of further service, defined by their parent service, before they can normally undertake flexible working. A serviceperson wishing to apply to serve flexibly will apply through the joint personnel administration system through their commanding officer to an approvals authority at the headquarters of their service. No limit will be imposed on the number of occasions over a period that the serviceperson will be able to apply to serve flexibly, although they will be restricted to having only one live application at a time being processed by the administration system. However, there will be limits on individual periods of flexible working to help the services manage the applications and people’s expectations.
We intend to limit periods of flexible working to no more than three years at any one time or to the end of an assignment, whichever is sooner. Within this period we intend to enable people to reduce their liability to serve by up to 40%, such as two days in a five-day working week of their regular full-time service. Service personnel requesting limits to their routine unlimited liability for separation from their home base will still remain liable for a maximum of 35 days separation in any one year. This will enable them to continue to undertake essential courses or participate in smaller periods of exercises.
We also intend to restrict the total cumulative time that a serviceperson can serve on flexible working arrangements. This is to maintain the principle that regular service is a full-time and unlimited commitment, while also helping to share the opportunities for flexible working among the broadest range of personnel. Currently we are planning for the total period of all types of flexible working to be limited to four years in a 12-year rolling period. The exact approvals process is likely to vary slightly by service and we are still designing certain elements of it. Currently we plan that the approvals authority will take decisions after being informed by the chain of command, the employing organisation—for example, if the person is working with another service—career managers, manpower planners and other specialists as required.
The principal deciding factor when considering applications will be the ability to maintain operational capability. The individual merits of each application will be considered and will include factors such as the type of role the person is serving in, whether the person has been warned to prepare to deploy for operation and, if appropriate, the personal circumstances surrounding the application. If an application is refused, an individual can appeal against the decision, as I mentioned earlier.
Appeals will be considered by a separate appeals authority which will operate at the headquarters of each service. The exact make-up of that body has yet to be set. The appeals authority will make its decisions informed by information from the employer, the employing organisation, the chain of command, career managers, manpower planners and other specialists. Service personnel will of course have the right to escalate their appeal to a service complaint if they remain unhappy with the decision.
The services will retain the right to recall regular service personnel from flexible working arrangements to ensure that operational capability is maintained while providing as much certainty of the arrangement for the individual as possible. Such recall will be against prescribed criteria sanctioned by the headquarters approvals authority within each service. Personnel will be subject to two levels of recall. The first will be immediate recall in cases of national emergency, and the second is curtailment after 90 days’ notice. The latter would apply where there is a significant change in the circumstances used to judge and approve the original agreement.
We continue to work on the detail but envisage that a change in circumstances would include a change to the requirement for operational capability which is affected by overall manning levels of the service or trade or any specific skills held by the serviceperson during the period of flexible working. Should any of these change substantially, the service would be able to issue a 90-day notice to recall the serviceperson to full duties, either by suspending the flexible working arrangements for a defined period to allow them to be adopted again later for the remainder of the originally agreed period or by cancelling the flexible working arrangement outright. Where these circumstances occur, they would constitute a manning crisis as a result of severe manning constraints, manpower shortages on specific operational tasks or skills shortages. All approvals, refusals and amendments to agreements between a serviceperson and their service will be set out in writing to avoid any uncertainty and to provide an audit trail. The detail I have just outlined has been published on the GOV.UK website.
As we intend to continue to refine the parameters of exactly how this policy will operate within the services by learning from their experience of operating it after introduction, it would be unnecessarily constraining to have the parameters proposed in the amendment set in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made clear their view that this should all be in regulation, at least. The provisions that I have outlined will be set out in a mixture of regulation and policy statements, rather than exclusively in regulation.
The purpose of Amendments 6 and 18 is to require any new regulations made by the Defence Council of a kind to be introduced by Clause 1(2) of the Bill to come into force only following the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment 6 looks to achieve this by inserting into Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new subsection (4A). However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that due to the way in which the 2006 Act works, any amendments to the procedure would need to be by way of amendment to Section 373, as identified by the noble Baronesses in their Amendment 18.
Baroness Jolly
“( ) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Within three years of paragraphs (ha) to (j) of subsection (2) coming into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament evaluating the impact of those paragraphs on recruitment and retention of members of the armed forces.(5B) The report must include—(a) an assessment of recruitment and retention of technical specialists in the armed forces;(b) a comparison of recruitment and retention between Her Majesty’s naval, military and air forces; and(c) a comparison of retention between those serving on a full-time basis and those serving on a part-time basis.””
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this amendment is intended to look at the impact of the measures in the Bill on recruitment and retention, including on technical specialists across the forces. The amendment provides that, within three years of the new flexible working arrangements coming into effect, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament evaluating the impact of the arrangements on recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The report must include an assessment and comparison of the recruitment and retention of technical specialists in the three Armed Forces—the Royal Navy, the Army and the RAF—and those serving on a full-time and part-time basis. Our intention is that “technical specialists” in proposed subsection (5B)(a) should also include those working in areas where specialist training or qualifications are required and which are significantly understaffed at present.
We hope that the Government might look at including these factors in a wider report on recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces continuous attitude survey and families continuous attitude survey go some way towards this but do not dig deeply enough into why morale is low and people are leaving. The top reason for leaving cited in the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey is impact on family and personal life. That is a broad statement and it is difficult to see how the Armed Forces or the Government can take effective action to address the issue. It needs to be broken down into factors such as hours, time away, impact of frequent moves, problems with military accommodation, spousal employment and other covenant issues.
Another issue that needs to be looked at is the impact of welfare and community services on retention. “Patch life” provided by such things as SSAFA, with well-funded facilities, clubs and community services, is a large pro for members staying in the Armed Forces as a family. Anecdotally, concerns have been raised with us that the prospect of this life disappearing in the face of cuts and the FAM is turning into a reason for leaving rather than staying.
Amendment 15, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, seeks to find out how those who are working part time or restricted to a particular geographical location will be recorded in the PID or JPA. These exist only if the military has assessed that it needs the posts to carry out a capability. Therefore, any significant disparity between the number of posts and the target number of personnel in the military is statistical evidence that the Government are asking it to do more than it has the personnel to do, even if fully manned. There will also be more posts than personnel to allow for flex. However, we get the sense that the disparity is currently more than it has been historically, and more than it should be. In the context of this amendment, it is critical that part-time workers do not count as a full person in a post to avoid the disguise of manning shortfalls. What is the current number of PIDs/JPAs in the military? Can the Minister provide this figure broken down into the three forces? He might not be able to do that now but we would appreciate the figures as and when. I beg to move.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, Amendment 8 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly. This may be an appropriate moment to apologise to the Committee, rather than to the House, for my misuse of terminology. I also apologise to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I have not been here a long time and I find this issue a bit confusing. I ask for noble Lords’ patience.
This amendment provides that, three years after the new arrangements come in, the Secretary of State will lay annually thereafter a report before Parliament evaluating the impact of diversity within the Armed Forces. By “diversity” we mean all protected characteristics. Diversity is about not just gender and race. In fact, the Act covers age, disability, gender assignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion, belief and sexual orientation. Although we have to be pragmatic in what realistically can be set before the House in parliamentary reports, I am trying to get to the spirit of this issue. Unless and until the Armed Forces are truly diverse, they will not make the best decisions to achieve their optimal effectiveness. Until everyone feels included, we will not have the team cohesiveness that the forces so prize, and which is so important to operational functionality in times of danger and stress.
It is also important to report on these characteristics by rank. The Minister pointed out in his letter over the summer that as the services are “base-fed” organisations, some of the improvements will take time to feed through. That is all the more reason why we should measure this as time goes on because what you do not measure you cannot change. As I understand it, the Bill lacks any mechanism to track future progress or lack of it. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, Amendments 10 and 11 would introduce new clauses that cover the making of an annual report on the impact of part-time service and geographic restrictions, and on the Bill’s impact on recruitment and retention. These two amendments will enable the Government and Parliament to see what impact the Bill has on this very important question.
I am sure that I am not alone in believing that we need more post-legislative scrutiny. Time and again, Parliament—with the best of intentions—passes into law Acts that have unintended consequences and fail to meet their objectives. Greater post-legislative scrutiny will lead to better lawmaking. The same principle applies here. Having served for several years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I strongly believe in doing “lessons learned”. Time and again I sat through evidence sessions with the most senior civil servants, who had been made to appear before the committee to explain some major policy failure discovered by the National Audit Office. Indeed, when I served as a Minister—I am sure things have changed—I found an almost institutional objection to doing “lessons learned” among some of my officials. Our Amendment 10 is an important step in ensuring that the operation of this measure is kept under constant review and its impact reported to Parliament. It is as simple as that.
The second new clause, outlined in Amendment 11, goes to the heart of what is one of the key questions for this Bill in the first place: the impact that service life is having on service men and women and their families. The SDSR 2015 committed the Government to ensure that,
“a career in the Armed Forces can be balanced better with family life”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, rightly pointed out that the 2017 Armed Forces continuous attitude survey, which lists the top five reasons why personnel leave the services, revealed that the number one reason was the impact of service life on family and personal life. We need to know whether this Bill has a positive impact on the quality of life of our Armed Forces, hence the need for this amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in those halcyon days when I was an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I would have been proud to have tabled any of these amendments, something I did many times. I leave it to the Minister to say whether they are a good idea, but I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 15, which has not yet been spoken to, although it is in the grouping.
We need to know how many servicemen are taking advantage of these provisions, because otherwise the stats on the strength of the Armed Forces are to an extent meaningless. Perhaps the frequency of the report is too great but I would like some reassurance from the Minister that we will know, from time to time, how many members of the Armed Forces take up flexible working.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, I will also speak briefly to Amendment 15. Picking up on the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is hugely important that we have clarity on what percentage of our Armed Forces are working full-time and what percentage part-time. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, frequently asked whether this was a cost-saving measure. While we listened respectfully to the Minister and understand that it is not a cost-saving exercise, the question is whether, if a significant number of our Armed Forces are working on a part-time basis, there may be a cost saving, but equally a loss in capability. Having this basic information will be important in giving us a sense of whether we are up to full strength. If there were significant numbers of people working part-time, would there be a necessity to create new part-time or full-time posts equivalent to the time that they are not working—up to 40%?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the introduction of new flexible working measures is designed to attract, recruit and retain people from a more diverse cross-section of society who have the knowledge, skills and experience that we need to deliver operational capability.
Currently, service personnel who have dedicated themselves to public service sometimes struggle to meet their full military commitment—for example, due to a short-term change in personal or family circumstances—and the only option in such circumstances has been to leave the Armed Forces. This represents a loss to the individual and to defence. New flexible working options aim to address this so that in such situations personal circumstances are no longer a barrier to continuing service. We believe that these measures will benefit a small but significant cohort; for example, women and men starting a family, those with caring commitments or those who wish to undertake long-term studies. Moreover, our evidence derived from external reports, comparison with other nations, internal surveys, focus groups and our ongoing flexible duties trial shows that providing our people with modern choices will help us retain highly skilled personnel who might otherwise leave and join organisations which provide these choices. In short, through these new measures we are aiming to modernise the terms of service for the Armed Forces with a view to improving recruitment and retention into the future.
Many other external factors, such as the economic climate, have the strongest influence on recruitment and retention and are likely to mask the impact of these new flexible working arrangements in the short to medium term, and we have to bear that point in mind. Defence is experiencing many of the same skills and recruitment challenges that are being faced nationally. To meet those challenges are proactively as possible, we are modernising the employment offer for our Armed Forces, as I have described. These collectively are being managed under the Armed Forces people programme, which comprises projects including the new joiner offer and enterprise approach. The new joiner offer should support and improve retention by developing a new, more modern and more relevant offer for new joiners that better supports service personnel throughout their career. We also aim to improve retention by better management of critical skills across defence through the enterprise approach project. Changes to enable members of the Armed Forces to work more flexibly originate from the flexible engagement systems project, which forms a further part of the people programme.
These amendments seek to place various obligations on defence to publish reports on the effects of flexible working on the Armed Forces. I am sure the Committee is aware that intake, outflow and strength by rank, trade and specialisation are monitored and managed on a regular basis at service level and centrally by the MoD. The MoD already publishes detailed information and analysis in the UK Armed Forces Monthly Service Personnel Statistics. This publication provides statistics on the number of service personnel by strength, intake and outflow in the UK Armed Forces, and detail is provided for both the full-time Armed Forces and reserves. We carefully monitor information on trade, specialisation and sub-specialisation by rank and service, and routinely release on a regular basis, as part of official statistics publications, a wide range of information on outflow from the UK Armed Forces.
We also publish comprehensive data in the UK Armed Forces Biannual Diversity Statistics. This statistical release presents information relating to the gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and age of personnel employed by the MoD and meets the department’s obligations under the public sector equality duty to provide information on its workforce in relation to the protected characteristics identified by the Equality Act 2010. Information on numbers of personnel undertaking and returning from maternity and shared parental leave is also provided as part of this publication.
It is important to highlight the evidence from trials and surveys commissioned by the Armed Forces, which indicates that take-up for options that enable service personnel to work more flexibly is likely to be low in the early years of implementation. Furthermore, while the MoD promotes the importance of the Armed Forces being appropriately representative of the diverse society they exist to defend, with operational effectiveness being dependent on inclusion and fairness, we estimate that the overall numbers taking up the new opportunities will be small to begin with. Therefore, assessing any correlative impact that flexible working has on increasing diversity in the Armed Forces is likely to be difficult, particularly in the early stages. This will mean that any detailed evaluation of the impact of flexible working measures on overall recruitment and retention rates, skills retention and outflow, and diversity in the Armed Forces will be difficult to achieve in the early years of operation.
The recording requirements for any pattern of work for our Armed Forces are stipulated in policies and recorded on the joint personnel administration system—JPA. JPA is already used to process applications for existing flexible working options. There is planning in place to enable all instances of part-time working or geographical restriction by personnel to be recorded on JPA when these options are made available. It will be crucial to ensure that all cases of flexible working are properly recorded and monitored to provide personnel and commanding officers with a record of all discussions and agreements. However, since it is estimated that the number of applications is likely to be low in the early stages, collating and reporting information on a monthly basis to provide figures on the number of personnel undertaking flexible working as a proportion of the total of full-time serving members of the Regular Forces would not provide significant or beneficial data.
It is important to emphasise again that the new arrangements are aimed at improving recruitment and retention in the long term, as part of a series of projects being delivered through the Armed Forces people programme. The long-term effects of these collective initiatives should be the measure of how effective the new arrangements are, rather than short-term reporting and figures on take-up.
We judge that formal annual reporting for a small cohort would not add value or provide a real sense of the impact of introducing these new opportunities. However, my department recognises the importance of keeping the delivery and effect of these changes under continuous review, in terms of both the benefits to personnel and the impact on operational capability. We will closely monitor the rates of uptake for new flexible working options by service, rank and specialism and will carefully examine any long-term trends and links to overall retention rates and diversity.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State is required to lay an annual report before Parliament each year outlining the Government’s progress in delivering the Armed Forces covenant. The introduction of the new flexible working opportunities falls within the scope of the covenant and we envisage that the introduction of these measures in 2019 will be monitored during the first year of implementation and will be reported on in the covenant annual report and yearly thereafter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked about FAMCAS and AFCAS and drilled down with some further questions. I will write to her on the questions that she asked. I will need to consult the department to understand what further information it would be possible or practical to provide her with, but what information we do have I will be happy to give her. She also asked how flexible working could be introduced within a fixed headcount. The simple answer is that we will manage the levels of flexible working permitted and therefore will be able to ensure that the right levels are maintained to deliver defence outputs. It is envisaged that capacity surrendered to flexible working arrangements will either be within reducible capacity or can otherwise be resourced through other means such as the employment of reserves. Like other organisations with part-time workers, the organisation will change over time to better accommodate flexible working.
I do not believe that it is necessary for the Bill to be amended in this way. I understand that these are largely probing amendments and I hope that the explanations and information I have given to the Committee will be helpful to noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Touhig
“Protection of pay and allowances
(1) Nothing in this Act shall lead to the full-time equivalent level of remuneration provided to persons serving with a regular force being reduced.(2) In this section, “remuneration” means—(a) basic pay;(b) the x-factor allowance; and(c) any other universal payments,provided to persons serving with a regular force.”
Lord Touhig
My Lords, at Second Reading there was much discussion of the potential consequences of the Bill on pay and benefits received by our Armed Forces. On this side we agree that it is perfectly reasonable that if somebody decides to scale down the time commitment of their job there should be an appropriate adjustment to pay and there will be consequences for pensions, but I describe that as part-time working, not flexible working. Indeed, I believe the Government also understand that and maybe agree with it. Throughout the Bill the proposed new working arrangement is referred to as part-time working. The only reference to flexible work is in the short title. However, the Minister will have heard concerns from all sides that this change could represent an attempt at cost saving or a slippery slope to forced part-time work.
In meetings the Minister has assured us that there will be no compulsion and no one will be forced into part-time or flexible working. I am certain that that is welcomed on all sides, but in our discussions the Minister explained that there was already in existence a system of flexible working which did not involve service personnel taking a pay cut. I may have misunderstood, but I understood that to be the case. I have a number of questions to ask about that existing scheme, such as how widespread is it? Is it some form of informal arrangement, varying from place to place and dependent on local interpretation, or is it codified in some way? Is the existence of such a scheme publicised in the forces?
A number of these questions have been answered in the very useful papers that the Minister has provided to us, which leads me to ask whether it is intended that this flexible working arrangement will be operated alongside the part-time working arrangement outlined by the Bill. In the case of someone who needed to take half a day every Friday for, say, the next 10 weeks to accompany a wife or partner to hospital, could this not be done under a flexible working arrangement whereby that person would make up the hours and not suffer a loss of pay? Another person may decide that he or she wants to commit to fewer hours and work part-time. That would obviously have an impact on pay and pensions.
A life in the Armed Forces can be incredibly rewarding in many ways, but it is rarely highly lucrative. The very existence of the x-factor payment demonstrates that being in the forces is not like any other job. Our amendment on pay and allowances would protect the full-time equivalent base level of pay, the x-factor payment and any other universal payment or allowances provided to personnel serving in any of the regular forces. It would not preclude people from working part-time but would prevent the option of working part-time or subject to geographical restriction—which the Minister acknowledges is envisaged for only a small number of people—being used as justification to reduce remuneration overall.
A recent document provided by the Bill team states that,
“personnel who remain working on a full-time commitment will not see a reduction to their basic pay, x-factor payment, and any other universal payments”.
I therefore hope the Minister will accept our amendment so that this information is available for all to see. In the same document it is stated that the Government are,
“engaged with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body to help determine what a fair and appropriate reduction”,
of the x-factor payment would be for those who have limits placed on them at their level of separation. There is also discussion on the need to inform how the Armed Forces Pension Scheme will operate after the passage of the Bill. I hope we will hear more from the Minister about these points.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for tabling her amendment on access to accommodation. We have received assurances from the Minister and his officials that those affected by the Bill will not see any change in their entitlement to service accommodation. If this is the case, surely the Minister will agree to put these assurances in the Bill.
Amendment 16 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, is also important. As with the issues of accommodation, we are simply asking that the assurances we have already received are added to the Bill. Similarly, Amendment 17 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is also invaluable. Some important points have been made and it may be that the Minister is not able to respond positively today. However, we shall certainly be looking for much more when we come to the Report stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13 on accommodation. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, mentioned, this is an important issue. We have had some indications that those service men and women who avail themselves of flexible working will not be adversely affected, but there is already pressure on service accommodation, in particular a lack of single living accommodation. Moreover, we are looking at new accommodation through the future accommodation model. The question I have for the Minister is this: to what extent has planning been made to ensure that there will be sufficient accommodation for part-time service men and women? If the overall number of personnel remains unchanged, clearly the pressures will not change from what they are now. However, if there is a need for more personnel because some people are working part-time, has consideration been given to providing additional accommodation to ensure that those who work part-time will have the access to service accommodation that they have been promised?
If it is the case that there are more personnel in total because some people are working part-time, that would suggest the need for additional service accommodation. Not only would this not be a saving, there could potentially be a cost in this. Is the Ministry of Defence willing to consider additional accommodation being made available and meeting the costs that that might entail? If not, how does it envisage squaring the circle?
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 16 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly. Before doing so, however, I want to make a comment about Amendment 9 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. It seeks to protect the full-time equivalent level of remuneration for regulars. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there are components to this such as universal payments, basic pay and the x-factor, which until recently I thought was something else entirely, but I shall not go into that. The idea is to protect against any reduction in pay being slipped in for individuals who will be affected by this Bill. But since we are not changing the classification of a regular, these components will not change, including the 14% which is the current x-factor payment. It will remain throughout the term of an individual’s employment. My view is that this should be a matter for concern and we would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that that indeed will be the case.
I turn to Amendment 16, which ensures that a person can be promoted regardless of whether they work part-time. We would welcome a reassurance from the Minister that the new arrangements will not affect someone’s career progression. The situation is complicated and not necessarily what people outside the Armed Forces might imagine. As I understand it, the current performance appraisal, postings and promotion system is not based primarily on competence. It relies heavily on direct comparisons being made with immediate peers in a unit. A tick-box system is used whereby someone has to have done certain jobs in order to get the next job. In that way, an individual can score enough to go before a promotion board. Under the current system, anyone working part-time will inevitably be penalised, particularly if they are on geographical restriction as one. They are unlikely to do all the posts they need to do to remain in the promotion thread, and they may not score as well in direct comparison with peers. If the Government accept the premise that promotion should not be affected by using the flexible employment scheme, does the Minister also accept that the appraisals-posting promotion structure really could do with a massive overhaul?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I share some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and I hope that the Minister can reiterate the assurances he has given us in private that there would never be any encouragement of a serviceperson to seek part-time work in order to meet budgetary restrictions. If you have a branch and a headquarters, it would be quite easy to meet a cost-saving requirement just by having everybody take up part-time working. That would be an easy reassurance for my noble friend to give and I hope that he will do so. Can my noble friend also give an absolute reassurance that part-time working would not be used as part of the disciplinary machinery? In other words, if someone has fouled up, they are told that they will do six months of part-time service.
An interesting question for the Minister is this: when the pay of a serviceperson who has taken up part-time working is reduced, is it reduced on the basis of a seven-day week—a 365-day year—or on the basis of a five day week? Most people in camp normally work a five-day week unless they are on exercises or deployed. This is quite an interesting question because reservists are paid only for the days they do. The answer to my question about that will be rather more complicated than it first appears.
Amendment 16 concerns promotion and would ensure that part-time service in itself will not affect promotion. I hope that the Minister can give us a reassurance on that. The drafting of the amendment is a little bit problematic because it says “irrelevant”. It will be relevant, but it might be positive. For instance, the soldiers’ or officers’ joint appraisal report—the pen picture that describes how well or badly the serviceperson has done—might say, “Despite the fact that this soldier or this officer is working only four days a week, they have achieved all the objectives required”, or maybe even more than was expected. So you could acquire quite a good SJAR or OJAR despite the fact that you are working part-time. It is a rather complicated picture, but I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurances.
Earl Howe
My Lords, approval of the Bill will afford regular service personnel the right to apply to vary their commitment temporarily. The new arrangements will not be mandated for service personnel. I can reassure my noble friend in particular on that point. Those who wish to continue serving on a full-time commitment will be free to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that regular service personnel will not see a reduction in their basic pay, x-factor payment or any other universal payments provided for regular service personnel as a result of the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it is fair and appropriate that in the future, those regular service personnel who elect to vary their commitment should see a commensurate variation in the reward they receive. We have worked closely with the services to ensure that this variation will be above all else fair and reasonable both to those who work under the new enhanced flexible arrangements and to those who do not.
As noble Lords will recall, I made this point during Second Reading. I can also now say categorically that those who remain working on a full-time commitment will not as a result of the Bill see a reduction in their basic pay, x-factor payment or any other universal payments provided for regular service personnel. Furthermore, let me reassure the Committee that the introduction of part-time working will not be used to lower the full-time equivalent basic rate of pay, the X-factor allowance or any other universal allowances payments available to personnel.
During the Bill’s Second Reading, I provided reassurances that regular service personnel undertaking part-time working would retain those entitlements available to full-time regulars. Service accommodation in particular is an important provision for many personnel and their families that helps enable their mobility in support of defence capability. It is an important part of the offer for our people and an entitlement that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, seeks through her amendment to ensure will still apply to personnel who successfully apply to work part time. To support my earlier reassurance, I can also confirm that our current policy makes provision for all regular service personnel to have an entitlement to service accommodation commensurate with their personal status category and other qualifying criteria. Service personnel will retain an enduring liability for mobility when working part time because they will still be subject to the same moves associated with new assignments as others in the regular Armed Forces. Therefore, they will remain entitled to service accommodation as under our existing policy and there is no need to alter the entitlement to accommodation for those who undertake part-time working; they will continue to be able to access service accommodation under the same criteria as full-time regulars.
I spoke earlier of the future accommodation model project that is due to be introduced in 2019 as part of the defence people programme. That project aims to create a more fair, affordable and flexible model for providing accommodation for our people while giving them more choice about where, how and with whom they live. It will also provide a subsidy to help more personnel live in private accommodation, including by helping to meet their aspirations for home ownership. Eligibility under the future accommodation model will not be altered for those personnel who work part time or subject to geographical restriction for a period. The noble Baroness raised the question of accommodation pressures as part-time working is rolled out. My answer to her at present is that given the anticipated low take-up, we do not expect additional pressures on housing to any significant degree.
Similarly for service personnel who opt to leave the Armed Forces, access to resettlement and employment support for up to two years prior to their discharge date and for two years afterwards will remain an entitlement for those who undertake part-time working. We want to ensure that our people transition successfully from an Armed Forces career where they receive world-class training to a civilian one where they can add real value to society because we have good quality people with developed skills who can really benefit external organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has sought to amend the Bill to protect the entitlement to resettlement under the new measures, and I can confirm that there will be no difference in resettlement entitlement for full-time service personnel and those regular personnel who work part time and/or restrict the amount of time that they are separated from their home base. The entitlement to resettlement is currently based on the number of years of service between the date of enlistment and the date of discharge. This will not change for those who take the opportunity to work flexibly on the introduction of the new flexible working opportunities. I can also confirm that there are no plans proportionally to calculate resettlement entitlement for personnel who undertake flexible working based on their actual number of days of work. Our resettlement policy guidance will be updated on the introduction of the new flexible working arrangements to state that resettlement support will remain the same for those who take advantage of them so that applicants are fully aware of their continuing entitlement.
It will be difficult to assess what impact the new flexible working arrangements might have on resettlement services in light of the fact that entitlements will not alter. Additionally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, will recall, I said at Second Reading that we expect a small yet significant number of personnel to undertake flexible working. For these reasons the impact on resettlement entitlements is likely be minimal and challenging to measure.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, the Minister has given his usual very full response. I need to reflect on it, because I keep coming back to the points made in our first debate by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. There is a question of definition and terminology: the Minister has constantly referred to “flexible” working but the Bill keeps referring to “part-time” working. It mentions flexible working only in the short title. I need to look carefully at his remarks on the Bill in Hansard tomorrow to make sure that he is talking about part-time working, not flexible working, because that was one of the key points I was trying to draw out. He said that the existing flexible working scheme is codified. I would be grateful to receive a copy of that. My earlier point was that people working in that flexible environment should not be penalised in any way by having their pay cut. That is a key point we need to look at before Report.
We have had a very useful and interesting debate, but it certainly underpins the need for clear definitions and terminology. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Touhig
“Implications for the Armed Forces Covenant
(1) Within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before both Houses of Parliament outlining the implications of this Act for the Armed Forces Covenant.(2) In preparing the statement, the Secretary of State must determine whether the Armed Forces Covenant, or any of its supporting documentation, requires revision in order to reflect the measures provided for in this Act.(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant annual report considers the contribution of this Act to meeting the goals of the Armed Forces Covenant.”
Lord Touhig
My Lords,
“The need for an Armed Forces Covenant is ever more relevant today”.
Those are the words of the very first sentence that the Defence Secretary wrote in the foreword to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2016. For once I find myself in complete agreement with Sir Michael Fallon—
Lord Touhig
I will not get carried away. The publication of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report has become a well-established practice, and the Government should be congratulated on that. Because of that, we on this side were motivated to table Amendment 12.
The Bill is a small but by no means insignificant measure, and when enacted its impact should be measured to see what implications it has for the covenant. Subsection 2 of the amendment requires that,
“the Secretary of State must determine whether the Armed Forces Covenant, or any of its supporting documentation, requires revision in order to reflect the measures provided for in this Act”.
By including the requirement set out in subsection 3 of the amendment, we are deliberately linking the impact of this Bill on the lives of service men and women to the covenant. By explicitly linking the Bill to the covenant, we are giving the external members of the covenant reference group an opportunity to consider and comment on the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
The external members of the covenant reference group make a major contribution to monitoring the life and well-being of our Armed Forces, their families and all that affects their lives. This Bill should be no exception, so I heartily welcome the comments made by the Minister in a debate earlier this afternoon which made clear that the Government will ensure that the operation of this legislation will be reflected in a report on the covenant. That will give the external members of the covenant reference group a chance to comment on it. That is progress, and I look forward to that being enacted. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has explained, this amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament, within six months of this Bill coming into force, outlining the implications of this Bill, once enacted, for the Armed Forces covenant. This amendment would also require the Defence Secretary to consider whether the Armed Forces covenant, or any of its supporting documentation, requires revision to reflect the measures in the Bill. Finally, it seeks to commit the Defence Secretary to ensure that the annual report on the covenant reflects the contribution of this Bill to meeting Armed Forces covenant goals.
I share the view of the noble Lord about the importance of measuring and reporting on the impact of the changes that will be introduced through this Bill. I want to ensure that it is done in the most appropriate and effective way for both the MoD and Parliament. As I mentioned at Second Reading, and several times today, we expect a small but significant number of our people to take up the new opportunities introduced by the Bill.
For this reason and, I submit, the disproportionate administrative burden we believe it would create, we judge that there would be little value to be gained from producing a statement only six months after the Act has come into force. The long-term aim of providing these new arrangements, alongside a range of other measures in the MoD, is to modernise the terms of service and ultimately improve Armed Forces recruitment and retention, which I am sure all noble Lords would welcome.
In addition to this, evidence from our ongoing flexible duties trial suggests that in particular those with families have benefited from the greater stability that comes from having more choice over how they serve. This latter prospect has been welcomed by the services’ families’ federations, which view this as an important part of the drive for a better work/life balance among service families. It is these specific areas that I have just mentioned rather than the concept of the Armed Forces covenant itself that will feel the direct impact following the introduction of the new flexible working arrangements. We therefore do not anticipate that there will be any need to revise the wording of the covenant or its supporting documentation. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State is already required to lay an annual report before Parliament each year outlining the Government’s progress in delivering the Armed Forces covenant and, as I mentioned earlier, it is likely that a future report will include a section on the introduction of the measures included in this Bill and their effect. That would be entirely appropriate. For this reason, and the others I have already outlined, it seems unnecessary to legislate that the Secretary of State should report separately on the introduction of the new measures that the Bill will introduce. I do not therefore believe it is necessary for the Bill to be amended as suggested by the noble Lord. Following these assurances, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th October 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 73KB) - (9 Oct 2017)
17:05 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 56 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
Lord Touhig
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 10 will, if agreed, mean that regulations made necessary by the passing of this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. It was a point well debated in Committee, and I do not need to rehearse those arguments again at length. It is worth pointing out, however, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following its consideration of the Bill, stated:
“The Bill will confer novel and broad powers on the Defence Council to make provision for part-time service … These powers are conferred without any detailed provisions on the face of the Bill limiting or restricting how the powers are exercised. In the circumstances we consider that the affirmative procedure should apply, and that this is so despite the fact regulations under section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 are generally subject to the negative procedure”.
I believe that there is agreement across the House that the Government should heed the committee’s recommendation. I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage in discussions, both in Committee and outside, on this matter and for his undertaking that the Government are listening to the comments that are being made.
This Bill introduces provisions enabling the Defence Council to make regulations regarding part-time working and the new forms of geographically restricted service. The Defence Council will also be able to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which agreements can be varied, suspended or terminated. The provision in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that governs the parliamentary procedure to which regulations are subject is Section 373. At present, any regulations made under Section 329 are subject to the negative procedure. However, our amendments will ensure that any regulations made under the new sections to be inserted by this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Section 373(3) sets out which regulations made under the 2006 Act are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the amendment inserts reference to regulations under the Bill into that list. The amendments also amend the wording of Clause 3(6) of the Bill to reflect the fact that Clause 1 now amends two sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and not just one. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments, particularly to Amendment 8 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly. My comments will be very much in line with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. In Committee, the Minister said:
“I am not in a position today to give any undertakings on the substance of this issue, but I undertake to reflect further on the matter in a constructive way ahead of Report”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 85]
If constructive reflection has occurred, it has not been visible in the form of any government amendment. Could the Minister explain to the House why no government amendment has been forthcoming and, in the absence of that, why noble Lords should not accept either the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, or that of my noble friend Lady Jolly?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, to answer the noble Baroness, I suspect we are going to find out very shortly.
An essential characteristic of any good parliamentarian is curiosity, so I can understand why many noble Lords would like to debate the first relevant new Defence Council Instructions before they are implemented. However, in the future it may become apparent that it would be appropriate to make a slight amendment to the regulations concerning flexible working in order to make them work better, be fairer to service personnel or for some other desirable reason. Unfortunately, no such amendment is likely to be made unless it is absolutely essential. The reason is that, thanks to these amendments, an affirmative order will be needed and the MoD will simply not bother with it—it is just too much trouble, unless it is absolutely essential.
Why, then, is my noble friend likely to acquiesce to these amendments? The answer is that he will have told his officials that they have only one shot and they must get the regulations right first time. In short, my noble friend probably thinks that no amendments to the regulations will be needed for a long time, so it does not really matter. Unfortunately, these amendments would make the parliamentary scrutiny of Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act entirely inconsistent, as recognised by your Lordships’ DPRRC’s first report. The fact that a power is novel—in other words, innovative and broad—does not necessarily mean that it should attract the affirmative procedure; what really matters is if there was likely to be any difficulty with it.
The Bill and the subsequent regulations under Section 329 provide flexibility for service personnel, and that can only be positive for them as it will enable certain of them to continue to serve when otherwise they would have to consider leaving the services. However, any of these regulations under the Bill will attract the affirmative procedure.
Contrast the flexible working provisions that we are talking about with, for instance, Section 329(2)(d), which I suspect enables Defence Council regulations to impose golden handcuffs on a service person in exchange for attending a desirable course. For instance, if a soldier has completed his minimum term of service, he or she might want to be considered for training as a helicopter pilot. Quite understandably, the MoD would want to prevent that new pilot from leaving for civvy street immediately after qualification—hence the need for the golden handcuffs. But what if the MoD is experiencing a shortage of helicopter pilots? As far as I can see, the Defence Council could retrospectively increase the period for the golden handcuffs. However, these regulations, which could be very tough, are made under the negative procedure.
If we accept these amendments—as I expect we will—not only will we make the parliamentary scrutiny of Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act entirely inconsistent but we will be getting ourselves deep into the weeds. Apparently, the MoD is considering whether two landing platform docks should be taken out of service, while your Lordships want to look at the minutiae of flexible working for a few service personnel. If we can trust Ministers and the Defence Council to make really difficult strategic or operational decisions, sometimes on a very short timescale, I think that we can safely allow them to amend the original flexible working regulations on their own.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I said in Committee that the Government would reflect further on the recommendation from your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That committee’s recommendation is to the same effect as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and indeed the proposed amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Jolly.
I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their thoughtful contributions to this Bill. I recognise the hesitations of my noble friend Lord Attlee around the affirmative procedure in this context, but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee rightly highlighted to the House that some of the new Defence Council regulations to be made under this Bill will go beyond matters of pure procedure. We have considered the committee’s recommendation and its reasons for making it, and we have decided on balance that it is right to accept it. I acknowledge the strength of feeling in this House to ensure appropriate scrutiny of those forthcoming regulations.
While the intended effect of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and that of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is exactly the same, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not be unduly disappointed if on this occasion I agree to accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, to the Bill, which I am pleased to do.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, this has been a very brief but successful debate all round, I think. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for having shared his views with me on a number of occasions. I understand his concerns. I have been in this House just seven years, but one of the striking contrasts I have found with the other place is our total and utter commitment to scrutinise and hold government to account, whether it is on large issues about platforms or issues that the noble Earl may consider to be of a much lesser degree of importance. We will want to continue that. I am grateful for the support, and I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who chaired the committee that brought forward the recommendation to which the Government have certainly listened. She has done a tremendous job, and we all wish her well and hope that she is back soon.
Lord Craig of Radley
“(ha) enabling a person serving with a regular force to take breaks from full-time service subject to prescribed conditions;”, and”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 3 stands in my name and those of my noble and gallant friends Lord Boyce and Lord Walker. At Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister explained that the Armed Forces have been losing—or may lose—individuals of experience with good professional and personal qualities because they face unmanageable conflict between the 24/7/52 commitment to their service and the personal, private demands of a temporary nature in their daily lives. Faced with these difficulties, the individual may, albeit reluctantly, resign and leave their service. Training a replacement—let alone developing experience and expertise in the new recruit—is costly and takes time. So long as operational capability is maintained to provide opportunities for an individual to take breaks in their service, this could be described as “win-win”: the individual is more able to manage pressing private commitments; their valued personal and professional qualities and expertise are not permanently lost to their service; the cost of training a new replacement is avoided; and the pay foregone while individuals are away on their break benefits the defence budget.
The proposals have the backing of today’s senior leadership in the forces. We accept that—it is win-win. Our objection is to describing this novel type of flexible working—and amending the Armed Forces Act 2006—using the term,
“serve … on a part-time basis”.
It can rightly be argued that “part-time” is a useful and honourable form of employment in civilian occupations. But this phrase, and the unavoidable and inevitable categorisation and labelling of service individuals as “part-timers”—as used in civilian settings of weekly hours’ work—is inimical to the concept and ethos of military service.
Everyone who is on full-time service serves the Crown 24/7/52—they are not employees. Surely it is wrong to place individuals who are prized for these qualities, and whom their service wishes to retain, at risk because of the use of this phrase of being classified by some colleagues as lacking full commitment to their service. Moreover, might it not encourage some of these individuals and others to believe that their service is content for them to engage in part-time work in civilian employment as well, knowing that they are protected from any recall apart from a national emergency? Is this what the Minister and the MoD expect and accept? If not, how should we avoid it as an outcome of this approach?
Following Committee, the Minister readily agreed to set up a meeting which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and I had sought with the Bill team. But there was no meeting of minds. The Minister’s subsequent follow-up letter to me on 29 September—copied to others and put in the Library—said that the phrase “part-time” had been used in previous Armed Forces Acts, so seeking to reassure that the use of the phrase was not unprecedented. He also said that the House could not amend the Long Title, which contains the term “part-time”. Although given in good faith, this weak defence of the use of “part-time” proved to be misleading and inaccurate. When I checked, I could not find the term “part-time” in the Armed Forces Act 2006, or in any of the previous three single-service Acts—apart from one reference. That reference—in the Army Act 1955—is to a definition of “part-time” contained in the National Service Act 1948.
The 1948 definition referred to a serviceman’s seven-year commitment to be a member of a reserve force following immediately after his full-time national service. This was described as “part-time service”—“full-time service” being national service. Incidentally, this section specifically excluded these national servicemen from the provision in that section of the Army Act 1955. This now historic example bears absolutely no relation to the current use of the phrase. Maybe this is not the only previous use of “part-time” in Armed Forces legislation. However, lacking any formal legal definition, and given the changing uses of the words “part-time” over the years, surely it is wrong to use such a phrase to amend primary legislation in what appears—certainly to me—to be a sloppy and questionable way.
The Minister stated as an example of this flexible scheme that the individual might take one or two days a week away from their service duties. But might it be that more days off in a week, but not every week, would better suit the individual’s circumstances while still being acceptable to their service authorities? This amendment therefore concentrates on the idea of taking breaks from full-time service rather than on working weekly on a part-time basis. Surely it would be better, as this amendment proposes, for both the individual and their service to enable breaks from full-time service rather than to serve on a part-time basis. Eligibility, application and other rules and regulations could be set out as already proposed, and conditions prescribed in subordinate legislation.
This approach is positive. It concentrates on what the individual is seeking rather than on the undefined implications of the words “part-time”. These individuals are so valued by their service that they are being singled out to receive special treatment and dispensation from the full-time service obligation of their contemporaries. Our amendment avoids any danger of labelling these prized individuals as statutory part-timers, which might expose them and their service to inappropriate and demoralising treatment by some colleagues or by those who might seek to disparage the good name and full commitment of the Armed Forces. Of course, it can be argued that this should not happen. However, the issue surely is not whether it does but that the risk that it might is not run.
On the issue of the Long Title in Amendment 11, which is in this group, we have taken advice from the clerks. The Companion guidance is that a Long Title may be amended if the content of the Bill is changed during its passage. This verges on simple common sense. For completeness, we have tabled Amendment 11, but its consideration of course will follow only from Amendment 3.
We hope that what I am afraid is the obdurate resistance to the advice and recommendations expressed at Second Reading and in Committee by some experienced individuals will be reconsidered and that the Minister will agree to further discussion on a better-expressed approach and statutory wording to enable the introduction of a worthwhile flexible concept. I beg to move.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig.
I remain to be convinced of the necessity of the Bill, as the Armed Forces are already empowered to allow flexible working. Some might argue that the Bill will allow the Armed Forces to be brought in step with modern working practices, which will be an important improvement to quality of life and hopefully will improve retention. Retention would be markedly improved if the men and women of our services were not profoundly depressed by a defence budget that is totally inadequate to meet the aspirations of SDR 2015, and when our service men and women are seeing major savings measures being contemplated that will impose major savage surgery on present and future equipment capability, and which have already dramatically curtailed training overseas—which, apart from causing us to become an embarrassment in the eyes of our allies, will have a concomitant downward effect on operational capability and morale. This is all on top of the fact that our service men and women are suffering from a number of deeply hurtful efficiency measures in train that are making their quality of life woeful.
Aside from that, I do not envisage that the Bill can be stopped. But if it is to go through, a key to its subsequent success from an Armed Forces perspective would be its attractiveness to the limited number of those—certainly very limited in the case of the Royal Navy—who would be allowed to take time away from their duties.
There is no way that labelling this “part-time” will be remotely attractive. It may be that such an expression is viewed with equanimity, if not honour, in civilian life, but I am astonished that there are those in this House who consider that being in civilian life is the same as serving in the Armed Forces. In the Armed Forces this will be viewed as an unpleasant epithet and will be used as such by the media and others ill-disposed towards us who desire to be insulting. When our allies, especially the United States, which is already deeply concerned about our potential capability cuts, hear that we are to have a part-time Army, Navy and Air Force—which is how it will be characterised—they will think we have lost the plot.
Apart from that, part-time in civilian life does not require a person to be instantly recallable at any time of the day or night, weekday or weekend. Some may think that this provision in the Bill is unlikely to be realised—but what happens if a strategic submarine cannot sail because of a lack of a nuclear propulsion watchkeeper? That is a national emergency.
In other words, to characterise these arrangements as “part-time working” as seen through civilian eyes is to obscure the fact that this will be a temporary arrangement between a service person and their chain of command which can be ended at the wish of either party with notice or terminated without notice in the event of emerging operational imperatives—for example, my nuclear operator analogy.
Also, there are policy limits on how long and on how many occasions through a career a service person may apply to serve under reduced-commitment terms and there will be practical limitations on who may be considered eligible for such arrangements, and when. As I have already said, there will be many limitations in the case of the Navy.
Given these circumstances, resorting to language where one will be called a part-time sailor, soldier or airman will be deemed among those who matter—and I have spoken to a lot of service men and women, rank and file, in the past few weeks—derogatory and belittling of their contribution. The expression is flawed in definitional terms.
Thus, my contention is that this expression—“part-time”—will do nothing to enhance the attractiveness of this sort of flexible working, which has its advantages, as my noble and gallant friend pointed out. In fact it will do quite the opposite. It will be retention negative and will add to the challenges facing the chain of command, who are charged with overseeing a shift in the culture underpinning working patterns on which the success of this initiative rests.
I totally endorse the amendment, and particularly my noble and gallant friend’s words in it, which are a far better definition for people wanting to take breaks.
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment as well. Life in the military world is divided into two distinct types. The first is when folk are deployed on operations, normally in some far-flung place. Working days are often 18 to 20 hours long, sometimes longer. There are no weekends, no bank holidays, no serious recreational time and very little time for individuals to have to themselves. Focus is on the job in hand, you have to be ready to react at a moment’s notice, and the pressure is on you 24 hours a day. There is no way that could be described as part-time and no way that people could be part-timers in that sort of scene.
The second type is what one might call the routine, more normal life in barracks. This is all about training, career development, ceremonial, military aid to the civil power and similar activities, as well as getting a better work-life balance for service folk with their families. This is much more the sort of life that other professions might recognise. In this style of life, breaks from service are entirely possible, entirely sensible and entirely warranted, and, as we have already heard, it happens on the ground as we speak. But, again, “part-time” is not the right way to describe such breaks.
The very word “part-time” implies a long-term arrangement and, for the Regular Forces, carries a stigma that damages the self-esteem of the individual, makes others question an individual’s commitment and, indeed, damages the self-esteem of the institutions that are the services themselves. Moreover, the word “part-time” could be lighted upon and magnified by the media to further exacerbate a notion that we were indeed a part-time set of forces—to the very dismay of our services and particularly our personnel. If they were so to do, we would have only ourselves to blame by enshrining these words in law. Therefore, I very much support the amendment and hope that it will be accepted.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the case presented by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for changing the words of the provision. I agreed with everything that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, said, apart from his remarks about the merits of the amendment. I particularly agreed with his comments about morale and funding the Armed Forces.
My first thought is that, if we were in a situation where the Armed Forces were fully funded and recruited, we would probably not be going down this route. However, our current situation gives us the opportunity to give defence HR a good wire-brushing. I strongly agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, that service life is not employment or a job; for me, it is, or was, Her Majesty’s service, which is very different.
If I were the Minister faced with this problem—or, rather, opportunity—my first thought would be to encourage service people who would like some flexibility or stability to go on to the reserve and then make an additional duties commitment. There would have to be some pension considerations and some certainty that the service personnel could get back into regular service, but I do not think that would require primary legislation. During the briefing sessions that the Minister organised, we asked about that, but apparently the Bill route is the optimal solution. Given the well-known difficulties with primary legislation, which we are experiencing now, we can be reasonably confident that this is the best course of action.
The noble and gallant Lord made a very good point about the possible public and service perceptions of part-time Regular Forces. Unfortunately, nothing we can do will stop the media running a story from a negative position. The noble and gallant Lord will also know that it is very hard to get the media to run any good defence news story. If they want to run this particular development negatively, nothing in the drafting of the Bill will prevent that.
I was in a similar position to the Minister when the Opposition Front Bench favoured slightly different drafting for a particular clause in a Bill that I was handling. However, I was in the fortunate position that my officials were able to advise me that I could accept the revised drafting if I wanted to, and of course I did. My noble friend is a much more experienced and, most importantly, much more senior Minister than I was. However, my suspicion is that he is simply unable to change the drafting for legal reasons.
When the noble and gallant Lord comes to decide what to do with his amendment, I think he will be wise to exercise caution. First, I do not expect that he will be carrying that magic slip of paper from the clerk to the Lord Speaker. Secondly, if we make too much of a meal of this Bill, we run the twin risks of, to some extent, deterring the MoD from running a similar small, discrete and desirable Bill and of making the government business managers equally cautious of such a Bill in the future, even if it were one that found favour with noble and gallant Lords.
Lord Condon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment put forward by the noble and gallant Lords, not only for the reasons that they have articulated but very briefly to mention my experience in my former service, the police. I was able to initiate and help champion flexible working in the police service. We used terms such as career breaks, career development breaks and role sharing. We very carefully avoided any notion of part-time, simply because in my old service in the military and maybe in some other uniformed public services, job description generics carry weight beyond just normal civilian meaning. While it may be feared that the noble and gallant Lords and I are being oversensitive, notions of part-time can be seen to dilute notions of operational prowess, commitment, sense of duty and so on. If there is even the risk that, informally, notions of part-time will dilute how colleagues in the military view people taking advantage of flexible working, the term “part-time” should be avoided. If there is some room here for change, I hope the Minister will listen very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble and gallant Lords. If there is a necessity to test the opinion of the House, I think this is so important that I will support the noble and gallant Lords.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I also rise to support the speeches made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley, Lord Boyce and Lord Walker. I will not repeat their arguments. It is quite clear from conversations that one has had that the general thrust of the Bill is well supported. The point at issue here is the use of the term “part-time”, and I underline my opposition to its use. I add one further argument for the noble Earl to reflect on. One of the Army’s six core values is selfless commitment. That selfless commitment is not divisible; it cannot be on a part-time basis.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the three noble and gallant Lords. I very firmly share the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, about whether there is really a necessity for this Bill, but it will happen. Having been in government, I know that these things get on tram rails and go along. But words are important and “part-time” is not a very good term to use; there is no doubt that it will be damaging. On that specific point, I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It can have a lot of impact and be very damaging. That is not the intention of the Bill, and such a minor change of wording has a huge impact. If the House divides, I will certainly be voting for the amendment. I spoke to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who was appalled by the use of the term “part-time” and wanted me to raise that if I spoke. He believes that being in the services is a vocation and was horrified that such a term should be used.
Before I sit down, I congratulate the noble Earl the Minister because, 235 years ago today, his ancestor relieved Gibraltar.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I, too, have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig, Lord Boyce and Lord Walker. I hesitate to intervene in a debate in which such illustrious military leaders have spoken, but I have some experience—10 years as a Territorial Army soldier and 10 years as an Honorary Air Commodore in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Therefore, all of my military service, limited as it is, has been part-time.
In spite of being part-time, in both my Army unit and now my Air Force unit, we have a great esprit de corps. It used to be that regulars were, without question, full-time— 24/7, on call day and night—and TA soldiers and reserve sailors and airmen were of course part-time. Now, in my No. 600 (City of London) Squadron, I have lots of reservists who want to work full-time. The dividing line between regulars and reservists is blurring and it is a pity that the Government did not choose the option of bringing the Regular Forces and the Reserve Forces closer together. In that case, the issue would not have arisen.
Of course, notions of flexible working have to be introduced in certain areas. They reflect modern patterns of life and could be helpful in reducing the divide between the Regular Forces and the community. Unfortunately, because not enough money is spent on defence, the Regular Forces are now absent from large areas of the country, with no presence at all. Indeed, when I was chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, our PR advisers told us that we had to give up all our logos that said “RAF Benevolent Fund” because young people did not know what the RAF was. We had to put “Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund” in all the logos. That shows how remote from the community today the Armed Forces have become.
In certain fields, such as IT and perhaps some intelligence roles, there are people the regular Armed Forces want to retain who want to work on a flexible basis. I also do not like using the term “part-time”, but I suspect that is what it means. I hesitate to disappoint the noble and gallant Lord, but I fear that I do not think the intention of the Bill is to provide only for personnel to take short-term breaks from regular service. The conversations that I have had with serving officers imply that they see in certain areas that this will be on a fairly long-term basis. Therefore, I am not sure that the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment has the perfect wording. I hope the Minister will say that the Government will try to find better wording to describe the flexible type of working that is necessary in the Armed Forces and which should be introduced.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, is absolutely right to warn us about how the media may treat this. The Daily Mail or some other organ might describe this as “a part-time army” and noble Lords can imagine what they might make of that.
There is a wish to introduce flexible working arrangements. It is a pity that this has not been combined with a rethink of the divide between the reserves and Regular Forces. I do not think “part-time” is the right wording, but I regret to say that I do not think that the noble and gallant Lords’ amendment has the wording absolutely right either.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lords have made the case about the phrase “part-time” clearly and with force. In Committee, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, questioned,
“the sense and the potential for misunderstanding and for belittling the reputation of the Armed Forces if the phrase ‘part-time’ is specifically used in the mixed and more flexible working arrangements”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 59.]
I have re-read the Hansard report of the Committee stage and my understanding from the Minister’s response there is that the wording in the Bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that protections—such as from recall to either full-time duty or deployment—are in place for any serviceperson working part-time. The Minister suggested that the Bill’s wording will provide more certainty for the individual, affording them rights to remain on a flexible working arrangement that can be revoked only under certain circumstances, such as a national emergency.
However, I understand what the noble and gallant Lord is saying. I believe that it is incumbent on those who are in positions of authority to promote the measures contained in the Bill, although I feel, on my left, some discomfort coming my way. The culture needs to become more positive and not allow there to be a negative connotation that “part-time” is unprofessional, unskilled or lacking in commitment—I think that 24/7/52 is the expression that was used. Will the Minister give a commitment that, as part of the rollout of the flexible working scheme, it is made absolutely clear within the Armed Forces that neither “part-time” nor “flexible” are pejorative terms but that they carry the same level of commitment, professionalism and skill as “full-time”?
Lord Glenarthur (Con)
My Lords, I spent a number of years as chairman of the National Employer Advisory Board for the reserves, and some of the arguments expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others chime, in a rather reverse way, with what we were trying to achieve on flexible working. If we were looking at a civilian who wanted to spend some of their time as a reservist, could we call that civilian a part-time employee? Of course not—they are a full-time employee, released to play their part in service with the Navy or the Army or the Air Force. If we would not call them a part-time employee simply because they would be doing it part-time, is not the noble and gallant Lord absolutely right to say that to turn it round and call someone who spends time as a regular soldier, airman or naval person and has to have a break for some time a part-time employee, would simply confuse the issue? I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Lords who have spoken that it would be a big mistake indeed. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will bear in mind the necessity of comparing, to some extent, the importance of employees, employers and the Regular Forces to finding a way round this particular issue.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I note that the amendment was tabled by my three noble and gallant friends, but I plead with the Minister to remember that the Armed Forces are made up of people. I was very struck by the words of my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce when he spoke about the impact that the phraseology “part-time” might have on the people in the services. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the services know only too well that we must not do anything to interrupt or damage the morale and well-being of our Armed Forces, particularly as regards the observation of what they are doing. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I have come rather late to the Bill. I am also one of those who has never done any form of military service, so I speak as a genuine civilian. I have been listening with great interest to the argument and it does seem to me that there are great dangers in using the phrase “part-time”. I think it is a very clear case. I was particularly interested by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Will the Minister take into account what the police did when they did not use the phrase “part-time” but found other phraseology? If, in fact, there are legal reasons, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out—which I find difficult to understand—why “to take breaks” may not answer the case, it really is not beyond the ability of Ministry of Defence lawyers, I should have thought, to look at other phraseology, suitable for the police, that could be adapted to the armed services.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, before I comment on the amendment, I say at the outset that as I have reflected and listened to the debate I was very much struck by the point made right at the beginning by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. His words convinced me that there is nothing in civilian life that compares to life in the services. We in this House and in the country must recognise that when you join the Armed Forces, it is not like joining Barclays or Tesco; you are joining an organisation in which you can put your life on the line to defend our country. We in this House and in the whole country, whenever we talk about defence, must remember that and remember that it is people we are talking about.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, when he moved his amendment on this matter in Grand Committee, raised his concerns about the term “part-time”, questioning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has said, whether it had,
“the potential for misunderstanding and for belittling the reputation of the Armed Forces”.
He therefore asked a very simple question:
“Could a better, less questionable word or phrase be used instead?”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 69.]
That is at the heart of this debate.
In Grand Committee I made it clear from these Benches that we are sympathetic to the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment, and that position remains unchanged. The men and women of our Armed Forces are truly exceptional. That is accepted around the world, and it is the duty of any Government to protect this reputation. However, terminology is all-important in these matters—a point I recall the Minister also making. Communication and language is complicated enough. Call me old fashioned, but I am sure that I am not alone in this House when I say that plain speaking is the best way to communicate.
In Committee we urged the Government to respond and come back at Report. In the interim, authors of various amendments in Grand Committee received very thoughtful, helpful letters from the Minister. While I accept that this is not the only concern behind the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment, I was pleased to see the Minister stress that the Bill could not be used by a future Administration to force an individual into part-time working. I hope that he will repeat that today.
Of one thing I am certain, and again I echo the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in Grand Committee:
“First, let me confirm my acceptance in principle of flexible schemes which are viable, enjoy service support and do not detract from the operational 24/7 capability of the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 69.]
We would certainly endorse that, but I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I do not want to jeopardise the opportunity to put the simple yet powerful aspiration that the noble and gallant Lord articulated so well into action. I hope that the Government will have a positive response to help us this afternoon.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and to the House for the guidance that I gave him in my letter following Committee when I said that according to the advice I had received, it would not be possible to amend the Long Title of the Bill. That advice resulted from an honest interpretation of the Companion to the Standing Orders. It was given in good faith but it was clearly incorrect in light of further advice from the Public Bill Office, and I am sorry.
These amendments stem from concerns previously expressed by noble and noble and gallant Lords over the use of the phrase “part-time” in the Bill; namely, that its use serves to belittle the reputation of our Armed Forces and perhaps even puts those personnel who choose to work part-time at risk of some form of denigration from colleagues amounting even to bullying and harassment, because the Armed Forces will see part-time working as somehow less worthy. I have to say to the noble and gallant Lord that I do not agree with that analysis, and nor do the service chiefs.
It is important to appreciate the context of what we seek to do. The measures in the Bill are part of a series of steps we are taking to modernise the Armed Forces’ terms of service. They are entirely of a piece with some of the other forward-looking steps we have taken in the recent past, such as lifting the ban on women in close combat roles, which have helped to further modernise our Armed Forces, making them a more attractive career choice to wider sections of our society. We must continue down this path if we are to be truly representative of the people whom we serve.
As I have mentioned previously, this measure has the full support of the service chiefs. Our use of the word “part-time” is absolutely deliberate. The meaning of statute has to be clear. We want to be clear to Parliament and to our people that part-time working is indeed what we are introducing, albeit with certain constraints to protect operational capability. Personnel will be able to reduce their commitment to less than full-time and their pay will be adjusted accordingly. Whichever way one tries to explain it, this is part-time working and that is the main reason why the Bill is drafted as it is and why we continue to believe this wording to be appropriate. The noble and gallant Lord’s amendment seeks to disguise what we plan to do. I do not think that legislation should ever go down that sort of path. Legislation should make its meaning clear.
The noble and gallant Lord will no doubt argue that his amendment encapsulates the Government’s policy in different words. It does not. The phrase,
“take breaks from full-time service”,
could describe a variety of different things, including some of the flexible working opportunities already in place, such as unpaid leave, career intermissions and maternity leave. We are introducing something through the Bill that is distinctly different from those things and therefore the way we describe it needs to be very clear. The services are not afraid of plain language and plain language is what we are providing here.
It may help if I repeat what I mentioned in my round-robin letter—that “part-time” has been used in a previous Armed Forces Act. This is not an unprecedented use of the phrase in our legislation. It occurs, for example, in Section 2(1A) and 2(1B) of the Armed Forces Act 1966. It has never caused problems in the past. Circumlocution is therefore not only a wrong approach in my view, it is also unnecessary.
When the noble and gallant Lord advances an argument, I take it seriously, as does the Ministry of Defence, but I cannot agree with his premise. We do not accept the argument that the use of “part-time” will denigrate the individual who works under this arrangement, or denigrate the services in any way. Neither do we agree with the suggestion that those who choose to work part-time for a limited period are not the type of people we need in today’s Armed Forces. On the contrary, it is arguable that those who choose to work part-time, for a temporary period, for reduced pay, rather than leave the services, display an admirable commitment to serving their country. This is precisely the calibre of person that we need to retain and recruit in today’s Armed Forces.
Times move on. Working part-time is a modern, widely recognised and practised working pattern, including for those whose service and work are a vocation, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, quoting the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. As noble Lords may recall, I held a briefing session on 11 July this year, which some noble Lords attended, where two serving commanding officers were also in attendance. Both those officers genuinely welcomed the introduction of part-time working, which they saw as another tool to help us look after our people at times in their lives when they need it most. They had no difficulty with either the concept or the terminology we are using to describe it. The reason that they had no difficulty is that these new measures and others that we are introducing elsewhere to help improve the overall offer to our people will encourage service men and women to stay and may attract others to join.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, first I thank all those who contributed to this important debate. In his defence, the Minister has returned very frequently, as he did in Committee and earlier, to describing what is going to happen for the individual. That is all very important and very worthy, and I am not questioning that—none of us is. That is not where we are coming from. The issue is about the use of “part-time” in primary legislation when the phrase has no legal meaning and has, over the years, changed in its interpretation. How will it remain absolutely the same as it is today in 10 or 15 years’ time, as he suggested, when it will by then be part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, where it will remain as a term of service? I accept that there are criticisms, which need to be looked at, as to exactly what we have proposed. But I was sincerely hoping that there would be a further chance to examine between us the way in which this extra type of flexible working can be provided for in law. Clearly he is not prepared to move even in that direction so, with reluctance, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Touhig
“( ) In section 373 (orders, regulations and rules), in subsection (3), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) regulations under section 329(1) which make provision of a kind mentioned in section 329(2)(ha), (i), or (j),(eb) regulations under section 329(3A),”.”
Lord Touhig
“Protection of pay and allowances
(1) Nothing in this Act shall lead to the full-time equivalent level of remuneration provided to persons serving with a regular force being reduced.(2) In this section, “remuneration” means—(a) basic pay;(b) the x-factor allowance; and(c) any other universal payments,provided to persons serving with a regular force.”
Lord Touhig
My Lords, Amendment 5 repeats our amendment on pay and allowances from Grand Committee. Taken together with Amendment 6, it offers greater protection and security to our service men and women who may need to use the option of flexible or part-time working as described and set out in the Bill.
I was grateful to the Minister for his response in Grand Committee and for following it up with letters to me and to other noble Lords. In Committee, the Minister offered reassurances, saying that,
“the introduction of part-time working will not be used to lower the full-time equivalent basic rate of pay, the x-factor allowance or any other universal allowances or payments available to personnel”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 95.]
This commitment was very much welcomed. As we have seen on so many occasions, the views of one Minister cannot be taken as representative of the views of all future Ministers, although we on this side hope that this particular Minister stays for a long time yet. I hope that the Government will accept this and feel able to put our amendment into the Bill, thus demonstrating commitment to our hard-working service men and women.
I now turn to the existing options for flexible working and, in doing so, seek to build a bridge to demonstrate that there is a clear link in the objectives of these two amendments. In a letter that the Minister sent last month, he outlined three options for flexible working that now exist: working from home, compressed hours and variable start and finish times. His letter explained in detail how these options work and, while this information was welcome, I look for assurance that the three flexible working options will continue to be available alongside the new part-time working arrangements enshrined in the Bill. The Minister’s letter did not quite make that clear. The letter said that existing flexible working arrangements recognise that a small variation in an individual’s working arrangements can have a positive impact on their working lives, which is true. It went on to say that there will be circumstances where existing options will not be sufficient and a significant reduction in working hours over a longer period can be facilitated by a part-time working arrangement.
Those arguments might seem perfectly reasonable, but I have some concern. Many service personnel, faced with some domestic or other problem causing them to seek to change their service work commitment will, nevertheless, have great difficulties if the only option on offer involves a cut in pay and a reduction in pensions. Bearing in mind that part-time working, as set out in the Bill, will involve a cut in pay and pensions, can the Minister assure us that each application for changing service work commitment will be looked at on its merits and that using the flexible working options that he outlined will be considered alongside the part-time working arrangement?
I turn to Amendment 6, which relates to the future status of Joint Service Publication 750, which outlines the range of flexible working options that I have just spoken about. It had been a concern of all sides that the introduction of part-time working—which, as I have said, will take a proportionate amount of pay and pensions from applicants—was a drastic overreaction to a genuine need for greater flexibility. I know that the Minister will not accept that, but he is aware of the concerns on this point. We were pleased, therefore, with clarification on the provisions of JSP 750 and the anticipated take-up of the part-time offer. I believe that many of the worries expressed across the House have been addressed by the Minister’s response. However, while part-time working will have a statutory footing following the passage of this legislation, this is not true of the existing flexible working options.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the options in JSP 750 will continue to be available and that, if that document is ever withdrawn by a Secretary of State, regulations must be brought forward to make a similar provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, in this group I will speak to Amendment 7. We all want flexible and part-time working to be a success. Therefore it is important to monitor whether these arrangements are helpful in convincing some who may not have ordinarily thought of joining the Armed Forces so to do—I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I am very sorry, I am speaking to the wrong group.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I believe that I spoke to an identical amendment as the first in this group in Grand Committee—it was then Amendment 9, I think. I hope that what I am able to say today will reassure the noble Lord completely. The Bill will allow the Defence Council to make regulations to give regular service personnel the right to apply to vary temporarily the terms on which they serve. Specifically, the Bill will allow us to introduce both part-time working and a new form of geographically separated service into the Armed Forces, which together we refer to as “flexible working”.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who have expressed their agreement with the principle that it is fair and appropriate for those regular service personnel who elect in the future to vary the terms on which they serve to see a commensurate variation in the reward that they receive.
I should say up front that nothing in the Bill enables us to do what the noble Lord fears we might do. At present, we envisage that those who work part-time will have their pay proportionately reduced, and those who reduce their liability for separated service will have their x-factor reduced by an appropriate proportion, which we will discuss with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body.
As I said in Grand Committee, we have worked—and continue to work—closely with the services to ensure that any reduction in pay, or other benefits, for those who successfully apply to work part-time, or reduce their liability for separated service temporarily, will be, above all else, fair and reasonable to those who work under the new arrangements as well as to those who do not. For reassurance, I will repeat what I said at Second Reading and in Committee: the Bill will not result in any reduction in the basic pay, x-factor or other payments available to regulars who do not take up these new flexible working arrangements. There is a simple reason I can be categorical about that: the Bill deals only with the proposed new types of flexible working. The legislative provisions that govern the pay and conditions of full commitment regulars are contained in different sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006—as the noble Lord will know, having very successfully taken that Act through this House as a Minister in the then Government.
As the noble Lord of course understands, we envisage at present that those who work part-time will have their pay proportionately reduced, and those who reduce their liability for separated service will have their x-factor reduced by an appropriate proportion. As I have said, noble Lords will be aware that the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has a responsibility to make recommendations on service pay. It does that through its annual report, which makes recommendations to the Government on an annual Armed Forces pay award, based on a body of evidence gathered from service personnel and their families and the MoD. It also commissions its own analysis and research from other bodies. Accordingly the MoD will engage with the AFPRB and submit a paper of evidence for its consideration on the changes we need to make, in time for the introduction of the measures contained in this Bill from 2019.
I hope there are no lingering concerns that service personnel may be made to work part-time as a savings measure. The regulations under the Bill will make it clear that any application for part-time working or restricted separation must be made by the serviceperson. I am therefore clear that the Ministry of Defence will not be able to impose a change in working pattern on individuals, and that any such change will have to be instigated by the individual. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that the measures in this Bill will be considered alongside the existing provisions for flexible working that he referred to, so that service men and women will have those options open to them and can accordingly choose the road they go down.
Amendment 6 seeks to protect existing flexible working arrangements. The new flexibilities that this Bill will introduce are part of a series of steps we are taking to modernise the conditions of service we offer to those who serve, and for those who are considering a career in the services. The long-term aim, as I have mentioned, is to improve recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. We are constantly looking forward and trying to reflect wider best practice in the development of our personnel policies, and we are making good progress. This is the least that our people deserve. In terms of the flexible working options that the Ministry of Defence already provides, such as variable start and finish times, home working and compressed hours, we have over the past two years continued to add to and refine the policies that support them to ensure that they are the best they can be, and we will continue doing so.
As with any HR policy operated within other organisations, it is essential that we have the ability to manage and adjust our flexible working policy to meet the emerging needs of our people and the services. These policies are published in Joint Service Publication 750, a document available to all personnel, to ensure clarity, coherence and transparency for both service personnel and their chain of command. The House can be absolutely assured that we have no intention of withdrawing these existing opportunities for flexible working, which are now well published and in operation in each service. Some have been on offer to our people since 2005 and others have been developed to meet their need for a degree of flexibility in the modern world. To reduce the flexible working options, which is the implied concern in the noble Lord’s amendment, would be a retrograde step given our objective of modernising the Armed Forces offer and would run counter to our aim of increasing the flexibility available to meet our people’s needs.
To be crystal clear, though, to your Lordships, the flexible duties trial that is not part of JSP 750 policy and has been run to help inform the new part-time and geographically restricted service will of course cease when the new arrangements become available to supersede it. However, that is the only exception to what I have laid out. Following these assurances and the circumstances I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, the Minister was right when he said that I had some responsibility for the 2006 Act. I introduced the Bill, but I can take no credit for its passing because, before it did so, the then Prime Minister rang me to award me the DCM—“Don’t Come Monday”—and I was no longer a Minister, so I never actually saw the Bill through. Nevertheless, I was responsible for introducing it.
I thank the Minister for his positive response, which reassured me. We do not want to abandon what has already become established and is worth while, so I hope that the Government will see that through, as the Minister indicated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Touhig
“Inclusion in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report
(1) Section 343A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (armed forces covenant report) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert— “(3A) In preparing an armed forces covenant report the Secretary of State must—(a) outline the options available to persons serving with a regular force in relation to part-time working and serving subject to geographic restrictions; and(b) provide his assessment of what impact the options in paragraph (a) have had on recruitment and retention.””
Lord Touhig
My Lords, Amendment 7, if accepted, would afford the Government the opportunity to enhance the value of the Armed Forces covenant annual report. The Government deserve credit for the full implementation of the covenant and for ensuring that there is an annual report. The report shines a light on the way this country treats those who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom. It is made even more valuable by the fact that there is an external members reference group which can pick and choose what it wants to consider and comment on. So why not go one step further and ensure that, when preparing the report, the Secretary of State for Defence must take into account the two tasks that would be placed on him by paragraphs (a) and (b) in this amendment?
We discussed this in Committee and have returned to it again on Report because, on reading the Hansard report of the Committee’s deliberations, there seemed to us to be some ambiguity in the Minister’s response. In replying to me, he said:
“I share the view of the noble Lord about the importance of measuring and reporting on the impact of the changes that will be introduced through this Bill. I want to ensure that it is done in the most appropriate and effective way for both the MoD and Parliament”.
However, he concluded:
“it is likely that a future report will include a section on the introduction of the measures included in this Bill … That would be entirely appropriate”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; cols. GC 99-100.]
This debate is really about allowing the Minister the opportunity to state without any doubt that a report on the measures included in this Bill will be included in the annual Armed Forces covenant report. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I apologise to the House for jumping the gun earlier.
We all want to make flexible and part-time working a success, and it is therefore important to monitor whether these arrangements are helpful in convincing some who might not ordinarily have thought of joining the Armed Forces so to do, or in persuading some existing members to remain in the Armed Forces if they were considering leaving. The Armed Forces covenant annual report is the report on the state of the armed services to the nation, so I ask the Minister not to close the door on this level of reporting. It would be helpful if he could assure the House that, in the future, the MoD would consider doing just this.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness about the importance of measuring and reporting on the impact of the changes that will be introduced through this Bill. As I have mentioned a number of times previously, we expect a modest, yet significant, number of our people to take up the new opportunities this Bill will introduce. Therefore, we must ensure that our reporting on this subject is both appropriate and effective for the MoD and Parliament.
I am pleased that noble Lords recognise that the long-term aim of providing these new arrangements, alongside a range of other measures, is to modernise the terms of service and, ultimately, improve Armed Forces recruitment and retention. As we have discussed previously, the changes we are introducing do fall within the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. Noble Lords may recall that I said, in Grand Committee, that it was likely that a future report on the Armed Forces covenant would include a section on the introduction of the measures included in this Bill and their effect.
The current wording of Section 343A, inserted by the Armed Forces Act 2011, which places the obligation on the Secretary of State to lay an annual report on the covenant before Parliament, directs him in preparing the report to,
“have regard in particular to … the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; … the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces”.
It also advises the Secretary of State to include,
“such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine”.
We judge that this broad wording is sufficient to deliver the specific outcomes that the noble Lord seeks and, therefore, does not need amending as proposed.
There is a good reason why I am confident in saying that. A look back at the five Armed Forces covenant reports that have been produced since 2011 confirms that they contain a very broad spectrum of information and data on policy developments that have fallen within the covenant’s scope. A good example of that is the Forces Help to Buy scheme, introduced in 2014, under the new employment model. The scheme has featured regularly in annual reports, and the figures for August 2017 show that, since its launch, more than 12,000 of our people have benefited from the scheme, having received some £184 million to help them get on, or stay on, the property ladder.
A key feature of the reporting has been a description of the nature of the policy change being brought in and, where possible, a measure of its impact following introduction. I can undertake that we will take the same approach to reporting on the introduction of the flexible working opportunities from 2019. Those opportunities will, in the long term, improve recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and, in the near term, our people will see improvements in their terms of service, and they will benefit from the increased level of personal control over their careers that the new flexibilities will bring. We will ensure that we capture the introduction of the policy change in reports on the Armed Forces covenant and, where possible, a measure of the impact following its introduction from 2019 onwards.
For these reasons, we judge—and I hope the noble Lord will draw the same conclusion in light of what I have said—that it is unnecessary to create legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report on the new measures that this Bill will introduce. I hope, following the assurances I have given, that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not have the copper-bottomed “will” that I sought, but in this case I have to say “near enough is good enough” and I will therefore withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“Accommodation
After section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—“329A Accommodation(1) A person to whom section 329(2)(ha) applies is entitled to service family accommodation or single living accommodation.(2) Six months after section 329(2)(ha) comes into effect, and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses evaluating the impact of that section on family accommodation and single living accommodation, and providing information on future accommodation needs in the light of trends of serving on a part-time basis.””
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, this amendment, too, replicates an amendment that was brought in Committee and refers to an issue that is fundamental to recruitment, retention and forces’ welfare, as well as the welfare of forces families: accommodation. In his response in Committee the Minister suggested that the numbers of people who might avail themselves of the opportunity to work part-time under the arrangements of the Bill would perhaps be sufficiently limited that they would not impact on forces accommodation. The idea was welcomed that all members of Her Majesty’s forces, whether full-time or part-time, if they are regulars, would be entitled to the same accommodation provisions.
However, if more people are acquired because some people work part-time, so that you might have three people instead of two people doing the job, each of those individuals would be entitled to accommodation, and at some point this might have an impact on the requirement for accommodation as a whole. Clearly, as the Minister stated in the discussion on Amendment 7, there may be cases where this will be overcome by Help to Buy and through the new employment model. However, to the extent that this is not the case, it is hugely important for service men and women and their families to believe that Her Majesty’s Government will provide adequate accommodation for them.
For that reason, we have again tabled an amendment on accommodation, both to restate that service men and women who avail themselves of this flexible model are entitled to appropriate family accommodation or single-living accommodation, and, perhaps more importantly in the longer term, to have certainty that the Government are reviewing what forces accommodation is available and whether it will be suitable for the number of service men and women we have.
One of the key things is what is available and habitable and the extent to which the accommodation, and the maintenance contracts which deal with it, are fit for purpose. We have been told on various occasions that CarillionAmey now meets its key performance indicators, yet there are still many complaints. If it meets its key performance indicators, does that mean that they are not the right ones? While this might not be the appropriate amendment to bring that forward, it would be welcome if the Minister could at least explain when we might be able to discuss such things.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Jolly, for tabling a further amendment on service accommodation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, noted in Committee, there are already significant pressures on service accommodation, and that is before we even begin to consider the move to the future accommodation model from 2019.
I will not go into the detail about our concerns on the future accommodation model, but clearly there are urgent questions for the Government to answer on how the Bill will affect personnel who rely on service accommodation, particularly when the system is shaken up. There will also be more questions for the Government to answer in the future as the new system is rolled out. I am therefore glad to see the addition of the second part of Amendment 9, which would require the Secretary of State not only to provide a periodic snapshot but to be proactive in anticipating future accommodation needs. I hope that the Minister will provide us with some answers—perhaps in a further round of letters before Third Reading—and offer a firm commitment; it is important that these things are reported back to Parliament.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 9 is similar to the amendment to which I spoke in Grand Committee—I think it was Amendment 13 on that occasion—which sought to amend the Bill to ensure that personnel who successfully apply to work part-time will still be entitled to service family accommodation and resettlement support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will recall that during discussions in Grand Committee I provided assurances that regular service personnel undertaking part-time working would retain the entitlements currently available to full-time regulars. I was able to give those assurances because providing our people with service accommodation is pivotal to the work we are doing to enable personnel and their families with mobility in support of defence capability.
To support my earlier reassurances, I stress again that regular service personnel who successfully apply to work part-time following the introduction of these new measures will be entitled to service accommodation commensurate with their personal status category and other qualifying criteria in the same way as their full-time colleagues. There is no reason to alter the entitlement to accommodation for those who undertake part-time working in the future since these individuals will retain an enduring liability for mobility and will still be subject to the same moves associated with new assignments as others in the regular Armed Forces.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
I thank the Minister for his very full reply. It would be nice to think that Her Majesty’s Government as a whole and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ensure that the money put aside for defence will enable all those words to be brought about in practice and that we do not need to worry about the money that will be put aside for accommodation. In the light of the discussion about the future accommodation model, the idea that proposals will come forward later in the year and the suggestion of putting questions into the Armed Forces covenant report, I am content to withdraw the amendment. However, I should very much like to take the Minister up on his suggestion of a meeting.
Lord Touhig
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 25th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 73KB) - (9 Oct 2017)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I express my appreciation to all noble Lords, noble and gallant Lords and right reverend Prelates for their interest in the Bill and for their thoughtful contributions to what have been constructive debates during its passage through your Lordships’ House. I am grateful for the positive engagement and support of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches and from around the House.
The Government have responded positively to the concerns of this House that the Defence Council regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others will be disappointed with our response to his concerns about the use of the term “part-time” in the Bill. I hope that in due course he will see that his fears about people disparaging the good name and full commitment of the Armed Forces are unfounded, once people are able to apply to work part-time or have protection from being separated from their home base for prolonged periods.
Of course, encouraging the right cultural attitudes and behaviours in the Armed Forces will play an important part in ensuring the success of these measures. As I said at the outset, the Bill is designed by the services for the services, and all three remain involved in the plans to make this a success. We are immensely proud of the achievements of our Armed Forces; they work hard for us and we owe them a great deal. Flexible working will provide our brave and courageous service men and women with an opportunity for some respite from their full-time commitment when they need it most. This Bill is for them and I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, when the noble Earl responded to my Amendment 3 on Report, he began with a frank and gracious apology to the House and to me for saying in his letter of 29 September that it would not be possible to remove the word “part-time” from the Long Title of the Bill. As he said, this was incorrect but given in good faith. To my embarrassment and regret, I failed, when I spoke again, to thank him for his apology—which of course I fully accept. I have spoken and written to the noble Earl to apologise for this discourtesy but would like to put the record straight.
In the same letter the noble Earl sought to allay concern by saying that the use of “part-time” was not unprecedented: it had been, he said, in previous Armed Forces legislation. So far, it has been found but once in all such Acts, going back over 60 years—and that once was in a 1955 Act, long repealed, and with a totally different meaning from contemporary usage. Both of these were weak—and, indeed, inaccurate—claims. The noble Earl would have done better to note that our objection to introducing “part-time” into the Bill was not that it would be unprecedented but that it should be there at all. The noble Earl said that he did not agree with my analysis, but a dozen speakers sympathised and agreed with the noble and gallant Lords and myself. More than 50 unwhipped Peers supported us in the Lobby.
The noble Earl said that the purpose of this novel type of flexible working was to enable individuals to take breaks from their 24/7/52 commitment to their service. Both in Grand Committee and on Report, our amendments were aimed at providing for just that, with appropriate subordinate legislation. We were being direct, not devious, as the noble Earl chided us. The Government’s approach—that the individual must first commit to serving on a part-time basis before becoming eligible to apply for breaks—is far less straightforward.
The arrangements for time away are all to be set out in subordinate legislation—but, we are told, cannot be guaranteed unless individuals are formally released from full-time duty to the Crown. But are they released? They are still beholden to the Crown because they remain under the Armed Forces Act. Would the military or civil police be responsible for investigating a crime committed by an individual while on a break? As a law tutor might say to his class of students, “discuss”.
I hope that the Government noted that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, strongly suggested that phraseology other than “part-time” could be adapted for the armed services in legislation—as did the police, with detail in subordinate legislation to guarantee arrangements. However, the noble Earl said that what was intended was,
“distinctly different … and therefore the way we describe it needs to be very clear”.—[Official Report, 11/10/17; col. 249.]
I have since seen the noble Earl’s response to criticism by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. He wrote:
“There is no intention at present to enable part-time service for all enlisted regulars”.
“No intention at present” really does make it distinctly different from just providing compassionate flexibility. Is this the intended direction of travel? Do the Government want this primary legislation to spawn part-time service in further and wider applications than those proposed now?
A statutory door is being primed to spring open—a far cry from the assurance given by the noble Earl in that letter of 29 September in which he wrote:
“The amendments to primary legislation simply provide us with the power to make regulations to enable these particular forms of flexible working”.
The Bill will enable far greater powers than that. There is no place in the Armed Forces Act 2006 for such an untrammelled, undefined, catch-all “part-time basis” phrase, unless Governments want a broad statutory power to recruit and re-muster our armed services little by little into becoming a force of part-timers. Perhaps, having reviewed all that has been said during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, wiser counsel will prevail in the other place. I certainly hope so.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I remain to be convinced about the need for the Bill. The services already have an ability to operate flexible working. I lament, and certainly remain dismayed by, the continued use of the expression “part-time” to characterise the nature of what the Bill entails.
I recognise the amendment on this point was defeated on Report, but it required a Government three-line Whip to defeat the many excellent arguments by protagonists in favour. It was hardly a moral victory for the Government. Since Report, the senior and junior servicepeople I have spoken to have been equally appalled. Dislike for the expression “part-time” will be felt in particular by those who have requested no geographic separation yet who continue to work full-time. They will also be called “part-time” people even though they are working full-time. How does the Minister explain that? I really believe that a mistake has been made here and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Chiefs of Staff explicitly support the use of the expression “part-time”.
On a separate subject, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether the ceilings for manpower numbers will take into account the provisions of the Bill. In other words, if the full scope and feasibility of flexible working for serving members of the Armed Forces is to be realised, there must presumably come a point where the current mechanism for accounting for liability—headcount—gives way to full-time equivalence.
The Bill’s implementation will have to be handled very carefully if the expectations of service men and women are not to be falsely raised. As the Minister said on Report:
“We are not talking about large numbers: we expect only a modest number of our people to either work part-time or restrict their absence from their home bases”.—[Official Report, 11/10/17; col. 250.]
In the case of the Royal Navy—which is extremely tautly manned and, constrained by the government-imposed headcount, short of people anyway—that is likely to be very modest indeed. For example, we need to bear in mind that 80% of junior ranks are in seagoing billets. It is difficult to see many applications for time away being approved. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill is launched most carefully, and without fanfare and overpromising.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I fully support all that has been said by the two noble and gallant Lords. Indeed, I cannot add anything more to the eloquence of how they put this across. The Bill is extremely worrying. I did not believe that it was necessary and I certainly do not like the phrases used. It is extraordinary; on the 167th anniversary of the Charge of the Light Brigade, perhaps Tennyson’s words are rather pertinent:
“Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Some one had blunder’d”.
That is absolutely appropriate when one looks at this legislation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we gathered through the debates that noble and gallant Lords were somewhat uncomfortable with the general thrust of the Bill, but for our part we accepted the Minister’s assurance that the senior management of the Armed Forces was behind it. We did our duty as the Opposition, which is to look at detail, seek assurances and propose amendments to make sure that the Bill will work fairly when it becomes an Act. I thank the noble Earl and his team for their courtesy, for the time he gave us, for wisely giving us some of those assurances and for wisely accepting a couple of our amendments. I also thank my noble friend Lord Touhig, who led our side until recently, for his leadership and I acknowledge the support we received from our own back office.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I thank the Minister and his team very much for supporting the House and us in our deliberations on the Bill. We are pleased that the Government have accepted the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on parliamentary scrutiny and on the adoption of the affirmative procedure. I worked quite closely on this with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and with both spads. We agreed amendments between us: so it is an example where, on occasions, opposition parties can work successfully together, and I wish the noble Lord success in whatever he is doing.
On a personal note, this is my last defence hurrah. I have now moved to health and have come back just for Third Reading. It occurred to me as I was walking into the Chamber that ever since I came into this House I have been either opposite or alongside the noble Earl in my deliberations and those of the House. I thank him very much for his courtesy and consideration; I learned an awful lot from him.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I much appreciate the remarks from the Front Benches opposite and reciprocate the warm feelings that have just been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
I hope that both noble and gallant Lords who spoke will accept that I have listened with care to the arguments they put forward. The Government have taken due note of their concerns about the use of “part-time” in this legislation. We have had debates in Committee and on Report, and the matter was settled by a vote on Report. There is a convention in your Lordships’ House that at Bill Do Now Pass we should not continue the debates of previous stages. Nevertheless, in so far as I have been asked questions by noble and gallant Lords and the noble Lord, Lord West, I undertake to write after the conclusion of this stage of the Bill. Let me make it clear that the service chiefs fully support this legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill is designed by the services for the services. All three remain involved in the plans to make this a success and I hope that all noble Lords will agree that that is now the imperative.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]
Monday 30th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 73KB) - (9 Oct 2017)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We have the best armed forces in the world. From their service in Afghanistan, and their support to the coalition to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria, to being at the forefront of the humanitarian response to hurricane Irma, their courage and professionalism are renowned the world over. We are investing some £18 billion a year in new ships, submarines, aircraft and armoured vehicles, but it is not enough just to modernise our armed forces with new equipment; we need to ensure that service within the armed forces reflects a modern lifestyle.
We know that one of the main reasons why people choose to leave the armed forces is the impact of service on their family life. At the moment, many regular personnel who are unable to meet their unlimited military commitments for periods of time have no other choice than to leave the service. They lose a good career; we lose their hard-won knowledge, skills and experience.
It is a fact that today people want greater choice over how they run their lives, and when and where they work. If we are to compete for, and retain, the best people, our armed forces need to respond with greater flexibility, making the lives of those who proudly serve our nation easier.
Total and unlimited choice is not, of course, possible in the disciplined environment of the armed forces, where the requirement to serve the needs of the country is paramount. So maintaining operational effectiveness is our absolute red line, but that does not mean that we should not offer our people more choice about how they live and work.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I could not agree more with what the Secretary of State has said so far about both the professionalism of our armed forces and the need for greater flexibility, but does he recognise that one of the reasons why many people have left, and one of the reasons why there has been such an impact on their family life, is the huge reduction in armed forces personnel numbers and the increasing expectation on those people, with all that is going on? That has been one of the causes of their having such poor family lives.
Sir Michael Fallon
The armed forces continue to meet what are called the harmony guidelines and we have stabilised the size of the armed forces—the hon. Gentleman referred to reductions—but I also recognise that we are asking ever more of our armed forces each successive year, with the deployments in different parts of the world.
The 2015 strategic defence and security review committed us to an ambitious programme of modernisation of our personnel policies. There are already a range of initiatives in place to support flexible working. Subject to chain of command approval, service personnel have already been able to work compressed hours or vary their start and finish times. They can also take unpaid leave for up to three months and longer-term career breaks to help meet life’s commitments—for example, when a partner is posted overseas—and, in certain circumstances, they are even able to work from home.
We know that these existing initiatives are popular: in the six months to July 2017, 1,400 personnel had taken advantage of them. This Bill will take these initiatives a step further and provide more formal arrangements and certainty, including allowing personnel to work shorter hours.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State might come on to answer this question: I acknowledge that members of the armed forces can already apply for flexible working, as he has stated, including late starts and working from home, but it would be helpful to hear more about the gap the Secretary Of State sees being filled by the new forms of flexible working he is introducing.
Sir Michael Fallon
The hon. Lady anticipates my speech, as I will be coming on to that. If I do not do so adequately, I am sure she will have the chance to intervene again.
More flexible working than we have at present would help alleviate some of the strain people face at critical times in their career, whether because of family responsibilities, caring needs, or a desire to pursue further educational opportunities. It will help us to recruit and retain more of the people we need, and make our services more representative of the society they serve.
In particular, we are committed to see women account for 15% of our new recruits by 2020, and evidence suggests that they see greater opportunities for flexible working in the services as particularly attractive. Two thirds of the applications approved in our ongoing flexible duties trial are from female service personnel. We are on track to meet our 2020 target, with the latest figure for all services at 11.4%, but I want to do better than that, and the Bill will help. We have opened up every single role in our armed forces to women so that talent, not gender, determines how far anyone can go. That means ensuring that they are able to stay to achieve their potential. At the core of the Bill is our wish to ensure that the armed forces are seen as modern and attractive employers, but that is getting harder to achieve against an increasingly competitive backdrop, with the competition for talent expected to increase in the years ahead.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as one of those Members on the armed forces parliamentary scheme; I am currently doing the RAF one. Through the scheme, I have had the chance to meet soldiers and RAF personnel, and I have heard lots of things. Two things have come up on recent visits. The first is a need to ensure that the accommodation is right. Much of the accommodation is not right for families. In particular, it does not suit people who come into the armed forces when they are single and subsequently get married. The second point relates to training. Some of the RAF personnel are saying that they are not getting the training they need to work on the new F-35s. Will the Secretary of State address those two points?
Sir Michael Fallon
We are addressing the important issue of service families’ accommodation, with various new arrangements for ensuring that they have improved accommodation. We are also putting a number of RAF personnel through the F-35 training programme. We have more than 100 personnel in the United States training up and learning how to support and maintain the F-35s, of which we have purchased more than a dozen so far.
More flexible working will help the services to compete and to attract and retain a better mix of people and skills. That will not only enhance operational capability through improved retention but provide a more diverse workforce. I am absolutely clear that a diverse workforce, with more women and more people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, will be a more operationally effective workforce.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I entirely concur with what the Secretary of State is saying about the roles that women can play in our armed forces, about the importance of diversity and about what the Bill can do to provide opportunities for flexible working. Does he really think, however, that this is going to be the silver bullet to deal with the recruitment crisis that exists, particularly within the Army? Figures released by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) this summer showed that we are under-recruited on every course. When we look at the line infantry, the Guards and the Paras, and when we look at Army Training Regiment Winchester and Army Training Regiment Pirbright, we see that they are significantly below the required recruitment levels and participation levels in those crucial training courses.
Sir Michael Fallon
I have made it clear that the Army faces a recruitment challenge as the economy continues to grow. The Army is about 95% recruited and I am told that Sandhurst places are now filled for the coming courses, but we need to do more. We need to continue to ask ourselves why we are not attracting some of the people we want to attract.
Flexible working for the armed forces is principally about recruitment and better retention. I want to emphasise that this is not a method of saving money. So what does the Bill do? There are two main provisions. Clause 1 makes amendments to section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which makes provision regarding terms and conditions of enlistment and service. Service personnel will be able to temporarily reduce the time they are required for duty—for example, by setting aside one or two days a week on which they will not work or be liable for work—or to restrict the amount of time that they spend separated from their normal place of work. The amendments extend the existing regulation-making powers in section 329 to allow the Defence Council to enable forms of part-time service and protection from being separated from a home base for prolonged periods for people serving in the regular armed forces. Clause 1 also enables regulations to be made about the circumstances in which these new arrangements can be varied, suspended or terminated.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I represent a constituency with a long and proud military tradition. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to ask for the number of people from my constituency who had recently been recruited to join the armed forces, but I was surprised to be told that that information was not held centrally. That seems absolutely extraordinary. It is important that our communities should be linked in to the armed forces and that we should know what sort of connections our constituencies have with them. Will the Secretary of State please look into this and check again whether that information is held centrally? If so, please could he let me know how many of my constituents want to join the armed forces?
Sir Michael Fallon
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but there is nothing sinister about this. Different regiments recruit in different ways, and my understanding is that the data are not collated on a constituency basis. However, I would be very happy to have another look at that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much support this measure; it is absolutely right to compete for workers in the 21st century. However, terms in the guidance notes such as “back-filling” are troublesome. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that it is necessary to maintain whole-time equivalents in our armed forces rather than relying constantly on back-filling. My 35 years’ experience in the regulars and the reserves tells me that back-filling usually means colleagues filling in for others. Does he agree that that is guaranteed to demoralise people and cause the retention problems to which he has referred?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in these matters. I know that when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), winds up the debate, he will want to address that question about back-filling. This is not about making other members of a unit, a platoon or a section do more work to compensate. It is about arranging people’s time in a more satisfactory manner.
The Government acknowledged the strength of feeling in the other place about ensuring that the new regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so my colleague the noble Earl Lord Howe accepted Labour’s amendments to that effect. It is of course important that Parliament ensures appropriate scrutiny of the forthcoming regulations. In practice, the arrangements will be temporary, limited to defined periods, and always subject to service needs to maintain operational capability. I want to be absolutely clear that maintaining operational effectiveness is our absolute red line.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I hope to speak later in the debate. My husband served in the armed forces, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would agree, given that the Government spend a lot of time looking at the hardware and infrastructure in the armed forces, that it is only right and proper that we also look at support for our armed forces personnel and their families. That is why this Bill is so important.
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, this proposal has the support not only of the service chiefs but crucially of the service family federations. They, too, see the advantage in it.
As I was saying, maintaining operational effectiveness is a red line. The Bill therefore also provides for the services to vary, suspend or terminate the new arrangements in circumstances to be prescribed in new regulations— for example, in the case of a national emergency or a severe shortage of specialist personnel. There will also be instances where flexible working arrangements are simply not practicable—for example, while serving at sea, serving in a high-readiness unit or serving in a unit that is on the brink of deployment. Let us therefore be clear that the Bill will not enable every service person to work flexibly. It will, however, create an obligation for the services to consider applications from personnel to serve under the new flexible working arrangements. It will also require the services to record the terms of an approved application so that there is clarity for both parties in the arrangements. Clause 2 of the Bill will make small consequential amendments to existing legislation to provide for regular personnel temporarily serving under flexible working agreements to continue to be automatically excused jury service.
The Bill was developed with the three services, and the proposals have the support of all the service chiefs. They have been designed—and will continue to be developed—by the services and for the services. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) has just said, we should not forget the bedrock of those who follow and support our armed forces—namely, their families. I am particularly pleased that the families’ federations have welcomed our plans to improve flexible working opportunities in the armed forces. I quote:
“Improving family stability amongst Service families is one of our focus areas and we look forward to the implementation of this initiative”.
Sir Michael Fallon
No, I am just concluding.
The Bill will not address all the challenges of recruiting and retaining personnel—it is not the silver bullet that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) thought it might be—but we believe that it will pave the way, in modernising the armed forces, to better reflecting today’s lifestyles and aspirations while ensuring that we retain a world-class fighting force. I commend the Bill to the House.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I echo the Secretary of State’s words about the outstanding professionalism of our armed forces and our huge indebtedness to them. I want to make it clear at the outset that Labour supports the Bill in principle. Our scrutiny and questions will be in the spirit of seeking clarification and improving it, rather than opposing it. Furthermore, given that the Bill was introduced in the other place, some of our initial concerns have already been debated and clarified to some degree, which will help to expedite its passage in this House.
I am grateful to my good friend Lord Touhig, who speaks for the Opposition on defence matters in the other place, for his excellent work on this Bill. I am particularly grateful to him for pressing an amendment, which I am glad that the Government have accepted, as the Secretary of State confirmed, to ensure that the finer detail that is introduced in subsequent regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, we will get the opportunity to scrutinise any delegated legislation, which is an important safeguard because the devil is so often in the detail. Having set such a good example, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could prevail upon his colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union to accept amendments to provide the same sort of transparency on important matters such as workers’ rights and environmental protections in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
Returning to the Bill in hand, the title is somewhat confusing at first sight, because the term “flexible working” already has connotations, usually referring to a situation where contractual hours remain the same but there is the opportunity to vary starting and finishing times or to work from home. This Bill is not about the right to request that sort of flexible working. That opportunity already exists for the armed forces, as do maternity and paternity leave and the opportunity to request a period of unpaid leave to undertake study, for example. The purpose of this Bill is to allow members of our armed forces to request to work for a defined period in a part-time capacity with the necessary contractual changes that that would entail and/or to request limits to separated service—deployment—for defined periods. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, because we support effective ways of improving conditions for those who serve in our armed forces, and we also want to enable the forces to draw from the widest possible pool of talent when recruiting personnel to serve.
We all recognise that the complexities of modern life mean juggling work and home responsibilities, and childcare arrangements are often complex when both parents work full time. In such circumstances, it does not take much to upset that delicately balanced situation, and the emotional turmoil of learning that a child, partner or parent is seriously ill is compounded by practical difficulties, which might mean frequent medical appointments or a stronger parental presence in the home. Many of us have faced such situations. For me, it was when I was very young, before I started my first job, when I stayed at home to look after my father and teenage sisters and nurse my mother through her terminal illness. Family issues are all the more complex for service personnel, with the expectations of constant readiness and deployment, and it is understandable that personnel sometimes feel forced to give up the service they love for civilian jobs that offer greater flexibility. However, it makes no sense to lose someone simply because they need a more flexible working arrangement for a specified time after all the investment that has gone into their training. That is where this Bill comes in, offering the possibility of consideration for part-time hours or limits to separated service. We agree and understand that there must always be regard for operational capability when assessing requests for such working.
There is a recruitment and retention crisis in our armed forces. The reasons why personnel leave are many and complex, but the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that the impact on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving. A third of personnel have said that an option to work part time would strengthen their intention to stay, and a similar proportion say that an option for reduced separated service, including operational deployment, would make them more likely to remain in the forces. If the options available through the Bill can help to retain some of those personnel, that would clearly be beneficial.
I understand that assurances were given in the other place that the fact that someone had availed themselves of the opportunity to work part time would not count against them for promotion, and that assessment of applicants would be made on the basis of their skills, experience and future potential, regardless of any period of part-time or geographically limited working. That is vital to ensure that our services do not miss out on excellent candidates simply because they have taken a period of part-time work and that personnel are not disadvantaged. It is also important because we may find that women in particular will avail themselves of this part-time option, and we want to see more women not only recruited into the services, but retained and reaching senior ranks. Treating with parity those who have opted to take a period of part-time working will need more than a policy about its not affecting promotion prospects; it will need a cultural shift.
I also understand that assurances were given in the other place that personnel availing themselves of the options in this Bill would not lose their service accommodation. Clearly, a period of family difficulty is not a time to have any additional worries about accommodation. I would therefore be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), could provide additional assurances in both those areas when he gets to his feet at the end of today’s debate and explain how he proposes to engender the cultural shift that will be required.
Ian C. Lucas
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the welcome initiatives in the Bill are being undercut by the increasingly strong movement of the armed forces to the M4 corridor and away from local communities? In my constituency, for example, the local Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers headquarters is being shifted from north Wales to Bristol. The armed forces are maintaining fewer and fewer connections with local communities.
Nia Griffith
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. If we see the likes of REME in Wrexham and Prestatyn close, opportunities for the whole of north Wales will effectively be withdrawn. That will impact badly on recruitment to our reservist forces and lead to the loss of buy-in from those communities, both of which are serious issues that need addressing.
Dr Murrison
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is far more important for families to have some sort of certitude about where they are going to be based for a protracted period of time? Moving around the country in the old way was hopeless in that respect and was one of the principal reasons why people decided to leave.
Nia Griffith
I think we are talking about two slightly different things. In the cases of Wrexham and Prestatyn, we are talking about particular reservist bases, and my worry is that if we do not draw reservists from across the country, we will miss out on talent. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the other issue.
If the beneficial impact of this Bill is to be fully felt, it is also vital that every effort is made to ensure that service personnel are made aware of the options it affords. We know that individuals are often reluctant to talk about difficult family circumstances for fear of that being seen as a sign of weakness, so it is vital that personnel know about the new options that the Bill introduces before they need to access them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister outlined how service personnel will be made aware of the options open to them through the Bill.
A decision to take up the option of working on a part-time basis, with the consequent reduction in pay, is not something that anyone would undertake lightly, but it is a decision that may have to be taken at a time of particular stress or difficulty. The Ministry of Defence, as an employer, therefore has a duty of care to ensure that individuals are fully aware of the financial implications of any request and to point out to them that they may wish to take independent financial advice because, although everyone would want to calculate the immediate impact of going part time on their take-home pay, the effect on pensions is not so obvious. Even a limited period of lower contributions could have an effect later in life on what a person receives in every single year they draw their pension. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the new framework established by the Bill will be made clear to personnel. What assurance can he give that the impact of any change in service arrangements will be highlighted appropriately?
Although we welcome the Bill, it is not a panacea for the very real challenges of recruitment and retention in our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House share my concern that numbers continue to fall in every single service. The trade-trained size of the Army is now well below the 82,000 target that the Conservative party promised to maintain in its manifesto, and intake rates are falling in each of the reserve forces, too. Indeed, a recent report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), commissioned by the Government, found that recruitment to the armed forces is “running to stand still,” resulting in the “hollowing out” of the services.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Has she had a chance to look at the figures that the Minister for the Armed Forces released to me earlier this year? They show that at Catterick, for example, not a single common infantry course this year was filled. In one month, April, only 14 of 96 places were filled. The course was not filled in any month this year. Does my hon. Friend think the Government have a grip on the recruitment crisis they are facing?
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope Ministers are listening to that major concern.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for kindly mentioning my report. One point it raises is that, although recruitment is definitely under pressure, there is quite an optimistic picture for the reserves, and the picture has been getting better, not worse.
Nia Griffith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his report also mentions the concern, which Opposition Members share, about the MOD’s recruitment contract with Capita.
The Public Accounts Committee recommended back in 2014 that the MOD
“should ensure that it is able to hold Capita to account for its performance in delivering the Army recruitment contract”.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out how exactly Capita is being held to account for its persistent and inexcusable failure to meet the targets.
Earlier this month we read reports that said that the serving reservists who staff recruitment offices will be replaced by civilian staff from Capita, further weakening the link between those who serve in our forces and the recruitment process. It is clear that intake rates cannot be allowed to continue falling year on year, and I would be grateful if the Minister also set out what specific action he will take to address that.
One important way of beginning to deal with the crisis in recruitment and retention would be to lift the public sector pay cap and give our armed forces the pay award that they deserve. Our personnel serve with courage and distinction and, particularly at this time of year in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday, we remember the sacrifices that they make on our behalf. Yet their pay was frozen for the first two years of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, and it has risen by just 1% a year from 2013. When inflation is factored in, the starting salary of an Army private has been cut by more than £1,000 in real terms since 2010, yet accommodation costs have continued to rise and personnel and their families have lost out due to cuts in social security payments.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body observed that the “perfect storm” has resulted in few personnel feeling that they get anything resembling a pay rise each year. Indeed, the latest armed forces continuous attitude survey found that satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits is at the lowest level ever recorded, with only a third of personnel satisfied with their basic pay.
Toby Perkins
If a business had huge shortages in certain skills because people with those skills were leaving for competitor organisations, would it not be incredible if that business was simultaneously spending huge amounts of money training new people to replace those who had left while, as part of its recruitment and retention strategy, keeping wages below inflation when all its competitors are increasing wages?
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend, with his business experience, makes a valid point.
Of course, our armed forces do not have a trade union to lobby on their behalf, but I know from my conversations with personnel that there is considerable interest in the Government’s policy on pay. That is an area on which we want to work constructively with the Government, and I have already said that if they are prepared to amend the Bill to give a fair pay rise to our forces personnel, or even to allow the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to conduct an in-year review without the cap in place, the Government can certainly count on Labour support.
We welcome the Bill, which has support on both sides of the House. I look forward to working with Members to scrutinise and improve it appropriately.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the Front-Bench speeches have indicated, there is a high degree of cross-party consensus on this initiative. That consensus was also evident in the report of the outgoing Select Committee on Defence published in April 2017, “SDSR 2015 and the Army”. The report concluded:
“We support the Chief of the General Staff’s commitment to changing the culture of the Army through initiatives on employment, talent management and leadership. Successful implementation of these initiatives could provide a structure within which all soldiers can achieve their full potential. However, we recognise that this must not be to the detriment of the Army’s ability to undertake its core role of warfighting. We note the concerns expressed about cultural resistance within the Army to this agenda, particularly in respect of Flexible Engagement.”
In their reply, the Government referred to their
“programme to widen opportunities for all, thereby better reflecting the demands of a modern society. This programme includes promoting a culture of inclusivity in which every Service person is treated with respect and is able to access a range of employment opportunities, including flexible working.
The Flexible Engagement System continues to be considered to be a positive and appropriately contemporary employment system.”
In the opening speeches, we heard reference to a point made by the Chief of the General Staff, Nick Carter, back in February 2015:
“We have a career structure at the moment which is fundamentally a male career structure. It has a number of break points which sadly encourage women to leave rather than encouraging them to stay.”
Although one aspect of the Bill, to do with presentation, was controversial in the upper House—I will come to that in a few moments—it is notable that the people who were concerned about that presentational point are four- square behind the substantive principles of the Bill. For example, Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, stated in the debate on the Queen’s Speech:
“Too many talented people, especially women, are leaving early because the terms of their service are not flexible enough to accommodate their evolving personal circumstances and the associated pressures. We cannot afford such waste: it is expensive in terms of training replacements and it impacts on our operational capability.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2017; Vol. 783, c. 91.]
When considering what my reaction should be to the central proposals in the Bill, I came up with the following five questions. First, will an arrangement be overridden in cases of emergency? The Government have been absolutely clear from the outset that it will be overridden. There is no question that people will not be available to serve in the armed forces in a national crisis, when required, no matter what arrangements they have entered into for flexible working.
The next question I ask is: will skills be diminished? It appears from the scheme’s structure that that is not a significant danger, because the idea of flexible working in this way will involve people doing so only for a finite period after full-time service and before further full-time service. So the range of skills ought not to be diminished, and I believe that that safeguard is sufficient.
Where I am a little more concerned and would welcome further contributions is on my third question: will bureaucratic logjams be caused by appeals? The Government have done well in their briefing material, and it may be that some of it was prepared in response to the advantage of having had this Bill considered in the upper House by senior former heads of the services and even former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. Government briefing material has been very full and they have set out a complex scheme of how appeals will work. I am still in need of reassurance that we will not become bogged down in bureaucratic trials and tribulations, possibly going all the way up to ombudsman level. That is one danger that needs further commentary.
My fourth question is: will this send a positive or a negative signal to—
Toby Perkins
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am apologetic for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I was waiting for him to take a natural pause, but one did not appear. Am I right in saying that there is a convention in this House that speakers should remain in their place for two speeches before they leave? The Secretary of State has left after only one speech, and the Chair of the Defence Committee is speaking. Have you been notified of any reason why the Secretary of State has had to leave so soon, when many of us would have expected him to want to know what was being said?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The Secretary of State went at such speed that he did not even say goodnight or anything, so I am not sure why; he may well be coming back. He may have been taken short, given the speed he went at. It is convention that Members normally hear at least two speeches, and it is normal for Ministers to stay around to hear a bit more. Of course, when we have such a learned Member as the Chair of the Select Committee, we all wish to hear him. I had better bring him back on.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. That is no reason for him not to be here—let us put that on the record now.
Dr Lewis
But I did feel it was somewhat beyond the call of duty, and I believe that the whole Committee appreciated it.
My fourth question is: will this new system send a positive or a negative signal—first, to recruits and, secondly, to potential adversaries? That is where the controversy arose in the upper House, as grave concern was expressed about the Bill’s repeated use of the terminology of “part-time service”. To give a brief example of the dangers of the use of such terminology, I take a moment to refer to the lyrics of a “Glee Club” song composed by Liberal Democrat activists at their 2014 conference, sending up their party’s policy of sending nuclear submarines to sea either without warheads—we appear to be without Liberal Democrats, too—or only for part of the time. I will not sing it, the House will be glad to hear. [Hon. Members: “Do!”] It is done to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” and, talking of the boats, one of my favourite verses goes, “We can send them back to base if we’re really up the creek and request the war’s postponed until the middle of next week.” The chorus then is, “We believe in a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine,” and so on. Members can, thus, see the potential for the use of “part-time” in relation to armed forces to allow our adversaries and our critics in the media to suggest there is something less professional and less committed about the way in which we are conducting ourselves. Lord Craig of Radley, former Chief of the Air Staff, did suggest an alternative wording, which I hope might still be considered in Committee.
My final question is: will it be possible to apply to go on so-called part-time service just in time to avoid an operational deployment? The answer to the first question about emergency service clearly covers the issue of whether someone about to be deployed to a war zone could use this scheme to get out of it—clearly, they could not—but I would like a little more clarification from Ministers on whether there is any risk that some people might see a less popular deployment looming up on the near horizon and decide that the time was appropriate to start thinking about applying not for so-called part-time service but for a change, a reduction or an alternative to full-deployment just at that point.
Subject to those caveats, I wish the Bill well. I look forward to hearing further elaboration on the points I have raised, perhaps in the closing speech from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who I believe will be summing up. I endorse the commendation of both Front Benchers for this measure.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to speak for the Scottish National party today on flexible working in the armed forces. I will start by declaring an interest: my husband is a retired Royal Navy officer with 17 years’ service. Many of the issues raised today affected our family. In his last year of service, my husband had only six days’ leave, and that included weekends. That sort of leave entitlement is clearly unsustainable, and many service personnel, particularly parents, eventually have to decide between career and family.
We in the SNP very much welcome the move towards flexible working for the armed forces. This is a real opportunity to modernise and reform the armed forces, particularly the work-life balance of the brave men and women who choose to serve. Any moves towards a more family-friendly environment have the potential to be transformational, so we enthusiastically support them. However, as has been said by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), with any legislation the devil is in the detail.
We broadly support the aims of clause 1(3)(a), but I am struggling to understand how it would work in reality. If, as it appears, it applies to non-frontline posts only and is not applicable to branches that are deploying on operations, I believe this is a missed opportunity. By applying a little creative thinking, we could find ways in which it could operate in these circumstances. For example, if a unit is sent to a conflict zone, a person could deploy for a proportion of a tour that corresponds with their agreed service. That raises other difficulties relating to gaps in the unit and possible unfamiliarity with the territory, but perhaps we could then consider people deploying on every second tour.
Although I accept that that would be alien to many who are currently serving and it will need an entirely new mindset, the continuous attitude survey shows that the impact of service on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving. When we find ourselves in a situation where only 10% of personnel are women, clearly action must be taken. I am pleased that the flexible working trial in the Army has been well received, and the fact that two thirds of the applicants were female suggests this legislation is long overdue.
According to the explanatory notes, clause 1(4) will give a commanding officer
“the ability…to vary, suspend or terminate the arrangement in prescribed circumstances, for example: national emergency or some form of manning crisis”.
That causes me some difficulty. I do not think anyone would have a problem with the suspension of the agreement during times of national emergency, but we know already that there are acute shortages in some key areas, such as the submarine service, where my husband served. Additional submarine pay and retention bonuses have not addressed this problem. Such a “manning crisis” could apply to the whole submarine service. If someone happens to serve in a branch that is struggling to recruit and retain, will part-time working not be applicable to them? If that is the case, although the Bill is well intentioned, it will not address any of the shortages and retention issues that many branches experience.
I wish to digress slightly for a minute. At the weekend, we heard the shocking news that nine submariners had tested positive for drugs. The Secretary of State was absolutely correct to take the swift action he did, but where does this leave the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent? It is a pity the Secretary of State is no longer present, because I would like to know what guarantees he can give that if a branch is already operationally stretched, the committed personnel will not suffer leave curtailment and non-flexible working as a result of shortages or because of the behaviour of others.
Concerns have already been expressed that flexible working should not become a way for the Ministry of Defence to save money on an already overstretched defence budget. Flexible working should never become a way for employers to reduce their employees’ hours against their will. Will the Minister assure us that no part-time contracts will be imposed on any service personnel? It is clear that those granted part-time contracts will have pay and pensions reduced to a pro-rata value. Will the Minister clarify that that will not result in service personnel losing other benefits, such as service accommodation?
The geographic restriction in clause l(3)(b) is a welcome step, but again I seek more detail on the specifics. Earl Howe stated that personnel will not be separated from their home base for more than 24 hours at a time any more than 35 times in a given year. Perhaps I am confused, but more than 24 hours could mean 25 hours or it could mean a fortnight. For the provision to have any real punch, there needs to be a maximum time limit. Will the Minister clarify how the Government came to the conclusion that 35 times a year would be the appropriate limit? Will there be a maximum time limit for these separations?
If the Bill is to be properly implemented and achieve the required outcomes, personnel need to be properly represented within the military and with defence policy decision makers. Putting an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing is the norm for many countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries. Interestingly, the armed forces in the Netherlands are represented by four trade unions. Service personnel there who are over 50 have to be encouraged to leave to make space for younger recruits. What a luxurious situation they have.
Recognised representation is a key way for the UK Government to better understand the needs and requirements of our armed forces and their families. If the Government are serious about improving the lives of our armed forces in every respect, from pay and conditions to the standard of housing, they should put the armed forces representative body on a statutory footing. I plan to raise that issue again in Committee. The measures in the Bill are a step in the right direction, but the UK Government could use this opportunity to do more for service personnel and their families.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
The Bill is the result of successive reports and surveys carried out by the MOD. All have shown that there is a strong desire to change the working options of serving regulars. In the 2017 armed forces survey, 18% of the personnel who took part said they would take up the option of flexible working, with 36% suggesting they would consider it in future. As in the business world, it is important that we adjust our policies to recruit and retain the best people.
Last week, I met a constituent, Chief Petty Officer Donna Chapman, when she received an award for her achievement in leadership at the Fleet Air Arm awards. We spoke about her career serving in the armed forces, and through our conversation I began to understand the sacrifices she has made to serve our country, not least in leaving her young daughter in the care of her mother for seven months while she was deployed at sea. She told me that separation is part of the job but flexibility at other times is crucial to her wellbeing and that of her daughter.
Donna’s story of dedicated service is not unique in the military. Figures from this year’s MOD attitude survey show that just under two thirds of service personnel feel that family and personal life might influence their decision to leave. A third said that reduced separation would increase their intention to remain, and a similar number would be more likely to remain if they had the opportunity to work part time. The Bill will address those issues.
I found myself in a similar position when I spent eight years working in Madrid, travelling the world for work, with my husband doing exactly the same from a different base in a different country. It is tiring travelling the globe and spending extended periods away from one’s family. Distance and travel is not always the issue.
As we know, life is rarely a smooth ride and there is no way to predict what is thrown at us. I recently met staff from a local charity, the Sussex Snowdrop Trust, which cares for children with long-term, life-threatening illness. It made me think about what a serving mother or father is supposed to do when confronted with such a situation. They need to maintain their income and be at home to care for and support their family. They need flexibility.
For those people in the armed forces who handed in their notice, the most-cited reason was the impact of service on their family and personal life. The Bill will provide in-work flexibility to allow our servicemen and servicewomen to react to changes in their circumstances, or to adopt a change of pace, as is sometimes required. Importantly, it will mean that we do not lose our highly trained and skilled military workforce. Furthermore, we the people will be kept safe, because they can be pulled back into full-time service in a time of national emergency, when their expertise is most needed.
There is a clear case for such a change, as seen in the business world, with 24% of the UK labour market now working part time and 96% of all UK employers offering the option of flexible working. With unemployment at levels not seen since 1975, at just 4.3%, companies compete for talent globally and the military needs to adapt to attract the brightest and the best. Chief Petty Officer Donna Chapman highlighted that when she told me about a careers event held in Canary Wharf on HMS Iron Duke, which was attended by a group of 500 young girls who were eager to explore the career options open to them. When discussing a future in the air fleet, their biggest concerns were about work flexibility: they cited concerns about balancing such a career with starting a family. We know this is a likely cause of concern for women, especially as 42% of the 15.1 million working women in the UK are in part-time employment.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution. There has been mention of the hope that the Bill will help to recruit and, crucially, retain women in our armed forces. The Government aim is for women to make up 15% of the armed forces by 2020. Does the hon. Lady agree that when statistics are produced, it should be made clear whether personnel are part time to ensure that the figures are not unintentionally inflated?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, and I am sure that that will be the case.
We currently average just 10% women personnel across the three branches of our armed forces. Policy changes such as those we are discussing have already been implemented in countries such as New Zealand, Denmark and the Netherlands, with all citing increased retention and recruitment. Australia is currently implementing flexible working opportunities and has seen a steady rise in the engagement of women in the military from January 2016 to February 2017—an increase from 15.4% to 16.1% across the entire Australian defence force.
I recently spoke to Charlotte, a 25-year-old constituent, who has just completed her reserves training at Sandhurst for the Engineering Corps. This first-class Cambridge engineer, who is fully employed, was able to become a reserve as the role fitted in with her other work commitments. That model is used successfully by the reserves and should be offered in some form to the regulars. Allowing people to join the services on a part-time basis is likely to lead people with highly sought after skills—such as Charlotte—to becoming regulars in future, bringing their skills and experience from the private sector to tackle the challenges of the modern military. This same ethos of pulling in talent can be extended to other areas where we struggle to recruit enough specialists, such as in cyber-security.
Another avenue that this Bill will open up is allowing individuals to gain further skills outside the parameters of the forces. It is common practice across many industries to take time to do further study—I have chosen to do that several times over my career. This is widely encouraged in business as it benefits not only the individual but the employer, as newly learned skills diversify the talent pool and bring in new skills, fresh ideas and fresh thinking.
Potentially, this Bill is the start of a journey of modern working for the military. This is the 21st century and companies around the world are using technology to allow for greater employment flexibility. Such a move should not be restricted to the civilian population and could act as a catalyst for greater productivity and satisfaction in some areas of service. Work UK published a paper in January entitled “Workspace revolution” based on information attained from more than 20,000 business leaders and owners. Its findings on flexible working shed light on the business implications for the use of new technology. It is an important aspect that businesses consider when seeking to acquire top talent, as today’s workers are reporting that it is not just salary that makes a difference to their career choice. If we add to that the fact that research shows that improved concentration levels and productivity are benefits of flexible working, the business case is made.
As more workers wish to work flexibly, and with technology available to enable them to do so productively, it is hardly surprising to find that many businesses are marrying their need for greater agility with helping workers achieve greater personal happiness and work-life balance. That will become increasingly important as we extend our working lives into our late sixties and beyond.
This Bill is a fantastic opportunity for the armed forces to retain the highly skilled personnel who may otherwise leave; to recruit the best and brightest who may well not want a full-time enlisting into the regulars; to encourage others, especially women, to feel that it is a career path with flexibility built in to take account of their life plans; and to provide opportunities to increase the skills of serving personnel and diversify the regulars with more private sector staff.
In conclusion, this Bill goes some way towards creating a more modern and future-looking military force. I want the 890 regulars who live in my constituency to feel that they have flexibility and freedom in work—whether they are based in Thorney Island, or neighbouring Portsmouth or Aldershot. This legislation will address the military’s ability to recruit and retain the best of the best, which we all agree is vital to national security. The nature of the threat that we face from those who seek to do us harm is changing. Today, we live in a world in which technology, skills, talent and experience are just as important as the military equipment that our armed forces need. In a world in which we see state-sponsored cyber-warfare as a normal occurrence, it is even more important that we attract and retain the brightest and the best in our armed forces. The Bill helps Britain to achieve those outcomes as well as to maximise the employment opportunities available to women in our armed forces. I therefore look forward to supporting the Government to deliver this change.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). In the role that I am privileged to hold as chair of the all-party group on the armed forces covenant, I welcome the Bill’s key measures. However, as far as I am concerned, this is the just beginning of the process, not the end. There are four issues that we need to explore further, most of which have already been touched on by Members on both Front Benches. I am talking about recruitment, retention, family life and the development of female personnel.
A challenge lies ahead: we have a 5% deficit in our armed forces personnel and this Bill, while I welcome it wholeheartedly, will require us to appoint and recruit even more people to ensure that flexible working is more than just a phrase and that it is a reality. We will simply need to recruit more people to make this policy work, which, given where we are, will provide additional challenges.
On recruitment, a third of our armed forces cite flexible working as a reason why they will stay in the forces. Of great concern is the fact that, within the Royal Navy, 46% of service personnel cite the lack of flexible working as a reason why they would consider leaving. Those are not our figures, but their figures, which gives us cause for huge concern.
Then there is the issue of family life. None of us, especially those who serve in this House, operates without the support of others to enable us to do our job. That should be no less the case for those who are serving every day to keep us safe. We need to look not just at flexible working but at other issues, including the delivery of the covenant and making sure that it is tangible for our armed forces personnel. In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who was then chair of the all-party group, introduced the Children of Armed Services Personnel (Schools Admission) Bill, which focused on how children could get school places when families were redeployed very quickly. It is issues such as that which cause retention problems and which are the bread and butter to our families and our service personnel. Unless we make some significant changes—and even some minor ones—to how the system operates, we will continue to lose our armed forces personnel.
We also have the unfortunate reality of the service family accommodation model. I am talking about the reality of trying to get accommodation to work for personnel and their families; of trying to ensure that they can get the right property in the right place at the right time and in the right school district; and of trying to ensure that properties have boilers that work, hot water and all those other things that people require. We would not put up with not having those things, so why should those people who are keeping us safe and their families do so? The reality is that the contract with CarillionAmey needs to be greatly improved, otherwise the actions that we are calling for today become irrelevant and we will continue to have a recruitment and retention challenge in our military.
Mr Francois
On the point about CarillionAmey, does the hon. Lady agree that, when we speak to serving personnel, it becomes clear that they are not exactly enamoured of that company? The Ministry of Defence needs to compel its contractor materially to raise its game. If the contractor does not do so, it should lose the contract.
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, one thing that has proved to be both a huge honour and a heart-breaking experience is that, as chair of the all-party group, service personnel families contact me on a regular basis to detail their experiences. What goes on is simply not good enough. I have had representations from some of the service personnel charities, even as late as last week, and they are now worried about what happens next. Just as CarillionAmey seems to have woken up to the fact that it has some responsibilities, the charities are now concerned that, if things are put on a regional basis, we will have to start all over again explaining the needs and requirements of our personnel. Therefore, as bad as it is now, we are concerned about what happens next. We in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the MOD understands the concerns and the fact that it is simply not acceptable for a family to have to wait eight days for their boiler to be fixed.
The concerns that we are talking about relate not just to those experiences, but to how much people earn. Members will appreciate, from the trial of flexible working, that there were concerns about how tour bonuses were to be paid and how reduced hours would have a knock-on effect on salaries. These issues are compounded in the current climate by the mini defence review. It has been raised directly with me that serving personnel are concerned about losing their tour bonuses and what will happen to them next. Owing to a lack of communication, they are being told by senior officers that they might lose some of their core terms and conditions. That would mean that flexible working will become just words and will not help to fix the problem.
Toby Perkins
Flexible working would be great if it resulted in more people choosing to stay in our armed forces, but what if it makes work more flexible only for those who are already in the armed forces? The impact could be even greater demands on those who are not on flexible working contracts. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more. We need to be careful about how we roll out flexible working to ensure that the whole workforce is covered from day one in 2019. We now have about a year until that date in which to recruit in order to ensure that staff are not increasingly overstretched. It has to be a whole-force approach. As with any business that implements flexible working options, a full complement will be needed to deliver flexible working, otherwise it will not work.
I will briefly mention women in the armed forces. The number of women currently serving is a key issue; 10.2% of our armed forces are women, which is a significant development from the situation 20 years ago, but it is simply not good enough. I think that many colleagues on both sides of the House—especially after debates earlier today—would suggest that more women everywhere would be a very good thing. But the reality is that there will not be senior female personnel, such as a female Chief of the Defence Staff, until women have progressed through the ranks. To do that, we need to ensure that they and their families, whether serving or not, have support around them.
The fact that only three women are at two-star rank is simply not acceptable. We need to look at the additional support they need, which is why this has to be the beginning, not the end—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is correcting me. There are, in fact, four women at two-star rank. The right hon. Gentleman will have to tell me who has been promoted; I celebrate and welcome all promotions. There are additional strains on family life for all women who serve, but there are also clear moments where career breaks are necessary. Women should not have to leave the forces to have a family or to look after ageing relatives.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
At the heart of the Bill and at the heart of what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government’s proposed legislative change will require a cultural change in the armed forces. Is that not what is needed for the very fine and good aspiration of this legislation to be delivered in practice?
Ruth Smeeth
We are talking about a cultural change and a legislative change, but it is also a financial change. In order to ensure that our armed forces can protect us when we need them to, we need to deliver for them and look after them. That is the least we owe them. To get past these challenges and deliver for our armed forces, this legislation must be the beginning of reviewing their terms and conditions, not the end.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, but—there is always a but—we need to look at the armed forces’ overall broader package of terms and conditions, and at how much they earn. We need to look at the 1% pay cap because, as the shadow Secretary of State said, there is no trade union that can advocate for our armed forces. It is down to us in this House to ensure that they are well paid, and it is down to us to fight their corner because no one else is going to do it for them. While our service personnel are protecting our national security at home and abroad, we must ensure that we are looking after them and their families.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who serves with me on the Select Committee on Defence. I thought she gave a rather good speech.
This is a brief but nevertheless important piece of legislation that has implications for recruitment and retention in Britain’s armed forces. Across this House, we all greatly value what our armed forces do for us. Therefore, I have to say that it is a shame that there is not one single Liberal Democrat Member present in the Chamber to talk about what our armed forces do for us. My contribution will focus on the recruitment challenges faced by our armed forces and how the Bill can help to address them, and I will make some observations on its potential for aiding retention.
Our armed forces are the best of British, but they are currently under pressure. As of May 2017, the total strength of the regular armed forces was 138,350—some 5% below their establishment strength—although shortages are far worse in specialised pinch-point trades. In the year to April 2017, 12,950 people joined the UK regular armed forces, but in the same period 14,970 left—more than 2,000 more. Partly as a result of these trends, I was commissioned by the Prime Minister last year to conduct a study into the state of recruiting into the British armed forces, both regular and reserve.
I submitted my report, entitled “Filling the Ranks”, to both Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence in July, and a copy of the report was subsequently published on my parliamentary website in September 2017. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks and appreciation for all their assistance in compiling the report to: Colonel Simon Goldstein, an Army reserve officer who acted as my staff officer on the report; my parliamentary assistant and researcher, Miss Sophie Bond-Jones; my personal assistant, Mrs Adele Jacquin; and, lastly, Wing Commander Paul Maguire, who acted as my liaison officer with the MOD. I made 20 recommendations and I am pleased to say that I have recently heard that the MOD has accepted all of them, for which I thank the Secretary of State.
As the report argues, a combination of lower than expected retention and failure to achieve recruiting targets means that the under-manning in the armed forces is worsening and has been for some time. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are now running at around 10% below their annual recruiting target, while the shortfall for the Army is more than 30%. This continuing process of hollowing out in the ranks costs the armed forces valuable experience and threatens to compound the problem by increasing the pressure on those personnel who remain. In order to address these problems, the MOD needs to increase its recruiting performance, particularly among black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel and female personnel. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention that in his speech.
The strategic defence review 2015 established the people programme to seek new ways of modernising the MOD employment offer to potential new recruits. I confess that I do have strong reservations about one element of the people programme—namely, the future accommodation model, which deals with the provision of service housing. Suffice it to say, I humbly advise Ministers to think again carefully about proceeding with FAM, at least in its current form. However, one area I very much agree with is the future engagement strategy, which the Bill seeks to give effect to. By offering recruits the opportunity to vary their service over the lifetime of their career, especially if their family circumstances change, the FES offers a more welcoming prospect for people thinking of joining the armed forces.
The Bill should help to create a more fluid market for personnel seeking to transfer between regular and reserve service and vice versa. Regular personnel transferring to reserve service can often bring with them tremendous experience to help to bolster the strength of reserve units. Conversely, reserves transferring to the regulars often bring with them remarkable enthusiasm to make a meaningful contribution to their new units. For those reasons, the Bill will be an important addition and advantage for the MOD’s future recruitment efforts.
The Bill and the flexible engagement strategy could also assist the MOD and the armed forces in the increasingly challenging field of retention. Although more personnel continue to leave each year than to join, the recruiting organisations across all three services are increasingly running to stand still as they to try to fill the gaps in the ranks, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out. The most serious problems remain in the Army, but this is also likely to prove an increasing challenge for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, as both their establishments are due to increase by several hundred over the next few years in order to accommodate new equipment such as the two new aircraft carriers and the new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.
We know from the armed forces continuous attitude survey that pressure on family life is one of the chief reasons for personnel leaving the services. Other factors include the effect on spousal careers; to a certain extent, pay; and the quality, or otherwise, of service accommodation. However, the challenge of long hours and/or separation from families is a particular reason why service personnel—especially more experienced personnel—eventually decide to jack it in.
In that respect, the Bill can be of real assistance by allowing personnel to vary their commitment for a time to suit their family circumstances—perhaps following the birth of a child or to allow people to help provide care for an elderly relative. It should be particularly beneficial to female personnel who wish to take a temporary career break to raise young children.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My constituent Flight Lieutenant Ron Smyth, who was a veteran of the Battle of Britain, died last week at the age of 96. People like him ensured that we have the freedom that is so important to our society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is very important in recognising such sacrifices and encouraging more people to enter the armed forces?
Mr Francois
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we should never take living in a free country for granted. That is why we need armed forces of the highest calibre, and I pay tribute to his late constituent. Anything that can improve the quality of our armed forces is to be welcomed, and as I shall argue, the Bill can help to do that.
Without moralising, let me say also that the Bill might, to some extent, help to address the unfortunately relatively high divorce rate among service personnel, although that could also be addressed by a massive increase in performance by the MOD housing and maintenance contractor CarillionAmey, to which reference has been made this evening. If I were to summarise its performance, I would say that I would not trust that company to organise a social function in a beer production facility.
From what I gathered as a Minister in the Department, the decision to stay or leave—to stick or twist, as someone once described it—is often taken in the round, based on a variety of factors. As an example, hon. Members should picture the scene around the kitchen table one evening, when the kids have been put to bed, and a female corporal and her husband are discussing whether she should leave the Army. The factors they take into account include the progress of her career and the likelihood of further promotion, the effect on her husband’s career, the implication for the schooling of their children, the ability to care for an elderly relative who is increasingly unwell and the fact that the family has not been able to take a holiday for the last three years because of the couple’s future work commitments, including the wife’s extended deployment overseas. They are, in short, a family under pressure. What the Bill does, on a practical level, is offer an extra option in that scenario to help relieve the pressure on the family. That could be both family and retention-friendly, and thus help to keep an experienced and expensively trained non-commissioned officer in the service of the Crown.
Our armed forces, to whom I willingly pay tribute this evening, face very real pressures in recruitment and retention. Both those important issues must be addressed if we are to prevent further hollowing out in the ranks, which, if left unchecked, will increasingly impact our operational capability. We can buy all the expensive kit in the world, but if we do not have the people to operate it, we are at a disadvantage.
The Bill and the flexible engagement strategy, which it enables, seek to help alleviate pressure in both those vital areas. The measures are designed by the services for the services. Over time, the Bill, by allowing flexible working, and by allowing commanders to take into account the personal pressures on their personnel, could make a real difference to recruitment and, particularly, to retention in our armed forces.
In summary, these measures help to mirror best practice in the public and private sectors and to create terms and conditions of service that are fit for the 21st century. On that basis, I am happy to offer my support for this important piece of positive legislation, and I wish it Godspeed.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who spoke knowledgeably and pragmatically on the Bill. I share many of his views about not only the opportunities it presents but the many reasons why there should still be reservations about the recruitment and retention prospects of our armed forces. I am also glad my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) indicated that the Opposition will support the Bill on Second Reading, while outlining areas that are still a cause for concern.
It is fitting that we should be considering this incredibly important aspect of the development of modern working practices in the run-up to the Remembrance Day period, when we will all be in our constituencies reflecting on the contributions made to our armed forces in the recent and the more distant past. In my contribution, I would like to speak a little of the pride that I and the vast majority of my constituents feel for our armed forces and of what more we in this place could do to repay our debt of gratitude. I would also like to reflect more on the pressures affecting our serving personnel and their lives, which I have observed in the considerable number of exchanges I have had with serving personnel, both within and outside the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I have had the pleasure of enrolling in for the last two years. I would also like to outline what more the Government could do to ensure that firms that benefit from the skills of people in our armed forces contribute back. Finally, I would like to say more about the Government’s performance on recruitment to the armed forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about the importance of the public sector pay cap and the impact pay has on armed forces morale, and she was absolutely right to do so. There is no question but that most of the people who serve in our armed forces could earn more money elsewhere. We are not saying that they are merely in it for the money, but it is important that we send a real signal from this place that we value the role these people play. When we all speak so positively about them, it is not unreasonable that they should look at not just our words but our actions, and when they see the public sector pay and the fact that their wages have risen by less than inflation on a like-for-like basis annually under this Government, that is important.
The Government have overseen a monumental reduction in armed forces personnel, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford just said. Let us be absolutely clear that that includes breaking the manifesto promise on which the vast majority of Conservative Members stood in 2015—not to allow the Army to fall below 82,000. However, simultaneously, there have been ever-greater expectations in terms of the role our armed forces will play.
Members on both sides of the House will go out on Remembrance Sunday, and we will lay our wreaths and wear our poppies with pride, but we also need to consider the impact that the choices we make in this place have on morale in the armed forces. I have referred to pay, and pensions have been mentioned, but other important considerations include the ability of members of the armed forces to enjoy a family life; the investment they see in equipment; the extent to which we do what we say we are going to do in terms of our commitment to them; the opportunities for them to progress their careers; and issues such as housing and schooling, which have been mentioned.
I would like to say how impressed I have been with all aspects of our armed forces personnel in the many exchanges that I have had with them. I spent time with those on board HMS Sutherland—a Type 23 frigate under a female captain—which I was able to witness on exercises in southern England last year. Also last year I saw personnel on HMS Dragon preparing for their FOST —flag officer sea training—and I saw the naval training provided on HMS Collingwood. The Army’s 1st (UK) Division recently ran an open day to discuss their persistent engagement work, and many of us were able to watch the war-fighting 3rd (UK) Division performing urban warfare exercises recently. I saw the infantry training regime at Catterick where they are training up new recruits who were incredibly impressive in their commitment and maturity at a tender age very early in their Army careers. Like many other Members, I have taken tremendous pride in the meetings that I have had with local servicemen and women at a variety of important civic engagements that they have undertaken in Chesterfield. I am absolutely certain that the commitment and professionalism shown by our armed forces personnel remain of a very high standard, and Britain is right to have tremendous pride in all those who wear Her Majesty’s uniform.
As we head towards Remembrance Sunday I will give a brief plug for the ceremonies that will be taking place in my constituency, in Staveley on the Sunday morning and in Chesterfield on the Sunday afternoon, as well as the remembrance festival that we hold in Chesterfield for a packed house on the Thursday following Remembrance Sunday, at which all the old war favourites are sung along with a more solemn service. At such events we really get a strong sense of the pride that people across our communities have for the armed forces.
Many of the issues that face our armed forces are societal and issues of skills that would exist outside Government policy, but it is important that in many of the areas that Government are able to influence, they should take their share of responsibility for recruitment and retention. The armed forces are fishing in a very competitive pool when it comes to recruiting personnel. I sense that a great many more people now see their service life as a component of their career, rather than its mainstay. That is different from the past so any steps that can be taken to ensure that the armed forces are, as much as possible, a family-friendly employer where people can continue to develop their career, and are offered a variety of different ways of serving, are absolutely crucial.
Flexible working is not just an issue for women—it is also very much an issue for men. Many of the men I spoke to who are thinking of leaving the armed forces say that it is because of the pressures on their families. When we talk about flexible working, it is important that we do not see it as purely a female issue, about how we get more women into the armed forces. Important as that is, we must also keep men in the armed forces.
It is also important to consider the alternative opportunities for people if they choose to leave the armed forces. Particularly within the Navy, but in all areas of the armed forces, there are huge numbers of people in engineering posts who reach a certain level, then realise that there are many better-paid opportunities outside and that their career progression is stalling, and move on as a result. It is really important to make sure that we do all we can to continue to create new opportunities within all levels of the armed forces.
The Government’s commitment to the reserves is perfectly sensible. It needs to be born, not from a response to austerity as a reason to reduce the regulars, but from a recognition that it makes sense in its own right. It is incredibly important that we encourage all companies, but particularly those that are suppliers to the MOD, to do all they can to encourage their members of staff to join the reserves. They should not just encourage them to join, but they should value the work that their members of staff do in the armed forces and see it as a way for them to progress their careers rather than something that they merely tolerate. MOD suppliers, who recruit a huge number of people from the armed forces, need to recognise that there is a real benefit to them from allowing the armed forces to spend all the money training people up and for them to end up being, in effect, poached by the private sector, which is simultaneously making a lot of money. When recruiting someone from the armed forces there should be much greater recognition of it being a two-way street and of the fact that people have the opportunity, through the reserves, to go back and continue to serve.
This is a very welcome Bill, and I support it. It is not going to solve all the problems, but if the issues that have been raised are addressed, it can play an important part.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who, as usual, spoke eloquently on a subject that is clearly very close to his heart.
I am very glad to be speaking on this Bill, because it is important to remember not just what goes into forming the armed forces but what exactly they are for and why flexibility matters. I intend to speak briefly, if I may, about a few of the operational commitments that we are currently engaged in. If we look at NATO’s work in Estonia, where a British battlegroup is currently in Tapa on the border with Russia, or the work we are doing in supporting the Ukrainian Government just a little further south, we can see that we are hiring not just soldiers but diplomats—people who can engage not just in a traditional battle of military might but a battle of ideas and messages. We are not merely taking young men and giving them a weapon—we are giving them ideas with which to combat the enemy.
That requires very special people. It requires people who can train themselves not only to a state of physical fitness so that they are able to carry the body armour, the Bergens, the weapons, or whatever it happens to be, but to a level of mental fitness such that even in exhausted situations after weeks of arduous training—or indeed, should the worst happen, operations—they are able to think hard and out-think the enemy. In areas like Ukraine, they can think through the complexities that are required when talking to a young man in a language that they do not speak and two weeks later have him ready for the frontline and Russian-backed militias.
We are asking an awful lot of these people, not only in that respect but in terms of endurance. With continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, we are asking people to stay at sea in a state of preparedness for six months at a time, day in, day out, as we have done for the best part of 40 years. It is not just hard to be on operations—it is really hard to maintain a level of readiness when you think you probably will not need it, but you just might. That requires a level of command and discipline that is very difficult to imagine in other walks of life. Yet we expect it daily—in fact, we are expecting it right now—of the sailors who are at sea. We also expect it of the sailors who are conducting other operations in submarines, whether they are approaching enemy coasts or preparing our intelligence services to be informed of the next terrorist action—listening, perhaps, off the coast of a foreign shore.
Those may not sound like traditional military skills, because so many of us grew up with things like—I am going to date myself now—“The Guns of Navarone” and other such fabulous movies from the 1960s and ’70s—
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you. We are still going to watch “Star Wars” at some point.
We are looking to train people in skills that are very much of the 21st century. Indeed, we have seen those skills being put to use around the world when we look at places like Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the level of engagement that is required not only with foreign armies in places like the Sahel, where several European armies are working together in a multilingual, multinational brigade, but with local forces, some of whom, frankly, barely qualify for the term “militia”, let alone “army”.
As we ask those people to do such extraordinary things, we are also trying to prepare them for the threats of which we are increasingly becoming aware in the cyber- domain. Attacks in the cyber-domain are not limited to election time in the United States, nor to espionage against us in the UK or attacks on our NATO allies, as was the case in Estonia. They happen all the time and everywhere. The cost of cyber-attack has reduced to such an extent that a relatively well-resourced sub-Saharan state could fairly easily hire a Russian hacker to damage our soldiers and our infrastructure in a peacekeeping mission.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s guided tour of British military deployments. Does he agree that it is critical for us to ask what we, as a nation, want for our forces, what they are for and, crucially, what they are not for? We need to define our role in the world, stick to it and deliver on foreign policy.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. and gallant Friend is, unsurprisingly, right. Having served around the world, he knows well that to command and to lead is to choose. As we set out what is global Britain, we must choose our priorities and make sure that our armed forces are fit to serve the needs of our country in the coming decades. It is absolutely essential to ensure that we have the right people—men and women, regular and reserve—to provide that service. I declare an interest: I am still a serving reservist. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. Flexibility is required to move from one form of employment to another, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, and people who do so bring other skills with them. That will be essential to securing the skills that we need at the level of preparedness that we require. Let us be honest: that level of preparation cannot truly be maintained if we focus simply on ensuring that everybody can speak enough Arabic—or French, or German, or whatever language it happens to be—that should anything come up, we can go off to a country in which that language is spoken; or on ensuring that everybody has enough skills in cyber or humanitarian reconstruction. Those skills are very hard to maintain at readiness, because doing so is expensive. If we maintain them at a slightly lower level and call on reservists who have them, we will have a force that is not only up to date but—let us not forget why we are here—cost-effective for the people who have sent us here to judge how best to deploy this country’s resources.
I welcome the Bill very much, and I welcome the fact that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is sitting on the ministerial Bench this evening. He knows more than anybody the role that the armed forces can play not only in humanitarian reconstruction, war and information operations but in a whole range of other tasks from diplomacy and education to reassurance and—perhaps the most important task that we ask our armed forces to carry out—deterring our enemies so that we can live in peace.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It seems almost cruel to inflict myself on the House following the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I digress briefly from the content of the Bill to say that if any Member has yet to read the recent interview that he gave, a copy of which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) is showing us just now, it is a must-read. He gave a thoughtful speech, as he always does, augmented by the support of his Conservative friends around him.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) I welcome the general principles of the Bill. It is about time that as an employer, the Ministry of Defence hauled itself into the 21st century. Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, we believe that the Bill should represent the beginning, rather than the end, of the many reforms and changes that the Ministry of Defence needs to make to keep up with the pace of change. That is what society expects it to do, as an employer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West has done, I impress on the Minister—he has just shuffled off along the Bench, but I see that we have been joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—and, indeed, on all Ministers the need to look at examples of how such reforms have been made elsewhere, in places such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
As several Members have mentioned, pay and conditions also need to be considered. In the Scottish National party’s manifesto for the election earlier this year, we committed to pushing for a representative body on a statutory footing for members of the armed forces. I see no reason why that cannot happen, and there seems to be some support across the House for the idea. I do not know whether the body should be something similar to the Police Federation or an actual trade union—if the Netherlands can manage four, surely we can manage at least one—but we should at least debate that.
On pay, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling outlined what we expect of members of our armed forces, and he put it better than I could ever hope to do. For goodness’ sake, let us pay them properly. Let us end the public sector pay cap—it is, in reality, a cut to their pay—for members of the armed forces and pay them properly. I am hopeful that the Government will introduce some plans on that in the upcoming Budget.
As has been mentioned, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West, we need to consider support for families. My hon. Friend knows well the challenges that many face with deployment and education, which she and other Members illustrated. Improving those things, as well as providing better support for veterans, all helps to improve the reputation of the Ministry of Defence as an employer.
One hon. Member, the name of whose constituency has escaped me, mentioned that we would not trust some private housing contractors to run certain refreshment events in breweries. We would not want to house even a dangerous dog in some of the housing that we expect our armed forces personnel to live in. Although the Bill is concerned solely with flexible working, housing is an area that would merit more of the House’s attention.
I welcome some of the work that is being done not just by the Government, but by councils and devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I am very pleased that in the Scottish Government, we have a Minister with responsibility for veterans’ affairs, Keith Brown. This is no criticism of previous Administrations, but that is something that came 10 years into the devolution settlement. It provided a real local focus in Scotland, delivering good and positive results in conjunction with the third sector, local authorities and other partner agencies. In reality, however, we need the Ministry of Defence to step up to the plate in supporting veterans.
Although we do not oppose the Bill—we welcome it and look forward to its progression through the House—we look forward to trying to make amendments in Committee. I echo the shadow Defence Secretary by saying that we will do so with an open mind, to try to make the Bill as good and robust as possible, not to be oppositionist. This sort of stuff is far too important. With that in mind, I hope that the Government will hear our suggestions with an open mind and an open heart, so that we can really get a Bill that is fit for purpose and fit for our fine armed forces.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). At first glance, the Bill seems slightly paradoxical; we are debating flexibility in the context of Army discipline, which is traditionally extremely rigid. Judging by all the knowledge that has informed contributions in the Chamber this evening, I think that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members have an understanding of the nuance of our fine tradition of military discipline and operational effectiveness. This is not all about discipline, but about the light flexibility that has traditionally gone with it.
I will illustrate that point by quoting a very short piece of writing by a distinguished soldier who served in Aldershot. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that my constituency of Aldershot—as the home of the British Army, with some 10,000 servicemen and women and their families—has always been at the heart of our glorious military tradition. There is no better account of the soldier’s experience of Aldershot than this very fine book. It was actually written in the 1930s, but it was reflecting on the late Victorian age.
The book was referring to 1895, when a certain young cavalry officer found himself posted to Aldershot. In those days, young cavalry officers were regimented into their unit by being trained with the soldiers. In modern parlance, they were beasted, basically, with their troopers. It was a means both to improve their riding and to show the troopers that the officers were, to some degree, at their level. They were ridden round the riding school without a saddle and with their hands behind their back.
The book states:
“Many a time did I pick myself up shaken and sore from the riding-school tan”—
the sand in the riding school—
“while twenty recruits grinned furtively but delightedly to see their officer suffering the same misfortunes which it was their lot so frequently to undergo.”
That very elegantly captures the eternal truth that, in all the command relationships in the British Army, authority is not bestowed on officers, but earned by officers working with their men. At the heart of that is, of course, a certain sense of flexibility and a sense that commanders, at whatever unit level, will always look after the interests of those under their command.
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, and others will have recognised that the quote was written by Winston Churchill. It is from a very fine book, which I am sure most right hon. and hon. Members will have enjoyed, called “My Early Life”. It sees him go on from Aldershot to be posted first to Cuba and then to British India, and it is highly recommended as a read.
The quote illustrates the importance of flexibility in the broadest sense, and I also want to talk about the impact on families. I have talked about commanding officers and those who have the power to make judgments about the working routine of the soldiers under their command, but we must also recognise that the burden, especially of operational soldiering, has a huge impact on the lives of not only the soldiers but their families.
I am really encouraged by the provisions in the Bill to allow a greater degree of planned family time for soldiers. It is very important to be able to plan, especially for those coming back from operations. If they can sit down and plan with their spouse who will be doing the school run for the next year, it is amazing what a difference that can make to the viability of their relationship and to the ability of that person to continue to serve. To that extent, the provisions are what we call a force multiplier: they will make our soldiers—our men and women across all three services in the armed forces—more effective.
We should be very pleased about that because using and deploying our armed forces is no longer a luxury. We have to be prepared for very large-scale deployments of conventional forces in the future. If anyone thinks that that is not the case, they need to learn from history. Again, it is interesting to comment on another parallel with the late Victorian age.
Winston Churchill wrote that book in the 1930s, but it was reflecting back to the 1890s, when he and his fellow officers were absolutely certain that they would not deploy to mainland Europe. Because of the size of the Army, they were absolutely convinced that they would not go to Europe. He and his fellow officers drew the
“conclusion that the British Army would never again take part in a European conflict. How could we, when we only had about one army corps with one Cavalry Division”?
That was in 1895, and 20 years later that entire generation was of course swept up in the conflagration on the European continent. We must never fall into the trap of thinking that large-scale deployments on a conventional basis are not likely.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful and eloquent speech he is making, particularly from his own experience as a soldier in the British Army. Does he feel that the increased flexibility brought about by the Bill is one key step in maintaining the high levels of recruitment into our armed forces that I am sure Members on both sides of the House want to see?
Leo Docherty
Yes is the answer—absolutely. The Bill is about retention, recruitment and the attractiveness of the whole proposition. I am very encouraged—I shall mention this again in a minute—by the greater specialisation that we will have under Army 2020.
As I have said, we need to draw a parallel with the 1890s. Back then, officers regarded their force as very small by Victorian standards. We are in a similar situation in the sense that we have a very small conventional force, but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that we will not need to deploy it in the near future. If we unroll the map and do a world tour, we can see that the middle east is in flames, that there is a resurgent Russia probing NATO’s eastern flank and that there is a possible nuclear conflagration in North Korea—a whole range of very serious challenges.
Our response to those challenges will be twofold. We clearly have a hard-power response using equipment. We will have some very impressive new equipment and capabilities coming through over the next 10 years. We have the magnificent carrier strike force with carrier-enabled power projection, although that will not come on line until 2026. We have the magnificent F-35s, which are part of that force, and we have a new armoured vehicle for the Army, so there is an amazing range of new kit and equipment.
The other side of that hard power is having the people to go with it, and the human element represents a new form of soft power that will be all the more important. We have the specialised infantry battalions that will be part of the new strike brigades. I had the pleasure last week to meet the commanding officer of one of the new specialised infantry brigades, 4 Rifles, in Aldershot. This kind of specialist infantry battalion will require a greater degree of expertise, and the prospect of serving in one of them will be a very strong motivation for people to be not only retained but recruited in the first place.
For me, the measures in the Bill are not a luxury; they will be important in ensuring that we have a sufficient force. No one in the Chamber should be under any illusion that we will not need large-scale conventional deployments in the near future. For those to be successful, our people must be at the heart of this. That is the golden thread: the great genius of the British military is our people. It was true back in 1895, during the first and second world wars, in 1982 and throughout our deployments in Iraq and Helmand. I am very pleased that the Bill will help to maintain the critical relationship between the MOD and our commanders at every level and the people who serve under them.
Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real privilege to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). His constituency has a fine military tradition, and his speech was a very illuminating and interesting discussion of the Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the principles of the Bill. On reflection, I think that it is part of the longer-term trend we have seen in our armed forces in recent years.
I want to reflect on joining the Territorial Army at the age of 17 in 2006, the year in which the Royal Regiment of Scotland was formed. At the time, it was part of a very controversial exercise in the restructuring of the armed forces and the Army in particular. The change to the regimental system was met with much dismay among those who held true to the traditions of the regimental golden thread, as it was known. However, after a decade of experience of this new multi-battalion regimental system, it has broadly been seen as a successful development in the British Army’s history, primarily because it has offered increased career flexibility for those serving in the multi-battalion regiments. That move to a true one Army structure was excellent, and this feels like a continued evolution of that agenda.
The Bill could look at a more formalised structure between the regular and reserve components and how that might play out. My friends and colleagues in the Army reserves, for example, have transitioned between regular battalions and reserve battalions. While they have developed great experience—I include myself in that—in their attachments to regular battalions and serving alongside them in exercises around Europe, a stigma is still attached to reservists transitioning to more long-term service with regular battalions. For example, someone who is commissioned on a reserve commissioning course at Sandhurst cannot then take a command role in a regular battalion, as they are seen as not having had the necessary training to develop their competence. I would like to see that opportunity explored in more detail during the passage of the Bill. It is an excellent opportunity for greater synergy between our regular and reserve forces which we should examine.
One of the key developments in recent years in the multi-battalion structure for infantry regiments has been the end of the arms plot, which was one of the worst experiences for regular soldiers. The entire battalion would be uprooted, lock, stock and barrel, every couple of years and moved to a different part of the UK, to Germany or even to Hong Kong. Their family lives and the careers of their dependants were uprooted, and it was viewed as a pernicious aspect of serving in the armed forces. It is great that Labour brought in reforms to the Army’s structure that ended the arms plot and stabilised the location of Army battalions. The Bill is a further development in providing stability for families who rely on building a relationship with the local community without a unit, and that is welcome.
I would also like to see greater emphasis on the legal status of those pursuing civilian opportunities while still serving in a regular unit. I know from personal experience that many reservists experience regular discrimination when looking at civilian career opportunities. I remember when I was at university looking for a part-time job. I could tell that the interviewers were not interested as soon as I mentioned being a reservist, and I was not offered the job. It is important that we promote the skills and experience of service in the reserves and that we provide legal protected status for such service. That should feed into how the Bill treats regulars transitioning to some form of civilian employment as well as serving in a regular capacity.
I was heartened to hear that, in surveys, 32% of regular personnel consider that the change would be a positive development and encourage them to retain their career development in the armed forces. That is encouraging.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On the point about retention, as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been very impressed by the dedication, skills and bravery of the armed forces, but there is no doubt that the pressures of balancing family life with a career in the forces are hard, particularly for those who move around frequently or do long tours of duty. In welcoming the Bill, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will improve the retention of not only reservists but those in the Regular Army?
Mr Sweeney
I am sympathetic to the sentiments that the hon. Lady has offered the House on that aspect of the Bill. In fact, this weekend a close friend celebrated an early Christmas with his infant daughter because he is about to deploy on active service in Afghanistan—an insight into the extraordinary depth of the commitment and sacrifice that members of our armed forces make. They are unlike any other public servants, and we should recognise that—as other hon. Members have said—when it comes to respecting the covenant, the pay cap and the remuneration of our armed forces. They serve without fear or favour 24 hours a day on exercise or operations overseas. Does the compensation they receive from such a severe dislocation from civilian interaction and family life really reflect the commitment they make? We should also consider that broader point.
What effect will the Bill have on progression in a career in the regular forces? Consideration for promotion in the reserves, for example, is largely predicated on how often someone can commit to attending career courses, weekend training events and annual camps. Given the demands of civilian career development, progression within reservist forces can be prejudiced. I wonder whether that subtle effect also has an impact in the Regular Army when people are considered for promotion—it might be a lowest common denominator effect when it comes to progression in the ranks.
I would like to address the cap badges issue and how this might play out in different branches of the service. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a critical point about the severe under-manning, especially in key pinch-point trades and services in the armed forces. Ironically, those are areas where we could leverage skills into the services from civilian life. It would be interesting to see more scrutiny of how the Bill could help to promote the adoption of flexible working in different branches of the Army. For example, the infantry or the cavalry have a very traditional, bottom-up career progression built on experience and the highly specialised nature of their roles, and there might be a better opportunity for the infusion of civilian talent, skills and experience in some of the more technical arms and services—for example, the intelligence corps, cyber and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers might benefit from greater cross-pollination between the private and defence sectors and the armed forces. That might be an interesting way to explore potential scenarios and the impact they might have on certain trades or cap badges.
When the Army structure was proposed back in 2006, with the end of single battalions and the move to multi-battalions, we also saw a reduction in the regular battalions of infantry from 40 to 33. That was an unfortunate exercise. Although we realised more capability from ending the arms plot and the transition in roles of each battalion, we lost a critical mass of capability in the Army as a whole. As for the reforms to the reservists, I remember vividly serving in the Territorials one year when we were told to stop training because the MOD had run out of money—an atrocious example that demonstrates the contempt that the reserves were held in for a long time. It is nice to see that that has now changed and the Army Reserve, as they are now known, are critical and integrated into the Army’s capability.
I would like to see greater opportunities explored, so that we do not just use the Bill as a cost-cutting exercise but as a way to enhance the capability of our armed forces, especially our Army, given that the staffing and manning levels have fallen below the target of 82,000 to 80,000. If the Bill can be a harbinger of a greater enhancement of the armed forces in the future by harnessing the potential of our people in both civilian and military life, to add to our military capability, it would be a welcome move forward for our armed forces. Many of our regulars experience pressure and stress when moving to civilian life, and perhaps the Bill could be used as an opportunity to help the transition of people leaving the armed forces to a civilian career opportunity, instead of the cliff edge of being thrown out or leaving the Army suddenly after 20 or more years of institutional service. I would welcome it if those aspects could be considered in more detail during the passage of the Bill, and I am happy to support its progression.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who was able to draw on his experience of the reserves and that of people he served with.
I welcome the Bill. It is important that we do everything we can to support our armed forces personnel and ensure that we attract and retain talent—an issue I will discuss in more detail shortly.
I would like to start by echoing the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that we have the best armed forces in the world. I place on record my thanks to our brave servicemen and servicewomen for their courage and professionalism, for the fact that they put their lives on the line to defend and protect our country, and, as we have spoken about this evening, for often making compromises in their work-family balance. I also pay tribute to the two reservist units based in Cannock: the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers and the Royal Military Police.
Before I come on to talk about the Bill, I would like to touch on a local issue in relation to the armed forces. Staffordshire has a proud military history. We were home to the Staffordshire Regiment, better known as the Staffords. Although it was disbanded and merged with the Mercian Regiment, our regimental mascot, Watchman V, a Staffordshire bull terrier, is now the mascot for the Staffordshire Regimental Association and was last year’s winner of the public vote at the Westminster dog of the year show. On a more serious note, Watchman V—or should I say Sergeant Watchman V—and his handler Greg Hedges regularly attend regimental events, military parades and remembrance services.
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady about the wonder of Watchman V, having had the privilege of being with him at the launch of the Staffordshire poppy appeal last week in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He does Staffordshire a true service and I am delighted the hon. Lady has mentioned him in the House.
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to one of my constituency near neighbours. I also see the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) in her place, whose dog is the new winner of the Westminster dog of the year. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) makes the important point that they are fantastic ambassadors for the Staffordshire Regimental Association, our military history and our armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will now address the Bill, which I welcome. I understand its purpose: we need to find more ways to provide flexible working arrangements. We need to ensure that our armed forces better reflect modern life, and we need to secure a better work-life balance for service personnel and their families. As many Members have said, this is about attracting new talent to the armed forces, including women, so we can reach the 15% target by 2020, but it is also about retaining talented servicemen and servicewomen. People are leaving the forces because of the impact on their family life. I have seen this at first hand. Friends of mine have decided to leave the armed forces for family reasons: a better work-life balance and more stability in where they live. This is a massive gain for other public sector organisations and the private sector, but a huge loss to the armed forces. We are losing skills and expertise following significant investment in training throughout their career. I would like to touch on training a little more.
In the past couple of months, like many other hon. Members I have had the honour and privilege of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I place on record my thanks to everyone involved, on a day-to-day basis, in setting up and organising the scheme. I also thank those who have hosted our visits so far. I am taking part in the Army scheme and have learnt so much in a very short space of time. It is on these visits that we have seen the importance of training in getting our servicemen and servicewomen up to speed and ensuring they have the necessary skills. The first half of the scheme between now and Christmas is focused on recruitment and training. I have visited the Army Aviation Centre in Middle Wallop, the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick—that has already been mentioned this evening—and the Land Component briefing day. Next week, a number of us will be visiting the British Army training unit out in Kenya.
We have learnt so much at each of those sessions by virtue of speaking to officers and soldiers, who have welcomed us and shared their experiences of serving. They have given us a real insight into life in the armed forces. What is evident is the investment in training. That is not surprising: we need to make sure that personnel are fully trained if they are to be deployed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we need to ensure that our servicemen and servicewomen have not only the right equipment but the right skills. Those skills need to be constantly updated.
That investment in training means that we have highly skilled and highly experienced personnel, so retention is critical. As I have said, one of the main reasons why we lose armed forces personnel is the impact on their family lives. That is why the measures in the Bill on flexible working are so important. It is equally important to continue to ensure operational capability and effectiveness in our armed forces. I recognise that the Bill contains measures to introduce flexible working, while at the same time maintaining the key principles of the armed forces, with a degree of temporary measures included.
Members have mentioned the extent of the consultation on flexible working. There have been the flexible duties trials, we have had surveys and we have had focus groups. Before I was elected to this place, I was a qualitative market researcher conducting focus groups. Thirty two groups across 16 locations is a very large-scale survey and it will help to ensure all views are incorporated into the Bill.
As I mentioned, a number of us will be visiting troops in Kenya and marking Remembrance Day with them, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish all those involved in services across Cannock—there will be plenty—all the very best for their services over Remembrance weekend. I would also like to thank all the volunteers from the British Legion, such as those from the Great Wyrley Bridge branch who I joined in Sainsbury’s in Cannock on Saturday. They work tirelessly this time of the year raising money for the poppy appeal.
To sum up, I welcome the Bill, which contains measures to create more flexibility and so help to attract and retain talent.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who spoke passionately about the need to retain and recruit personnel to our armed forces.
This is a welcome Bill. I remember growing up in Plymouth as a young man. Back then, the armed forces were not always an open and welcoming place for many people in our community. The progress made over many years for the lesbian, gender, bisexual and transgender community, the BAME community and women is to be welcomed and supported. We have made an awful lot of progress in terms of both legislative equality and—perhaps more importantly—cultural change and how those laws are put into practice. I pay tribute to those in the armed forces who have sought to break down walls and challenge convention in order to welcome people from diverse backgrounds who wish to serve our country.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the steps forward that the armed forces have taken. Does he also welcome the news, which broke about three hours ago, that President Trump’s attempt to exclude transgender people from the military has been defeated by the courts?
Luke Pollard
We should send a clear message from this House that those from the LGBT community are welcome in the UK armed forces. That sends a strong signal to our allies and opponents about our clear vision for an armed forces that represents all parts of our community.
At the heart of the Bill, though, there is a need for greater recognition of the personnel crisis in the UK armed forces. It is right that we reflect the different reasons people join the armed forces and their different rationales for continuing to serve their country in the way we structure both the recruitment regulations and the terms and conditions. Hon. Members have spoken already about pay, but it is worth my looking again at that and at terms and conditions.
People do not join the armed forces for the pay, but it is definitely a contributing factor, especially at key life moments—for instance, when people are expanding their family, looking to invest in property or going on the housing ladder. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about armed forces housing. In Plymouth, this remains a national scandal on which we need to do much more. CarillionAmey is not doing its job properly. It is important that the Government send a strong signal to CarillionAmey that the service it is offering is simply not good enough and that our armed forces families deserve the very best.
One of the keys to the personnel crisis are the pinch points, particularly in the Royal Navy, which is of great interest to the patch I serve, as I represent Devonport dockyard and naval base. I am talking about engineers and nuclear skills in particular. As we look to invest more in our armed forces and buy ever more expensive bits of kit, it is vital that we recruit and retain the talent to make sure that those bits of kit can be used in the way they are supposed to be used. I am concerned, however, about our continuing skills shortage in engineering grades.
It is important that we recognise our friends and NATO allies, especially those from America, who have transferred personnel to serve in our UK armed forces in engineering grades. In particular, I welcome the transferring of people from the US Coast Guard to serve in the Royal Navy. There remains much more to do, however, and I would welcome a greater effort from Ministers in terms of how we invest more in engineering. That is especially a concern in nuclear engineering skills, particularly as the new generation of nuclear new build power stations comes online and there is a temptation to poach people by offering them better pay, terms and conditions and lifestyle.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about skills, particularly in critical areas such as nuclear engineering. It is worth noting that generally during the build of a large complex programme, such as the Astute-class submarine, there are large-scale secondments of personnel from the Royal Navy, working alongside engineering staff with defence contractors such as Rolls-Royce or BAE Systems. Essentially, they are on a job-share initiative between the defence contractor and their normal service location. Might the Bill be an opportunity to formalise that arrangement, increase their compensation and build their industry experience as well as their service experience?
Luke Pollard
It is crucial in structuring the regulations and operations of armed forces that we recognise the interplay between civilian and military life. It is not simply a one-way street; there are stages in people’s careers when they might move between those two different lifestyles.
Flexible working can support the retention and recruitment of military personnel and also add two other important factors: the ability to return to our armed forces and then for their service to be recognised and properly supported. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the need to recruit people and to attract the best and brightest from a variety of backgrounds and to retain their service. There are an increasing number of examples, however, certainly in Plymouth and in the Royal Navy, of armed forces personnel who have left the service returning in a variety of different contracts in different roles. I hope that the Government will consider specifically what additional support will be needed by people whose previous backgrounds will have been very different, and what can be done to persuade more people to return to parts of the service where there is currently a shortage of skills, particularly engineering skills. I think that Members on both sides of the House agree on the importance of recognition in the armed forces, and there is certainly more to be done about veteran support.
Our armed forces do not operate in a bubble, and the rules and regulations governing recruitment, retention and flexibility should reflect the existence of a more competitive environment. The forces should attempt to be the best and brightest employers, offering both openness and quality, and they should be family-friendly. We should not give flexible working a new status if we are not yet sure about the possibility of stigmatisation. I hope that Ministers will have a think about the definitions that are being used, because it worries me that those who take up the option of flexible working as part of their contracts could be stigmatised by their colleagues, and that a stigma could also be attached to the cultural setting in which they found themselves. I know that that is not the intention behind the Bill, and I hope that Ministers, and others who scrutinise it, will give some thought not only to the definitions, but, more important, to how they can be translated into action to ensure that we can recruit, retain and return talent without that accompanying stigma.
Anyone who travels from Plymouth on Sundays will be familiar with the line-up of new recruits who arrive at the station on Sunday evenings to join HMS Raleigh. That is normally the moment when they have left their families, and they line up in their smartest suits awaiting their first proper day in the Royal Navy. I have spoken to many of those new recruits as they work out which station they should be going to and how they are to get there. I remember, on one occasion, helping a young man to tie his tie, because he was very nervous and wanted to make a good impression.
New recruits join the Royal Navy, and the armed forces in general, for a variety of reasons. Some want a better life than they have previously endured, some simply want to serve, and some want to follow family members or contribute to our country. There are many stories that they can tell about the hope and excitement that they feel. It is important for us, in this place, to create rules and regulations that do not discriminate against those who want to join the forces—regardless of their background, their sexuality or their gender—and to support them throughout the various moments in their lives, and those of their families, that they will experience during their service.
I should like to know how the Government will address personnel shortages, and how those life moments and the requirements of flexible working can be phased and dialled up and down so that we can bring back the talent that we need as and when it is required. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said that flexible working might be a good way of ending the “cliff edge” that is sometimes encountered by people when they leave the services, but we should bear in mind that it could also enable us to bring people back into the armed forces at some future date.
This short Bill is a welcome example of the progress that our armed forces have been making for many years, and I think that it is a step forward, but I also think that a few elements could be tweaked to ensure that it is implemented in the best way possible. I hope that the Minister will think about how we can not only recruit and retain personnel, but return them to our armed forces.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
This debate is very important for our armed forces, and I am pleased to follow some wonderful speeches, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I am also extremely proud because, since being elected to the House, one of my members of staff has trained to be a reservist; he has passed his exams—for want of a better phrase—and is now a full reservist. So I am doing my bit for the armed forces.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have introduced this Bill, which recognises the special sacrifice and commitment our armed forces make to our country. I am extremely privileged to represent the place where I was born, a constituency within the towns of Medway, where we have a long and rich history with our armed forces. We have had the Royal Marines; we have our naval dockyard, which is known for the building of the famous Victory; and in later years we have the nuclear submarines. There is also of course our beloved Royal Engineers, with the Royal School of Military Engineering at Brompton Barracks within my constituency. We also have a reserve unit. Although the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), is not in his place, I want to say that Conservative Members are extremely proud to have in him a Royal Engineers colonel.
Our armed forces have changed very much since I was a young girl growing up in the Medway towns. My great grandfather, who served in the Boer war, was stationed at Kitchener Barracks in Chatham, which is now closed and being developed into houses. When I left school, I remember saying to my parents that I wanted to join the Navy and my mum dutifully took me down to the recruitment office in Chatham. I realised that the Navy would not be the best place for me. My father said it was probably because I could not handle being shouted at—there we go.
At the time, women were not allowed to work on the submarines, be a boatswain or fly helicopters. How things have changed. So it is right that we recognise that our armed forces have changed and everyday life has changed, and it is right that the individuals who commit, and make the sacrifice to serve their country, are afforded some flexibility during their careers.
The Bill’s provisions represent a balance that affords the opportunity for serving personnel to apply for flexibility, whether it be after the birth of a child, a family bereavement, illness or just a change in life circumstances, while maintaining the principle that servicemen and women are always ready for duty.
Last year we celebrated the 300th anniversary of our “proud Sappers”, with over 200 years at Chatham, with Her Majesty the Queen visiting Chatham Brompton Barracks. Such is the history and the international regard in which our Engineers are held that we continue to attract the best men and women into our armed forces. Currently our Engineers are deployed on 18 operation across the world, and, notably, are currently involved in the Caribbean after the recent hurricane. All of our Engineers will have passed at some stage through the royal military school at Chatham.
Allowing these opportunities for flexible work in the future will help to continue to attract people to a career in the services, particularly women. Anything that promotes a job offering unique skills and experiences is worthwhile. It will help with recruitment as the armed forces will now be attractive to someone who might have dismissed such a career because of the time commitment.
Our Engineers in Chatham recently held a mock demolition of Rochester bridge with local people watching on—although, to the disappointment of local people, the Engineers did not actually blow the bridge up.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend started her speech with the important remark that one of her researchers is a reservist. I am very proud that my long-standing researcher, Mark Oates, is also training to be a reservist. These people will become increasingly important for our armed services. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage private and public sector companies to do whatever they can to support Army reservists working for them, as Members of Parliament do?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to do more to encourage organisations to support their workforces to volunteer as reservists. As a Member of Parliament, I am here in this House making decisions that have an impact on our military services, and it is therefore only right that I should afford the flexibility to someone working for me to follow something that they want to do.
The armed forces can do a great deal by engaging with our communities, and this can involve an important educational element. Following the exercise on the Rochester bridge, many people who lived in the Medway towns suddenly realised that we had a barracks in the constituency. It is massively important that that connection should continue. The deep relationship that our armed forces have with the places in the UK where they are based provides an opportunity for them to showcase how rewarding a career in the armed forces can be.
I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social work, which is currently conducting an inquiry into social work and female veterans. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), I have had the privilege of hearing about the challenges faced by some of our female veterans and the impact that regular service and being on operation has had on their health and their families. These amazingly strong women are a credit to our country and to my gender. They are supported by the veterans’ charity, Forward Assist, of which my hon. Friend is the patron. In short, we need to support our servicemen and women to keep them in their jobs, and we also need to make those jobs attractive.
A career in the armed forces can bring many challenges and difficulties, but it is still a good job and people are less likely to have problems working in that sector than in some other stressful careers. The threat is changing, and our military is changing. The British forces are regarded worldwide as being the best. I look forward to supporting the Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on bringing it forward today.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, and to follow two Members who represent constituencies with so much naval history: the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). Devonport and Chatham have played huge roles in our military history. Some Members will know that there is a little bit of naval history in my own family. My grandfather spent 25 years in the Royal Navy from 1937 to 1962, and my father spent 27 years in Devonport dockyard. He would tell people that he was a painter and when asked what kind of pictures he painted, he would say, “Well, if you would like your picture in submarine black, battleship grey, firebox red or warning sign yellow, I’m your man, but if you want it in anything else, you’d probably better speak to someone else.”
The Bill is particularly relevant today. When my grandfather was serving 60 years ago, there was a very traditional structure. He would be out on the fleet and my grandmother would be at home with the family, and they would be expected to follow the service wherever it took them. My father can remember living in Scotland before coming down to Plymouth and living in Devonport more permanently. At that time, people were in different places for long periods of time, and perhaps that generation accepted that, having seen the struggles of world war two. My grandfather saw some of the heaviest action, on the Malta convoy, and he saw further action latterly in the Pacific as Japan’s fight against the allies became even more desperate. He also experienced one of the frogman attacks in Alexandria in the late 1930s.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Foster
Wow! I was expecting a bit of a queue, but—let’s do ladies first, then we will do the gentlemen.
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned his grandfather, and I do not want to pass up this opportunity to mention the fact that my grandfather served in the Arctic convoys during the second world war. I want to put Harry Monaghan on the record as well.
Kevin Foster
It is wonderful to hear that piece of family history. It is not always known that a large percentage of the tanks used in the counter-attack at Moscow in 1941 that finally drove the Germans back from threatening the Russian capital were supplied via the Arctic convoys. While Russia did get its industry going and almost achieved a miracle of production between 1941 and the ultimate victory in 1945, the convoys played a huge role in the crucial first months of the war and literally kept the Soviet Union in the fight, laying the ground for the defeat of national socialism in Europe.
Dr Julian Lewis
As proof that great minds think alike, the fact that my hon. Friend referred to the second world war means that I cannot pass up the opportunity to point out that today is the 75th anniversary of the seizure of vital Enigma documents from the U-boat, U-559. Three young men swam over to that sinking U-boat and went on board in the dead of night. Two of them, Tony Fasson and Colin Grazier, went down with the sinking boat and were posthumously awarded the George Cross, and the third, a 16-year-old called Tommy Brown, who did not survive the war, was awarded the George Medal. By their sacrifice and bravery, thousands upon thousands of allied lives were saved.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reminder of the sacrifice that people made—breaking those codes made a huge difference in the battle of the Atlantic. It also brings us to a slightly sadder reminder, which perhaps partly relates to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport alluded to, of a time when someone’s commitment to this country was not the only thing that we judged them by. Alan Turing also did so much to ensure that the Enigma code was broken and that German messages could be read, probably shortening the war by a year. If it did not shorten the war, it at least turned the war and allowed us to keep vital lifelines open.
Kevin Foster
I will take one more intervention and then press on, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
Daniel Kawczynski
When talking about the breaking of the Enigma code, I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the Polish codebreakers who joined British codebreakers at Bletchley. They also made sacrifices to ensure our victory in the second world war.
Kevin Foster
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in that. Polish people also fought alongside British forces throughout the second world war after Poland was overrun in 1939. My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent who fought in the battle of Britain, in which the famous Polish squadrons showed such great bravery fighting for this country in the hope of keeping alive the flame of freedom for their own country. Sadly, it took well over 40 years for that flame to be reignited in Poland, but it was that sacrifice that ultimately made it possible for the country to be free again—although it did take until after the collapse of communism, which played such a role in the defeat of fascism.
The Bill is timely and reflects the changes in society since the times that we have just talked about. Those looking to serve our nation now will face a range of pressures, including the importance of their children’s schooling. Constantly moving from deployment to deployment might be fine for a single man or woman and maybe for a couple if the partner is in a job that can be flexible. However, if someone’s children are starting to come up to their GCSEs or A-levels, they will have that duty as well—no matter how committed they are.
The Bill is not about creating a part-time military. It is nonsense to say that someone will be going home if they are on operational service. This is about allowing the military to retain capability or to bring people with totally unique skills into the regular service. The military may be able to work with private sector companies at the cutting edge of sectors such as encryption, IT, technology or nuclear to allow the military to have that capability. Like our grandparents’ generation and those who are commemorated around the walls of the Chamber, those who sign up now would recognise the need to put the service first and to make themselves available full time at a time of national emergency. This is about people being one step up from a reservist and having a regular role, which builds on work that has been done on the full-time reserve, for example, where someone can be retained to do a specific job. I have been on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and it has been interesting to meet some very experienced people—people with 20 or 25 years in the services—who are retained to do a specific job in order to keep their experience.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, recruiters are sometimes almost hanging around the naval base gates waiting for people who are coming up to their release period. In the nuclear industry, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said, we are about to see a new generation of nuclear reactors built, and people who have been trained in the Royal Navy will be incredibly recruitable. We need to give them an incentive that will allow them to have a family and a naval career, and the Bill gives them that incentive.
If I told my grandfather that, 60 years after he was in the Navy, I would be here talking about cyber, he would wonder what on earth I was doing talking about a sci-fi film. We need that ability. Synthetic training environments could create so many opportunities, particularly for keeping air crews current on particular airframes. There are real opportunities that would potentially allow someone to go part time in their military career while retaining the skills that could give them opportunities for the future, particularly as we look to the type of warfare we might see in the 21st century.
It is welcome that we are now being flexible and that we are judging people by their commitment. The President of the United States is attempting to ban skilled people who want to serve their country. A member of the US navy deployed with one of our ships could be removed if they are transgender, but if they served with the Royal Navy it would be no issue at all for them to do exactly the same job. Today’s court ruling is interesting, and I hope it will set the tone that people should be judged by their commitment and their skills for the job, not by any other factor. If we would accept people if the balloon went up in eastern Europe, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is sitting next to me, why would we not accept them in peacetime, too? I cannot believe that the restriction would be maintained in wartime, so why on earth would it be maintained in peacetime?
It is right that there are some limits on the ability to request flexible working and that the operation of a unit, a ship or a combat-ready unit about to deploy is still the overriding consideration. Such requests can be dealt with by commanders in a sensible and meaningful way. That needs to be in the Bill, because if it were not, we would probably have to create some sort of caveat. It is clear from the start, but I hope a request would not be unreasonably refused, given that the whole point of the Bill is to keep people in service.
Kevin Foster
I am short of time, so I will not take any further interventions.
It is right that there is still a caveat in the Bill, which can be explored further in Committee, assuming the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight. This has been an interesting debate, and it is probably the right time for the Bill, which reflects a changing society, changing patterns of work and changes in the way people have to balance their service and family commitments. The Bill moves away from the idea of a male serviceman going around the world with his family in tow and embraces the likely employment patterns of the future.
Hopefully we will see more committed people wishing to serve in our armed forces, which is the nub of the issue. Yes, flexible working is likely to be more attractive to women, but it will be attractive to many people who wish to serve—those who want to serve our country, who want to be part of one of the greatest armed forces on this planet and who want to give the sort of service that past generations gave in previous times of need for this country, but who have to balance that with their family.
More good women will come in the door because of the Bill. This is not just about being kind to people, being a nice employer or winning an award for being a flexible employer; it is fundamentally about making it possible for more talent to come into our armed forces and, crucially, to be retained in our armed forces. That is why this is the right Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading this evening.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill. Having recently served on the Finance Bill Committee, one realises that there is a beauty in brevity, and the two pages of this Bill are indeed beautiful. They are beautiful in what they seek to do, which goes to prove that a Bill does not have to be large in stature to be effective.
During my time in the reserve forces, I interacted with a number of friends and colleagues in the Regular Army and the regular services who dealt on an uncomfortably regular basis with members of their service going to them as their officer to say, “Boss, I am going to have to leave because my recent service has been very intense and if I want to keep my family together, I am going to have to enter ‘First UK Civ. Div.’”. In this place, we would call that civilian employment. I know that a number of my colleagues were hugely disappointed, but they understood that these soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel would have to put their family first, and they reluctantly let them go. That was the right thing for these people to do, but unfortunately it was a loss to the service.
It is worth remembering that the patterns of military service we are now used to were put in place at a time when a single employer for life was the norm in civilian employment, and the idea that the bloke would go off to earn all the money for the family and the wife would be happy to stay at home looking after the children was also the norm. The world of work in the civilian sphere has changed beyond recognition. It is now perfectly normal to have two working parents in a household. It is now perfectly normal for the woman in the household to have the more significant and high-earning job, and for the man in the household to be the one who bends their working life around the needs—[Interruption.] Of the wife, indeed. There are plenty of examples in the Chamber this evening of that happening, yet until this Bill is passed it will still be the norm in this area for the woman in a relationship to have to sacrifice her career for that of her husband. Surely in 2017 that should no longer necessarily be the case.
I was struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) that we have few women in very senior roles in the armed forces. That is a shame, and it weakens us at a point in time when we now recognise that the diversity of experience and knowledge is an important element in successful planning for not just operations, but the background work in which our armed forces take part. One Opposition Member made the point—I apologise for not recalling who it was—that it is not enough just to pass this Bill, important though it is; it is also important that we drive through a cultural change in the armed forces. The hon. and gallant Members who have served will know that there is an unwritten rhythm to the perfect military career. Someone becomes a platoon commander at a certain age and a company second-in-command at another, they go to staff college at this point and then become a brigade chief of staff, before going on to command a sub-unit and then hit other markers at other points. That is the route to high command in the armed forces. It is great for completely flexible men, but it is much harder to hit those career markers if you need to take time off to have children, and that massively disadvantages women.
Hopefully the Bill will become an Act, after which the acme of its success will be that if a man needs to take time off from that career rhythm to support his family—his children, an elderly relative or whoever it might be—he still feels that he has as much chance of getting to high command, should his talent lead him there, as a woman. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, there must be no stigma for either a man or a woman in taking advantage of flexible working.
Ruth Smeeth
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cultural change we need to see is a senior officer being the first person to access flexible working? That would send the right message to the rest of the force about how the changes should be implemented and how we should operate.
James Cleverly
That is not something I had thought of, but it is an important point. If not someone at a very senior rank—there might be the implication that they had already cashed in their chips so were fine—I would love it and it would be interesting to see one of the potential high fliers take up flexible working. Those Members who have been involved in one of the numerous all-party groups on the armed forces all have a little shopping list of the people who could be the service chiefs of the future. Were one of those marked people, the future high fliers, to say, “I’m going to take advantage of this and send a really powerful signal that it will not carry any stigma”, that would be important.
I hope that the Bill will drive a change in attitudes towards service leavers. While I was waiting to speak, I took part in an exchange on social media in which someone reminded me that traditionally the armed forces have not been very good at dealing with people on their way out. I have always been massively frustrated by that, because those people are the recruiters of the future. It is remarkable that someone who might have had decades of happy service, whether in dark blue, light blue or green, and who could have gone on to become a fantastic recruiter for their branch of the armed forces, could get messed about so comprehensively in their last few weeks and months of service that when they finally hit civvy street the only thing they have to say is what an awful experience they had. That seems a massive waste. Perhaps, through this model of flexibility of service, the armed forces will get better at dealing with people as they move from full-time service to part-time or flexible service, from part-time service to reserve service, and from reserve service to civilian life, in such a way that those people become and remain powerful recruiters for their branch of the armed forces.
The changes in the Bill will need careful management, but this agenda should not be avoided just because of that. We will need to make sure that flexible working is not used as a way to duck out of a particularly bad potential deployment—we all know that there are good and bad deployments. We must also make sure that the availability of flexible working is well communicated throughout people’s service life, so that they have thought about it before they need to do it, rather than just afterwards. I do not want to see anyone else sacrifice either their career because of their family or their family life because of their career. The Bill is a big step forward and I commend it to the House.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about his grandfather’s naval experiences and from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) about his Army background, I am going to bring a little Air Force balance to the debate. I have to take this opportunity to mention both my grandfather Albert Robert Newitt, who was known to everybody as Dennis, and my great-uncle Basil Newitt. They were the bomber brothers of my family and were, respectively, a Wellington navigator and a Lancaster bomb aimer.
Times have changed immeasurably since then. We are now in an age of high technology. Crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree rightly mentioned, we are no longer talking about a job for life. People now know that they have choice in their employment experience, and they will take it. It is in that world that we compete today, and that the armed forces must also compete. The armed forces are not immune to those pressures of childcare and job flexibility. Although there is no doubt that a career in the armed forces is loved—those who serve today will no doubt confirm the camaraderie and excitement that they experience—unique pressures do exist. There is the fact that people are moved around without any say in their own living accommodation. That is very off-putting for some, particularly those who have families. That of course leads to a unique job retention crisis.
Suffice it to say that I support everything that this Bill is trying to do. I look forward to further discussions at a later stage.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for his contribution to this debate.
As Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree, those who serve, or who have served in the armed forces of our United Kingdom, some of whom now sit on the Benches in this House and who have made full contributions to this debate using their experience and knowledge, should be continually supported throughout their career. An individual who chooses to risk their life for their country will always have the backing and support of this Government.
The package of reforms in our armed forces people programme demonstrates our commitment to service personnel and this Bill ensures that, like those in other industries, they have greater flexibility around how they balance both work and life. Although discretionary flexibility in working has been in place since 2005, there is no ability for regulars to work part-time or have a guarantee that they will not be liable for extended overseas deployment. This Bill ensures that those practices will indeed be formalised. The arrangement works well in other countries. Although the UK leads the way in many areas, we must continually seek to learn from other countries that have successfully implemented policies that we too could benefit from adopting.
We must never forget that, like each one of us, armed forces personnel bear personal responsibilities—whether that be a family, elderly relatives or ill health in the family. As with other careers, we must ensure that we make a role in our armed forces as accessible as possible and open to the widest possible pool of talent.
I had the great pleasure of visiting RM Condor, in my constituency of Angus, and was struck by the high proportion of marines who came from hundreds of miles away to serve in Arbroath. It is right and proper that we in this House give those marines the flexibility they need to deal with the challenges in their home lives—often many miles away from their base.
As other Members have mentioned, further flexibility will encourage more recruits in their late 20s and early 30s and may well move us closer towards the model adopted in the Netherlands, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned. Obviously, I feel passionately that we need to encourage more females and seek to reach that target of 15% by 2020. No career should be skewed towards one gender, and it should not be easier for a male or a female to carry out any role.
One of the most important factors that will drive personnel to take advantage of the flexible working hours is supporting a family. A role in the armed forces and being a visible parent will no longer be mutually exclusive. Although the jobs market in the United Kingdom is increasingly competitive, careers in the public service must also adjust and modernise. As Members have suggested, there have been societal changes to which we must adapt, although operational capability must be at the forefront of the MOD’s decisions on any applications.
I cannot overestimate the positive outcomes of this Bill. It outlines this Government’s commitment to modernising our working practices, making careers in the armed forces more accessible and workable in modern life, supporting diversity within the workforce, and alleviating strain and external pressures for personnel. Each and every one of these attributes will positively influence the working environment, morale and readiness of our armed forces.
We must never forget these service personnel, who sacrifice much more in their service than you and I, who deserve to be able to live a family life as far as possible just like you and me and to feel their selfless commitment is appreciated just as you and I would ask. That is exactly what the Bill achieves. I am delighted to welcome it for the benefit of the Royal Marines in my constituency of Angus, and for all those who so nobly serve in the armed forces across our United Kingdom.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
This debate has been an interesting one with a considerable amount of consensus. It has clearly shown how much our armed forces are valued in this House.
We heard from a range of Members, not least the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who reminded us of concerns about retention and the need to avoid bureaucracy and entertained us with the lyrics of a Glee Club song, “Part-time Submarine”. However, I think that I share with other Members a slight disappointment that he did not actually sing the tune.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) mentioned his pride in our armed forces, his many exchanges with personnel including through the armed forces parliamentary scheme and his concerns about the impact of pay on morale. I think that we received an invitation to a service of private thanksgiving in Chesterfield on the Thursday after Remembrance Sunday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) highlighted concerns about retention, the future accommodation model and particularly about CarillionAmey, which a number of hon. Members mentioned. She expressed concerns that only 10.2% of our armed forces are women. As she said, that simply is not good enough. I am sure that is a sentiment with which the whole House will agree.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said that we need a debate on pay and an end to the pay cap. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke about his study into recruitment and retention and his 20 recommendations. He also had concerns about the future accommodation model.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke about his own experience of joining what was the Territorial Army, and highlighted the need for more formal structures between the reserves and the regulars. He also mentioned the concerns that many reservists face with employment and the need for protected status.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) talked about the progress that has been made in the armed forces, particularly for LGBT and BAME people and for women. He also mentioned the need to look at pay. He commented that it is vital to recruit and retain personnel to match the investment in the new platforms and equipment, and he said that the Government need to address the personnel shortage.
We heard from the hon. Members for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Witney (Robert Courts), for Braintree (James Cleverly) and for Angus (Kirstene Hair)—I hope I have not left anybody out—many of whom gave examples of interactions with armed forces personnel, sacrifices of family life and the impact on the work-life balance.
As hon. Members across the House are aware and as was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), we are facing a crisis of recruitment and retention in our armed forces and something must be done to get to grips with it. The measures in the Bill are part of the new employment model programme that has been established to improve the offer for members of our armed forces and that is looking at four policy areas: pay and allowances; accommodation; training and education; and terms of service. I hope that the Minister will mention in his reply progress being made in other areas, particularly pay, as well as accommodation. Access to good-quality, affordable accommodation is an important part of the overall offer. The lack of detail surrounding the future accommodation model is concerning to many personnel, so I hope the Minister will update us on that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, we welcome the principle of flexible working in our armed forces. Anything that makes service life more compatible with personal and family life is a good thing, as in any profession. As has been highlighted during the debate, there are already ways in which members of the armed forces can work flexibly, including compressed hours, late starts or early finishes and working from home. It is the notion of part-time working that is the new element in the Bill, and we still need a number of questions answered about the details of the scheme and how its various aspects will work in practice.
Let me turn to some of the practicalities. Service personnel will have to apply to a competent service authority. Will this be someone who knows the personal circumstances of the individual service member, so that they can make a more nuanced assessment, or will it be somebody removed from them, and if so, will the applicant’s commanding officer make a recommendation alongside their application? Or will applications be anonymised, so that there can be no conscious or unconscious bias on the part of those making the decision?
Will there be clear limits on the number or percentage of those working part time that any specific regiment can have? If somebody applies after that limit has been met, will they automatically be rejected? What will the process be when it comes to the right of appeal? Will there be a timeframe? Will there be a body to deal with that specifically?
Several Members in the other place highlighted the term “part time” as potentially problematic, given that it could imply a service member’s commitment is only part time. Do the Government have any plans to re-examine that term? I am slightly concerned that the Government have not fully envisaged exactly how some of the elements will work, so I hope that the Minster will be able to clarify some of those concerns this evening.
With regard to the other aspect of the Bill—the limits to separated service for defined periods—the results of this year’s tri-service family attitude survey, which was released just last week, revealed the lack of support spouses and families feel they receive on deployment. There have been decreases in satisfaction with the types of support before operational tours. There have also been decreases in satisfaction with support during and after deployments. One in three spouses did not know where to go for service-provided welfare support while their partner was deployed. More disappointingly, over half of service families do not feel valued by the services. We know how significant families are to the forces community, so it is important to ensure they know how valued they are, and I think that all of us in the House would like to express that today.
Alongside the option to limit deployment, will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to improve support and access to support for families while their service member is away on deployment? What are they doing to improve the relationship between families and the forces? I hope that we can iron out in Committee the details I have mentioned, and I look forward to working with the Minister during that process.
I will finish by saying, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, that we are prepared to support the Bill, but if we are to do so, the Government must be prepared to amend it to give a fair pay rise to our forces personnel or to allow the pay review body to conduct an in-year review without the cap in place. For the Bill to improve recruitment and, crucially, retention, it needs to be supported by investment in our personnel, and I hope the Government will put their money where their mouth is and invest in our servicemen and women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Despite the time constraints, we have had a welcome, constructive and largely agreeable Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the contributions from both sides of the House, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of the points made.
As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, while we are investing in equipment—in new ships, submarines, aircraft and armoured vehicles—we must also continue to attract and retain the people not only to use that equipment but to learn the skills to leverage its capabilities fully, to ensure that, strategically and tactically, we can continue to meet our defence, security, humanitarian and diplomatic obligations.
Ultimately, this is about people; it is about those in uniform who defend these shores and our security interests abroad. It is about those in uniform whom we call on to respond to new threats and challenges, such as a resurgent Russia, or to provide humanitarian support in the Caribbean. It is those in uniform—their capabilities, their leadership, their courage and their commitment—who truly reflect our operational effectiveness. However, to attract the brightest and the best, we must recognise the modern context in which recruitment and retention take place.
Just as our equipment and tactics advance and modernise, so too must our offering in terms of what it entails to wear the uniform and serve in the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force. As the Secretary of State stated, we are now committed to an ambitious programme to advance our personnel policies, and this Bill is an important step towards a more modern lifestyle for our armed forces.
Under our armed forces people programme, there are four key strands: first, our new joiners’ offer, developing a new employment offer that better meets the expectations of future recruits; secondly, our future accommodation model, advancing the housing options available both to single and to married personnel, including home ownership; thirdly, the enterprise approach, with a better harnessing of the transition between public and private sector, specifically for those with engineering and high-tech skills; and finally, offering greater flexible engagement through this Bill.
There is not enough time to do justice to all the contributions we have heard, but I join the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) in congratulating those who have spoken. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who supported the Bill in general, spoke about some of the challenges that our armed forces face to do with childcare, partner illness and so forth. I am pleased with the general tone that she adopted, which was reflected across the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, almost broke into song; I think that the House is probably grateful that he did not. Other contributions from across the House highlighted the importance of supporting the people who make our armed forces work.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way because of the time, and I would like to make some further comments.
As has been said, this small but important Bill will help to modernise our armed forces, and it forms part of a package of measures to maintain the attraction of serving our country. Without exception, all Members, from the opening speech by the Secretary of State onwards, stressed the respect that our armed forces command both here in the UK and abroad.
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am slightly bemused. Can you confirm whether we have until the moment of interruption for the Minister to continue his remarks?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but there are 33 minutes to go.
Mr Ellwood
As I said, without exception, all Members from across the House came to support the people in our armed forces today.
For centuries and across continents, our armed forces have been respected—indeed, revered—for their grit, tenacity and courage. When we define who we are as a nation—our standards, our values, our tolerance, our interests and our aspirations—they are neatly interwoven with the reputation of our armed forces and the role that they play on the nation’s behalf.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way—I have made that clear.
The Secretary of State spoke, as did others, of our armed forces being the best in the world. The professionalism and capability of our personnel remains the exemplar on which other nations, both friend and foe, rate the professionalism of their armed forces.
In this place, we often refer to Britain’s global influence as the world’s leading soft power, with the ability to pursue a transparent agenda to help shape the world around us as a force for good through our influence, commitment, political values and foreign policies. That international respect works only if it is underlined by the recognition that it is backed by the hard power that can be called on to support, to lead, to stabilise, or, where necessary, to intervene. Who do we call on to step forward? It is those who are in uniform. This is not just about attracting the brightest and the best in an ever-competitive domestic environment; in a fast-changing and challenging world, it is about retaining the professionalism of our armed forces that helps us to continue to play a critical role as a force for good on the international stage. It is therefore right that we advance our offering to attract the brightest and the best. That is exactly what this Bill, sitting with the other measures that I have outlined, attempts to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords] (programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 14 November.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 14th November 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 November 2017 - (14 Nov 2017)
The Chair
Before we begin line-by-line consideration, I have a few preliminary announcements, as usual. Please switch all electronic devices and mobile phones to silent. Tea, coffee and other hot drinks are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally without debate.
If any gentlemen would like to remove their jackets, please feel free to do so. Minister, before I call you, would you like to remove your jacket?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I am not going to upset the Chair. If you tell me to remove my jacket, I am happy to do so.
The Chair
You asked if you could. Otherwise, Minister, please feel free to move the programme motion.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 14 November) meet at 2pm that day;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 14 November.—(Mr Ellwood.)
The Chair
The deadline for amendments to be considered at today’s sitting of the Committee was 4pm last Thursday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Ellwood.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the Bill website. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments, if any are tabled.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list. Decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Regular forces: part-time service and geographic restrictions
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(3B) The proportion of regular forces serving on a part-time basis in any single regiment may not exceed 15% of the total regular forces serving in that regiment.”
This amendment limits the proportion of part-time regular forces to no more than 15% of any regiment.
This is a probing amendment that seeks clarification from the Minister on how the Bill will work in practice, and specifically whether there will be any kind of cap or upper limit on the number of personnel on part-time working. The amendment refers to no more than 15% of any single regiment serving on a part-time basis, which is simply a way to establish whether the Government have any plans to place a limit on personnel who work part time, and at what level a cap would be placed.
There are significant problems with recruitment and retention in our armed forces, which is one reason for the Bill. As of September 2017, the regular armed forces were at a 5.3% deficit against the liability—an increase in the deficit from 4.1% under the liability in September last year. Furthermore, the outflow of regulars continues to outpace intake. Voluntary outflow is the main source of outflow, so most personnel who are leaving are doing so before the end of their agreed engagement or commission period.
The pay review body highlighted in its most recent report that issues with recruitment and retention have been acknowledged by the Department:
“In evidence MOD stated that there were recruitment and retention challenges across all Services for certain groups in the engineering and aviation cadres. It stated that recruitment of Regulars had continued to be challenging throughout 2015-16”.
Our armed forces are not in a situation where they can feasibly allow a significant number of personnel to work part time.
The Government’s fact sheet for the Bill says:
“We anticipate from the existing evidence that there will be a very small initial take up of the new flexible working arrangements, no more than 1% when they are implemented in April 2019. We anticipate that this will increase slowly as cultural change is fully embedded over the next 10-15 years.”
However, there is no indication of what the Government expect that figure to grow to and whether there will be any limitations on numbers.
The amendment highlights the fact that problems are more likely to emerge if a much greater proportion of those in specific roles want to work part time, particularly if they are in operational pinch points. OPPs are branch specialisations, sub-specialisations or areas of expertise where the shortfall in trained strength is such that it has a measurable detrimental impact on current, planned or contingent operations. As of April this year, there were 15 OPPs in the naval service. The key pinch points relate to engineering roles, plus some specialist roles such as warfare specialists. The Army has four OPPs, the key ones being logistics roles, and the RAF has 11 OPPs, where the key pinch points are in engineering and intelligence roles, as well as shortfalls in the aircrew branch. The Bill’s administration fact sheet says:
“The Approval Authority will take into account the chain of command’s recommendation, overall manning levels of the Service and the individual’s trade, and any specific skills held by the Service person.”
Presumably that means those from OPPs are automatically ruled out.
While I am not expecting the Government to accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will answer some questions that were not addressed on Second Reading. Will there be clear limits on the number or percentage of those working part time in any specific regiment? How would that look in the RAF and the Navy? Would the percentages be universal or different for each service? If somebody applies for part-time working after that limit has been met, will they automatically be rejected? Will personnel from OPPs not be given the option to apply for part-time working, or will they be allowed to apply but, because of their trade, have no chance of being accepted?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I want to expand on some of those issues.
As my hon. Friend said, this is a probing amendment, but it goes to the heart of the entire Bill and how it will be implemented in practice. Will the 15% limit operate in the same way across the three services, and how will it work within each individual service? Let us take trades, for example. We all know that fast jet pilots are quite a small pool of individuals. If someone from that pool wanted to work part time, that would obviously have an adverse effect on the capability of that frontline unit. Likewise, if 15% of a ship’s crew suddenly decided to apply for part-time working, on what basis would a decision be arrived at in terms of operational effectiveness? As my hon. Friend said, there are certain niches or pinch points within the Army, with trades that are in scarce supply because of recruitment problems. What limit would be put on the number of those individuals who could apply for part-time working?
I would like to get an understanding from the Minister of how this proposal will work across the various ranks. There is a big difference, for example, between a private and a general applying for part-time working. We can envisage a situation where a senior officer in all three services wanted to go part time. One aim that General Carter has put forward for the legislation is to encourage opportunities for more family-friendly working practices, and obviously there is the aim of encouraging women not only to join the armed forces, but to advance up the career path. I would therefore like to know from the Minister what the rules are. Will there be uniform rules across the ranks for how individuals, and what percentage of individuals, would be covered?
Having read the Bill, I am not sure whether this issue is covered. Clearly, the ultimate decision is about the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. We could not have a situation in which, even if there was a 15% upper limit, we took out an entire capability that was needed by our armed forces.
I would be interested to know, through the probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, what the appeals mechanism is. One issue in the armed forces is women not advancing up the pay spine or rankings because of breaks in service and other situations, so what would be the appeal mechanism? If someone felt that they were being unfairly denied part-time working, what would be the process? If it relates to a female member of the armed forces, is that not opening us up, potentially, to a claim of discrimination against that individual if she feels that that is the reason why she has been denied part-time working?
Mr Ellwood
First, it is a pleasure to be here. I am very grateful that the Bill has reached Committee and, from looking around the room, it is clear that there are many committed right hon. and hon. Members who want the best for our armed forces. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage and that we can scrutinise what I hope will be an important stepping-stone in our support for our armed services.
In the wider debate on the clause, I will expand on the virtues and benefits of the Bill, but specifically on the amendment, questions were raised about recruitment and retention. We concede that this is a difficult climate in which to recruit and retain personnel. That is why we have put forward the armed forces people programme, of which there are four distinct parts. This Bill on the flexible working programme, which we are debating here today, forms one part of that. We need to advance, to modernise. We need to reflect society and ensure that we can recruit from that gene pool—the voluntary force out there—and make the armed forces attractive in a modern-day context. That means providing an element of flexibility in the work that we expect them to do.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body was touched on. We will probably look at this matter in further detail under a later amendment. Now, I will simply say that the freeze—the pay cap—has been removed. Absolutely, there may be a requirement for an increase in salaries for specific trades where there is a shortfall, and we need to attract people and fill posts. That is beyond the scope of the Bill and this debate, but it sits in the wider context of ensuring that we are doing our best to attract and retain people for the most professional armed forces in the world.
I was asked whether this provision applies across the three services. It does. However, the word “regiment” would not necessarily apply in all contexts of the armed forces. It is important to remember the requirement in respect of operational capability. The example was given of an individual seeking to apply for flexible working while on board a ship. The hon. Member for North Durham will be aware that they will be attached to a posting for a period—possibly nine months—and they will make an application for the future. They would hope, perhaps, to be able to remain in a geographic location or to have the freedom to work part-time or reduced hours once they got off the ship. Ultimately, operational capability is of first and foremost importance, and it must not be affected at all by any aspect of the Bill.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister is right that a person on a ship would be applying for the future, but what would be the decision-making process when putting together a crew for a ship? What percentage of the crew would be allowed to work part time?
Mr Ellwood
When we look at countries that already have this process, figures like 15% simply are not applicable. Australia has, I believe, up to 1% or 2% of its personnel interested in pursuing this. Ultimately, it is about the operational capability of any ship and the force on board. Any commander or authority has the ability to deny any individual application because of that. Should an individual still feel that they require this kind of working because of their personal circumstances, there will be an appeals process. We will come on to that under a later amendment.
We have the mechanisms in place to recall service personnel. I want to make that clear. Even if permission was given for an individual not to be on a particular ship, they could be recalled because of operational capability if the situation demanded it. That is the agreement under which this entire offering is being made.
These measures have been designed by the services for the services. This is the Army, Air Force and Navy looking at their own protocols and personnel situations, and seeing how they can manage situations like the one on the ship that was described by the hon. Member for North Durham. It makes sense, therefore, to leave many of the judgments on the details to the services themselves. They own the responsibility to deliver operational duty and capability in order to recruit and fulfil their tasks.
In our view, the arbitrary limit of 15% in the amendment was put forward with good intentions, but would inevitably prove unhelpful. I am pleased that it was clear from what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said that it is a probing amendment. We must allow the services to retain the flexibility and agility to manage their manpower as they see fit.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister says that this proposal comes from the services. How far down the chain of command is there buy-in on this? If anyone in the Navy is asked about their next posting, they will always say, “Put the two at the top that you don’t want and you’ll get the one that you want third.” Will there be a cultural shift so that this is not just something that is recognised by the senior heads in the Ministry of Defence, but something that has buy-in from the people actually making the decisions about where people go?
Mr Ellwood
As I say, this has been designed by the armed forces themselves. A series of surveys has been put forward. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the opening speech given by the then Secretary of State on Second Reading, which made clear the length and depth to which the Ministry of Defence has gone to ensure that there is buy-in and approval not just among service personnel, but from their families and partners who are directly affected by this. There is absolute support for this and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, particularly with his experience, that it would not be wise to go ahead with it if the chiefs did not agree, if the commanders did not agree and if the armed forces personnel themselves were not calling for it.
Looking at the surveys, one reason why individuals make the tough decision to sign off and leave the armed forces is the stress and strain that it places on their families. That is why we have said, “Let’s adapt, let’s reflect on what society is doing and on what happens in civilian areas.” That is why I believe that it makes sense to persevere with this idea. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has support across the board.
As I suggested, we envisage a modest take-up of between 0.5% and 1% of all service personnel. The take-up rate is highly unlikely to exceed 15%, but of course it would be wrong to place a cap or arbitrary limit on it. Following the assurances that I have provided, I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Gerald Jones
I concur with the Minister about the unity across the House in wanting the best for our armed forces. As I said at the start, this is a probing amendment to seek further clarification. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has indicated what clarification is required on how the proposal will work across the ranks and on the appeals mechanism.
Although I accept what the Minister said about the services having flexibility, there needs to be some idea of what the limit will be in the future. Hopefully the Minister will consider that. For the arrangement to work effectively, there needs to be further clarity. I ask the Minister to look at that again, but I do beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(3AA) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on any use of the power to vary, suspend or terminate set out in subsection (3A) and must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”
An amendment to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on instances where the right to work part-time or in a geographically restricted area has been varied, suspended or terminated.
I rise to speak to amendments 4 and 5—
The Chair
Order. Amendment 4 has not been selected. It is not on the selection list, so just speak to amendment 5.
Carol Monaghan
I think I missed that paper then, because I am looking at it—
The Chair
When we come to the clause stand part debate, you can be more wide-ranging in your comments, Ms Monaghan, but please just stick to amendment 5 for now.
Carol Monaghan
I would like to raise similar concerns to those raised already, but probably coming from a different position. We have already heard that there are issues around large numbers of personnel and the requirement to maintain operational capability. I would certainly echo those concerns, but if the Bill is to deal with retention of the talent that we cannot afford to lose, and identify how best to make the armed forces modern and fit for purpose, we need to consider how it will be implemented.
There are some worrying phrases in the Bill, such as the “prescribed circumstances” in which flexible working can be suspended. We have already talked about the suspension of flexible working during a national emergency; nobody has a problem with that, but the form of manning crisis and its management, and the ability of the service to refuse applications broadly on the grounds of defence need are more problematic.
We have already heard about areas in which there are key shortages—engineering and particular parts of the RAF, and I will add the submarine service to that. There are people in those services who are currently unable to take the annual leave to which they are entitled. Those same people will not be able to access flexible working, and the result will be the same—members of the armed forces will leave before they are due to do so and the problem with retention will continue. To maintain operational capability, members of particular sections will not be able take up flexible working or get leave because of things that are absolutely out of their control, such as shortages and budget cuts. We need some clarity on how that is rolled out.
Getting the Secretary of State to report to Parliament is quite important. People need to know the situations in which applications have been refused and the number of people who have taken the option up. The Minister mentioned his view that a very small percentage will take it up. We need to be told regularly exactly what the uptake is and across which services, and why applications have been refused—was it because of a particular short-term issue or longer term, endemic problems? Having the Secretary of State report to Parliament regularly would allow some clarity and allow us to monitor who is able to access flexible working and who is not.
Amendment 4 is a probing amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage.
Mr Ellwood
I admire the way in which the hon. Lady finessed amendment 4, which disappeared, into amendment 5 with the dexterity that we all require in such situations.
I am grateful for the general support for the armed forces. It is important to understand the context. Is this about budget cuts? That is a knee-jerk reaction—a question that I also posed, when I was in opposition, whenever any decision came up. Is the Bill a consequence of that? I can say to the Committee that it is not; it is absolutely nothing to do with financing whatsoever. It is purely to do with recruitment and retention, and the hon. Lady cited examples of that.
Carol Monaghan
I am not suggesting that the Bill is a way to deal with budget cuts. I am suggesting that budget cuts to particular areas may make people working in those areas less able to access the flexible working provisions because they are stretched to their limit.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that clarification. The hon. Lady talked about what she called the endemic problems we are having. I was very frank, honest and transparent and said, yes, as the Secretary of State and the Armed Forces Minister recognise, we need to do our best to recruit and retain. We can only do that if we adapt, and that is one of the reasons for the Bill.
The hon. Lady gave an excellent example of those who are under pressure because of their expertise—there are not enough experts in a particular field, which places extra pressure on those who are there. We need to make sure that we recruit more experts in a particular field—engineers, for example—so that we limit the pressures on any individual to constantly be at work, which we do not want.
The new arrangements will be available to all regular service personnel and are aimed at improving recruitment and retention, in not just the short but the long term. Our aim is to approve as many applications as we can, but we also recognise that there will be some that we will not be able to approve. There will be requests made to work part time to which we will have to say no—for example, because somebody is serving at the moment in a high-readiness unit. We have to manage the expectations about the arrangements and we have to provide commanding officers with the information to help them to determine, with their people, whether the arrangements are right for them, or whether less formal flexible working arrangements, which are already available, might suit them better.
Careful consideration will be given to applications when they are made, and because of that we do not anticipate that there will be a need to vary, suspend or terminate any arrangements. However, the ability to do that is necessary to maintain our ability to recall if operational capability demands. It also provides our people with some flexibility should their own needs change.
When it comes to the numbers, as I mentioned, we do not expect take-up of more than about 1%. On that basis, in our view, collating or reporting the information for the size of the cohort will not provide significant or beneficial data. Our internal systems are likely to capture that information anyway as a matter of course and be reported to Parliament in the normal way. That will provide management information from which the services can assess how effectively the new arrangements are working and make any appropriate adjustments.
This is a new concept; of course we need to understand and manage it, see how it works in practice and adapt accordingly. It therefore seems disproportionate to require the services to spend time and resources compiling the management information proposed in the amendment into a form robust enough for publication when we expect the numbers affected by the powers to be small. I hope that I have provided clarification and assurances, and that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Carol Monaghan
I still have some questions. There is a difficulty: if we cannot look at the entire picture and see the particular areas of service that cannot access the arrangements, we are missing a trick. Undoubtedly, if people are operationally stretched and unable to access them, there will be more retention issues. However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Ellwood
Clause 2 makes small consequential amendments to existing legislation to provide that regular service personnel temporarily serving under flexible working arrangements continue to be excused automatically from jury service. It has long been recognised that regular service personnel are in a unique position when it comes to jury service. It is vital, as I stressed before, that operational capability is maintained at all times, so commanding officers have the ability to certify the need for their personnel to be exempt. The changes will ensure that the same protections are in place for those working under the new part-time arrangements.
The relevant legislation providing automatic excusal and discretionary deferral from jury service in England, Wales and Scotland refer to full-time serving members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces. Service personnel temporarily serving under part-time working arrangements will not, therefore, be covered by the legislation in England, Wales and Scotland. Clause 2 will ensure that we maintain the current position for our people.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Short title, commencement and extent
Gerald Jones
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Prior to making any regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation into the impact of part-time and geographically restricted working on recruitment methods to the Armed Forces and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment requires an evaluation of the impact part-time and geographically restricted working has on recruitment to the Armed Forces.
The amendment relates to recruitment methods and practices in the armed forces. It would require the Government to report on the impact of new working practices on recruitment and on how recruitment methods are changing to reflect that. I have already mentioned briefly the problem with recruitment into the armed forces. The numbers are simply not what they need to be, so we need to have a good look at current practices and how to improve the situation.
In 2012, Army recruitment was outsourced through the recruitment partnership project. The contract, said to be worth around £44 million over 10 years, is subject to renewal in 2022. Unfortunately, since 2012, the recruitment picture has not been pretty. When the Capita contract was awarded, regular soldier applications were around 70,000, but they fell to around 45,000 in 2012-13, which is roughly where they remain. A report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who I think we would all acknowledge has outstanding knowledge of these matters, highlighted the poor performance, stating
“with the programme now having run for some five years it is evident that RPP has been underperforming significantly below initial projections.”
Research by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whose extremely hard work on this issue I must highlight, uncovered the poor rates of take-up at Army training courses across the country. Only 14 troops signed up for the standard common infantry course at Catterick in one of this year’s batches, despite 96 spaces being available, meaning 85% of the places were empty. Similarly, 30% of places were unfilled on courses starting between July 2015 and June 2017 at the Pirbright Army Training Centre, and a quarter of spaces were left unfilled at the Army Training Regiment at Winchester.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister has spoken about these new working practices, which I support and which are designed to make the armed forces more attractive to individuals. I can clearly see that people already in the armed forces may well take some of these on board as their lives change—with changing family commitments, for example. Has the Ministry of Defence considered offering part-time posts as part of recruitment?
The main thrust of the amendment is toward those already in the armed services, but would it allow the Ministry of Defence or the three armed services to advertise a role as part-time? People might say that that goes against the ethos of what we want from the armed forces, but I could see a situation in which someone who has previously served in the armed forces wants to come back once their circumstances change—certainly, if we are to try to attract more women back into roles—and they may want a specific role in the armed forces that is not full time. Will the Bill allow that, and has the Minister considered advertising certain posts as part-time? He has already talked about pinch-point trades, and some of those that are geographically restricted in certain areas could offer part-time work as part of a recruitment exercise to fill some of those posts.
Mr Ellwood
There has been helpful discussion on this clause, and I welcome the tone adopted by both hon. Gentlemen. We discussed the excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on the armed forces. It is called “Filling the Ranks”, and I recommend it to all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased that we have accepted all the recommendations. It is a sober consideration of the challenges that we face in our armed forces today, and part of the work that we are doing—including in this Bill—is about moving on from that.
We want to widen opportunities for those in the armed forces, and it could be that instead of working part time, somebody may wish to leave the armed forces all together. I remember from before I left regular service—I do not know whether others who have served felt this as well—that as soon as someone put their hand up and said that they were going to depart, they were given different types of jobs and treated slightly differently, simply because there was perhaps a question mark about their commitment that should not have been there. We now have a process of leave well and then rejoin well, because it could be that after a period in civilian life, someone might fancy going back again, and they need to be able to do that. People should not leave under any cloud, and the service should be welcoming so that somebody can come back in.
The importance of diversity was mentioned on Second Reading, and I agree. We want to recruit the very best from across the country—men and women from different ethnic backgrounds and geographical locations. There should be no inhibitors for anybody wishing to serve.
The contract with Capita was also raised, and there have been some issues and concerns about that. Again, we must advance and modernise to reflect the modern needs of our armed forces personnel.
The idea of the part-time post was raised. I will take that away with me as it is certainly worth considering. We must bear in mind that some of those posts already exist for reservists, and it will be for the services who are designing the arrangements to ensure that operational capability is not threatened in any way. It would, however, be silly not to consider any of the freedoms and opportunities that could be set up underneath that, and I welcome the input from the hon. Member for North Durham.
The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to commission an independent report on the effects of new forms of flexible working on recruitment to the armed forces. The new flexible working measures are designed to attract, recruit and retain people from a more diverse cross-section of society. We stress that we need the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver that operational capability, and we believe that these measures will benefit a small but significant cohort who wish to take up this offer—for example, women and men starting a family, those with caring commitments, or those who wish to undertake long-term studies. However, evidence gathered by our external report, the internal surveys, the focus groups and our ongoing flexible duties trial shows we are providing our people with modern choices, which will help us retain highly skilled personnel who might otherwise leave—a concern that has already been expressed in this Committee.
This evidence already provides us with detailed assessment of the benefits of the new forms of flexible working. The MOD is experiencing many of the same skills and recruitment challenges that are being faced nationally, so to meet those challenges as proactively as possible, we are modernising the employment offer for our armed forces to better allow defence to attract and retain the right mix of people and skills. As I mentioned earlier, those are being managed collectively under our armed forces people programme, which comprises projects including the new joiner offer and the enterprise approach. The latter is about taking people with civilian skills—for example, working for Rolls-Royce or Babcock—and bringing them straight across to work in the defence environment.
The Committee will be aware that the intake in strength by rank, trade and specialisation is monitored and managed on a regular basis at both the service level and centrally by the MOD. The MOD already publishes detailed information analysis on intake in the “UK armed forces monthly service personnel statistics” publication—a long title. The overall numbers taking up the new opportunities are likely to be low, as I have mentioned before. This will mean that any detailed evaluation, external or otherwise, of the impact of the new flexible working measures on overall recruitment in the armed forces will be difficult to achieve in the early years of operation. Furthermore, evidence gathering already conducted by the armed forces of the benefits and impact that the new forms of flexible working will have on our people is of greater value than an evaluation from an independent contractor. The obligation proposed in the amendment will be unnecessarily costly, will delay the introduction of the new measures and their benefits for our people, and will add little value to what defence is already trying to achieve. With those assurances, I hope the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for his comments. While I do not intend to push this amendment to a vote, I ask the Minister to reflect on the need for further work to evaluate the investment being made in recruitment and the advertising process for recruitment to the armed forces, because it is not reflected in the current take-up. There is a need for further work and attention in that area. I ask the Minister to take those comments on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gerald Jones
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Prior to making any regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation into the impact of part-time and geographically restricted working on Armed Forces housing contracts and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment requires an evaluation of the impact part-time and geographically restricted working has on Armed Forces housing contracts.
The amendment is about armed forces housing and the impact that changes to working practices will have on housing contracts. As I am sure the Minister has gathered, the amendment is a way for me to question him about housing as it relates to recruitment and, more specifically, retention.
We know that housing is an important element of the overall offer to our armed forces. As far as I am aware, there will be no change to current allocation of service accommodation as a result of changed working practices. The Bill guidance states:
“Service provided accommodation, which is provided because of the inherent mobility of Service life, will continue to be available for those taking up these new flexible working arrangements under the normal eligibility criteria because they will continue to remain liable for routine assignment changes.”
This was affirmed in the other place by the Minister of State, Earl Howe, who said,
“I stress again that regular service personnel who successfully apply to work part-time following the introduction of these new measures will be entitled to service accommodation commensurate with their personal status category and other qualifying criteria in the same way as their full-time colleagues.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2017; Vol. 785, c. 260.]
The only slight concern I have with Earl Howe’s statement is the reference to P-stat categories. Obviously, if the P-stat category changes, their allowance changes. Will the Minister please confirm that personnel who work in part time will not have their category changed? I am sure that was a turn of phrase and I am perhaps nit-picking, but I would appreciate having that confirmed by the Minister, just for the peace of mind of our service personnel.
The Minister highlighted on Second Reading that the new working practices were fitting into wider planned changes as part of the people programme. He mentioned,
“our future accommodation model, advancing the housing options available both to single and to married personnel, including home ownership”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 672.]
We know very little about the new accommodation model and I hope that the amendment will enable me to pry a few more details out of the Minister. I say “pry” because we have been asking for a while and unfortunately the Government remain tight-lipped.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend and the Minister know, I pay close attention to this issue. The complaints are not necessarily about response times, but about where the key performance indicators have been set and how they do not meet the needs of our armed forces. CarillionAmey is meeting its KPIs. It will turn up within 24 hours, but it takes eight days to fix the boiler, and I think that is more of a problem. I can empathise with that, given how cold it is in here today.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has highlighted one of the many concerns that we have around the work of the contracts, or the way that the contract is not working for families in our armed forces.
Last year’s National Audit Office report on service family accommodation was damning of Carillion’s performance:
“The performance of CarillionAmey has been totally unacceptable”.
Although I welcome the action that has been taken, the Government had the option to terminate the contract, yet they did not, which leaves me with some concerns about how seriously the matter is being taken. I appreciate that there have been some improvements, but reports have shown that continued dissatisfaction with the delivery of the contract is still widespread. For those in service family accommodation, satisfaction with the quality of maintenance/repair and with response to requests for maintenance/repair fell to just 28%, which is very alarming indeed.
Of course, this is all in the context of many personnel seeing increased costs for their accommodation and ongoing pay restraint. The pay review body commented on that in its latest report:
“A key consideration in people accepting the increases in charges being seen…will be a clear improvement in both the overall quality of the housing stock and the effective delivery of maintenance services.”
I would like to hear whether the Department has any specific plans to take action to improve performance and at what point we might see that happen.
Recruitment and retention issues are at the heart of the Bill, and housing is a crucial factor in that. I hope the Minister can give me some assurance and answer my questions about how the new working practices will impact on housing allocation, what the latest progress with the future accommodation model is and how the Government will deal with housing contracts if marked improvements are not shown.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would like to get an understanding of how the housing of someone who works part time will be dealt with. Housing has always been seen as part of the overall remuneration package that armed forces personnel get. We will potentially have a situation where someone who works part time lives in a house next door to someone working full time, with both getting the same housing package. If someone goes part time, will there be a way to recoup some of the advantage, or will they continue as if they are working full time? I can see that creating some issues, where people working full time and people working part time are getting the same benefits. How will the Ministry of Defence address that? There could be an issue of perceived fairness for the individual working full time and the idea that someone is getting benefits that they are not working for. I would like to know how the Minister thinks that would be addressed when this is rolled out.
Mr Ellwood
We have wandered into another huge chunk of the armed forces people programme. It is pertinent to the Bill, but it is so important that it sits alone as one of the four major pillars of improvement we are trying to make to recruit and retain armed forces personnel.
The future accommodation model has been mentioned. It will be coming round the corner very soon in more detail. It is still very much being planned, so I am not able to share too much detail, but it is helpful to hear the concerns, which we are very much alive to.
Ruth Smeeth
May I suggest that as the Minister is looking at those proposals, he bears it in mind that to move from where we are now to a regional model is of huge concern to the families?
Mr Ellwood
I know that the hon. Lady has spent a lot of time looking at these issues, and I am grateful for her input. She has done well to finesse those concerns into the Bill. She knows that that is a separate but very important subject. I hear what she says.
CarillionAmey was mentioned. That concerned the previous Secretary of State, and the company was called in to ensure that improvements were made to meet the KPIs. The contract comes up for renewal in 2020. That does not stop us making sure we provide the best accommodation we can for our armed forces personnel. We should recognise that what people choose and expect today is very different from 15 or 20 years ago, when a room this size would have been full of 20 beds. Now people expect individual accommodation, wireless networks and decent cooking facilities, and that is what we are providing, not least as we build new premises and new accommodation, with the returning of our armed forces from Germany.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney seeks to place an obligation on the MOD to commission an independent report evaluating the impact of new forms of flexible working on armed forces housing contracts. The Government have already provided assurances during the passage of the Bill that regular service personnel, when taking part-time work, will retain those entitlements currently available to full-time regulars. There will be no change there. Providing our people with service accommodation is pivotal for their work. We must ensure that their families have that guarantee and that support, particularly if circumstances change and they need to be called back at short notice.
Regular service personnel who successfully apply to undertake the new forms of flexible working following the introduction of these measures will be entitled to service accommodation commensurate with their personnel status category and other qualifying criteria, in the same way as their full-time colleagues. Individuals will take up these new arrangements for a defined period only and will retain an enduring liability for mobility. They will still be subject to the same moves associated with new assignments as others in the regular armed forces.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is common sense that no one will suddenly be turfed out of accommodation, but can the Minister not see that tensions might rise if someone working part time is living long term next door to someone working full time? He said “as long as that contract continues”, but what happens if the person is still part time and is redeployed somewhere else for new accommodation? Will they have the same access to housing or will that change in some way?
Mr Ellwood
I understand where the question comes from; it is a detailed, specific point, but it needs to be considered. They will be treated in the same manner as anybody else in the unit that they are with if there is an ORBAT change or movement. It will also be down to the arrangements made when the application is put forward in the first place. If a unit is moving from one location to another, that needs to be factored into the decision. Someone might look over their shoulder and have a view about that, but that same person might request a period of absence or a change in their circumstances to move to part time at a later date. I hope the fuller explanation that we give to our armed forces personnel as these measures are rolled out will clarify that and ensure that there are not those feelings that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Support for service families was a recurring theme on Second Reading. The Bill is at the heart of the work we are doing to support our people. I reaffirm that enhanced flexible working options are about providing opportunities for our people who want to work more flexibly and not about disadvantaging them or their families by limiting access to support and entitlements. I have said before that only a small yet significant number of personnel will undertake flexible working and that the longer-term impact of these new options will be difficult to assess in the early years of implementation. For those reasons, the impact on service accommodation contracts is likely to be minimal—I do not see a huge change there—and challenging to assess, particularly in the light of the fact that there are no plans for the entitlements to be altered, and an independent evaluation is therefore deemed unnecessary.
The Ministry of Defence recognises that the current system for accommodation can be unaffordable and inflexible, and that it does not support personnel to live in the way that many of them want to today. We are reforming the accommodation model so that all regular personnel can receive support to live how they want to. We recognise the need to offer accommodation that meets their needs and expectations today and in the future. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about the future accommodation model, which is due to be introduced in 2019 as part of the defence people programme. We are exploring options for a more flexible accommodation offer to give service personnel more choice in how they live.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I suggest that the Minister delve into the bowels of the Ministry of Defence? There was a plan there in 2010 that is clearly gathering dust, but it addresses quite a lot of the issues that he has raised.
Mr Ellwood
I shall certainly go back to the bowels of the MOD and see whether I can find anything that the hon. Gentleman has left behind.
Extensive work is being done to consider a wide range of options, from widening entitlement based on the current model of service-provided accommodation to helping service personnel to meet their aspirations for home ownership. We hope to be able to say more about that at the end of the year. Eligibility under the future accommodation model will not be altered for personnel who work part time or who are subject to geographical restriction when the new measures come into force. I hope that makes it clear to the Committee that there will be no change. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by what I have said and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for the clarification and reassurance he has provided, and for recognising that there is still significant concern. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted the concerns and practical issues facing families. The Minister commented on the future accommodation model, understanding that it stands alone as a significant piece of work. He said it is “coming round the corner” soon. Given that we were told that we would have the detail in 2017 and there are only six weeks left in 2017, and while I appreciate that he might not be able to give the fullest detail, I would have hoped for an indication of when that detail will be forthcoming. I am sure the Government recognise that this is a significant issue and that there are huge concerns around it. That said, I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Carol Monaghan
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Within one calendar year of making any regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation into the impact of part-time and geographically restricted working on welfare of Armed Forces personnel.”
An amendment to require the Secretary of State to consider the welfare implications of part-time and geographically restricted working on Armed Forces personnel.
I will explain a little about the amendment. Ultimately, the Bill is to improve the welfare, satisfaction and work-life balance of those who are serving. Of course we want to modernise the services, consider working practices and, as a result, improve the recruitment and retention of personnel. The amendment would ensure that there was an evaluation of the process. Unless we evaluate the scheme, it will be impossible to know its efficacy and impact. The continuous attitude survey is already carried out, and we know that, at the moment, 35% of serving personnel report dissatisfaction with service life. It would be straightforward to widen the continuous attitude survey to include a section on flexible or part-time working, and have a specific evaluation for those who have undertaken that work.
Any new scheme needs evaluation. I am sure the Government have plans to monitor the success of the scheme, so I am not trying to be difficult, but it would be useful to know the details of the monitoring that will take place. Without evaluation, we cannot know the impact of what I believe to be a positive step for those now serving in the armed forces. I would welcome comments from the Minister on that point.
Mr Ellwood
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she wants to place a further burden on the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the new flexible working arrangements within 12 calendar months of the clause containing the powers to make the new terms of service regulations coming into force. I am not sure whether that is exactly the intention of what she wants to achieve. The regulations to implement the new flexible working arrangements may be made some months before they come into force, so she might be seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the new flexible working arrangements within one year of the new terms of service regulations coming into force.
Either way, I assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the policies and processes that will support the changes brought about by the Bill have been designed by the services for the services. We have done a great deal of work to ensure that the services develop policies that work for them and for their people. Any effects on allowances or promotion are intended to be proportionate and fair, and our policy has been developed to limit any of the negative impacts.
The physical and mental health of our people and their wider wellbeing contribute directly to our operational capability. I have stressed again and again that we must bear that in mind, but we recognise the welfare risks of some personnel having less income, for example, as a result of serving part time. We will strive to ensure that service personnel are independent and responsible in respect of their personal finances, and that will be one of the things that commanders discuss with applicants before making recommendations or seeing applications that are pushed through.
I hope that, given those assurances, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but I am happy to discuss it with her in more detail at a later date.
Carol Monaghan
There is an issue. We need to know how successful flexible working is. Some 35% of serving personnel are dissatisfied; we need to know whether personnel accessing flexible working feel more satisfied with service life. If they do not, the Bill fails.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady makes the argument herself that if there is a sense of dissatisfaction, we have to ask ourselves why that is. We are trying to remedy that dissatisfaction; we are trying to make more people satisfied. That will be achieved through flexible working—through the Bill.
Carol Monaghan
I think we are probably coming from the same point of view. It is difficult to know the impact if we do not monitor it. The impact of every change we make has to be monitored. However, given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kevan Jones
I just have a question. Clause 3(5) states:
“Section 1 and this section extend to—
(a) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
(b) the Isle of Man, and
(c) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.”
I wonder what the issue is with Gibraltar.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman poses an important question. There is a technical reason for this. It is simply because, as has come slightly mysteriously and miraculously to my attention, we have been liaising with the Gibraltarian Government about whether any provision of the Armed Forces Act 2006, with which he will be familiar, should be part of the new law of Gibraltar. They have undertaken to introduce their own legislation in the near future to effect this. I did know that, but a little piece of paper arrived to remind me of it. I am grateful for his question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Protection of existing flexible working options
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the ability of persons serving with a regular force to avail themselves of the flexible working options provided for in Chapter 1 of Joint Service Publication 750 (centrally determined terms of service).
(2) If the flexible working options in subsection (1) are withdrawn, the Secretary of State must make similar provision through regulations.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”—(Gerald Jones.)
This new clause preserves current flexible working practices for the Armed Forces.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gerald Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to current flexible working practices in the armed forces. As the Minister knows, there are already ways for personnel to undertake flexible working. Although none of those options involves a reduction in overall hours, the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), pointed out on Second Reading that they are well subscribed:
“We know that these existing initiatives are popular: in the six months to July 2017, 1,400 personnel had taken advantage of them.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 624.]
The new clause would ensure that those popular options were retained and that the new options did not have unintended negative repercussions.
The three flexible working options available to service personnel, including home working, are outlined in Joint Service Publication 750. They involve an individual working the full number of hours associated with their role in a specific period, but having scope to vary their hours day to day. The guidance states that arrangements should be reviewed every 12 months, or earlier if circumstances change.
The current flexible working options are as follows. Variable start and finish times allow service personnel to start and finish their working day at different times from those considered the norm in their working environment, although the total number of hours worked will not be less than those considered normal for the role. That measure may cover part or the whole of an assignment.
Home working allows service personnel to carry out their work from home if that gives them greater flexibility in meeting their domestic needs and if the nature of the work allows it. Ad hoc home working is an informal agreement that gives personnel the opportunity to work at home occasionally to complete a particular task or project. Regular home working gives personnel a more regular home-working arrangement, so their working time is shared between home and the workplace. Compressed hours allows individuals to work the normal number of hours for their role over a shorter period to allow flexibility for travel or to meet other domestic demands during the week. For example, it allows an individual working away from home on a conventional Monday to Friday pattern to start late on a Monday, finish early on a Friday and work extended hours on the other days to facilitate travel.
The guidance cites
“a variety of personal responsibilities, such as for young children or for sick, disabled or elderly relatives”
as possible reasons for wanting flexible working, but I am slightly confused about the role that the new flexible working practices will play. Of course, it would be much easier to establish that if we knew what they will look like, but the Bill is very light on detail. The guidance for the new practices states:
“Service personnel will be able to apply to take up the new flexible working opportunities at any point in their career once they have completed their basic and professional training, plus an additional period prescribed by their Service. Therefore, we expect that it will be around four years before a new entrant will normally be permitted to undertake part-time working”.
There seems to be a conflation of part-time working with flexible working. The guidance refers to “new flexible working opportunities”, but then refers to part-time working. Perhaps the current practices will remain with the addition of a part-time element. Will the Minister clarify whether there will actually be any changes to the current flexible working practices? If so, will the new practices supersede the current? Will personnel have the option to continue with their current situation? If not, will they be expected to move over to the new practices as soon as they are introduced or will there be a grace period to allow families to adapt? It may be that the current flexible working options fit very well with a person’s lifestyle, but a part-time option and the pay reduction that comes with it might not work as well.
If the Minister can reassure us about how the new practices fit in with the current ones, I will gladly withdraw the new clause, but I would like some clarity on those points.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for this probing new clause, which allows me to explain how JSP 750—I have a copy here, should anybody wish to read that heavy-duty but important document—fits in with this flexible working Bill.
It is worth pausing to consider people’s perception of the armed forces. People see the armed forces as mainly the infantry, but certainly the action-orientated, frontline services. That is what they see on television, but it is the very top part. Any action that the infanteer takes is a response to a huge series of decisions taken by other people. We collect data in the armed forces and our other agencies. That data is turned into information, that information is turned into intelligence, that intelligence is turned into wisdom and that wisdom is turned into action. There are an awful lot of personnel doing an awful lot of work behind those we see—the overt picture of our armed forces.
The manner in which those personnel work varies. There are many situations—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney went through some of them—such as variable start and finish times, compressed hours, home working, different forms of unpaid leave and career breaks. That is all covered in JSP 750, and it is very pertinent to providing flexibility prior to the Bill’s coming into force.
The new flexibilities that the Bill will introduce are part of a series of steps that we are undertaking to modernise the conditions of the service that we offer to those who serve. Those considering a career in the armed forces will not be affected at all by what exists already; nothing will be replaced in that sense. The long-term aim is to improve overall recruitment and retention in our armed forces.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for his commitment to the existing arrangements under Joint Services Publication 750 and for the clarity that no existing arrangements will be affected by the changes. Given that he has stressed that intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Reporting of Armed Forces personnel serving part-time
“(1) The Secretary of State must include the number of personnel who are serving part-time in the monthly UK armed forces service personnel statistics.
(2) The Secretary of State must include the number of personnel who are serving part-time in the UK armed forces biannual diversity statistic.”—(Gerald Jones.)
This new clause requires the number of UK armed forces service personnel working part-time to be reported regularly, and to be included in the UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gerald Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about ensuring that armed forces personnel numbers and diversity statistics are as accurate as possible. It requires that both the personnel and diversity statistics include details of how many personnel are working part time. We believe that it is important to be open with Parliament and the public about the personnel statistics. Unfortunately, the Government have a poor record when it comes to the number of armed forces personnel, specifically the size of the Army.
Since 1 October 2016, Army personnel who have completed phase 1 training, which covers all new entry training to provide basic military skills, but have not completed phase 2, which includes initial individual specialisation and technical training following phase 1, are considered trained personnel. Prior to that, personnel were considered to be trained only when they had completed both phases.
The Government made a clear and specific promise in their 2015 manifesto that the Army would not fall below 82,000 under the old definition. Unfortunately, it seems that the change in the definition was a cynical attempt to keep that promise. The Government dropped the commitment for the 2017 election, and since then they have given increasingly vague answers to parliamentary questions about targets and minimum thresholds. That promise has not been kept. The latest figures show that the full-time trained strength of the Army is now just 77,680.
In the consultation on the change to the statistics, the Government said:
“The main purpose of these statistics is to measure the performance of the MOD against government and Parliament targets, and also to inform general debate in government, Parliament and the wider public.”
It is vital for accountability and informed debate that there is transparency around the personnel numbers. It would not be right to suggest that the Army or any of the services is at a greater strength than it actually is by failing to separate part-time and full-time personnel. Therefore, the personnel statistics must include specific detail on the number of personnel who are working part time.
The Government have made it clear that one of their hopes is that the Bill will encourage women not only to join the forces but, crucially, to stay in the forces. That is an excellent goal and one that we should pursue. When it comes to the diversity statistics, the reasons for wanting to include the number of personnel serving part time are twofold. As I mentioned, the Government have a record of trying to inflate personnel numbers. The 2015 strategic defence and security review includes a target to increase the number of women members of the armed forces. The aim was that by 2020, 15% of the regulars and reserves would be women, moving eventually to 20%. Figures from April 2017 show that just 11.4% of the regulars and reserves are women, but the new working practices apply only to regulars, of whom 10.2% are female. I look forward to the new diversity statistics that come out at the end of the month and hope that the numbers will have risen.
It is important that the number of female personnel is accurate, detailed and not overstated, so that we are not complacent about the work that is needed. If a significant reason for the legislation is to retain women, we need the diversity statistics to reflect how well that is working. The new Defence Secretary will name the new Chief of the Defence Staff soon. If we want to get to a situation where that could be a woman, we need to keep women in the services and promote them. There is a view that this was a missed opportunity to have a woman as the new Defence Secretary. She would have been the UK’s first female Defence Secretary, but who knows? Perhaps we will have one before long.
If we can establish how women are using the new working practices and how they affect their length of service and progression, we can establish the policy’s impact. To do that successfully, the more information we have, the better. The new clause does not try to undermine the Bill or its measures, but would be important in helping us to monitor how successfully the Bill’s aims are being met and in ensuring that the statistics are transparent. The new clause is a way of seeing whether we need to do more or explore other options. As was said on Second Reading, the Bill will not be a silver bullet for recruitment and retention issues in the armed forces, but we need a way to establish whether it is successful and, critically, how successful it is.
The Government’s fact sheet on the Bill acknowledges the issue, stating:
“The impact of these new arrangements will compete with the many other factors that influence recruitment and retention, and measurement of the effects of the changes will entail a mixture of metrics on the numbers and types of applications and the approval rates, alongside specific surveys to assess the impact. We are currently designing our strategy and methods for measuring this.”
Will the Minister give us an update on the progress of the monitoring systems?
I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause or give us assurances either that the personnel and diversity statistics will reflect the new working practices or that some kind of monitoring report will be publicly available, if that is already in his plans.
Mr Ellwood
I am once again grateful for the manner in which the hon. Gentleman asked his important questions about transparency in the numbers. We are aware of the challenges on recruitment and retention, and we are here today to advance our offer to the general public to consider a career in the armed forces. However, the challenges we face do not currently affect our operational capability. We are involved in about 30 operations in about 80 countries across the world. We are very much meeting our commitments, but there are challenges, which is why we have introduced the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of our targets on diversity, as did several hon. Members on Second Reading, including the 20% target for women, which I hope we will meet. He is aware that we already publish detailed information and analysis of the UK armed forces in the monthly service personnel statistics publication—I have a copy of it here, should any hon. Member wish to look at it. It provides statistics on the number of service personnel by strength, intake and outflow in the UK armed forces. Detail is provided both for the full-time armed forces and the reserves.
The MOD promotes the importance of the armed forces being appropriately representative of the diverse society that they exist to defend, with operational effectiveness being dependent on inclusion and fairness. My Department publishes comprehensive data in the UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics, a statistical release that presents information relating to the gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and age of personnel employed by the MOD. That meets our obligations under the public sector equality duty to provide information on our workforce in relation to the protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010. In addition, the armed forces proactively release data on the number of personnel undertaking and returning from maternity and shared parental leave as part of that publication.
The recording requirements for any pattern of work in our armed forces are stipulated in policies and recorded on the joint personnel administration system. JPA is already used to process applications for existing flexible working options. We plan to enable all instances of part-time working or geographical restriction on the part of personnel to be recorded on JPA when the options are made available. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney implies, it will be crucial to ensure that all cases of flexible working are properly recorded and monitored to provide personnel and commanding officers with a record of all the discussions and agreements, so that they can understand the impact and success of the entire process.
The number of applications, however, is likely to be low in the early stages, so collating and reporting information on a monthly or biannual basis on the number of regular personnel undertaking new forms of flexible working would not provide significant or beneficial data. The longer-term effects of those measures should be a measure of the effectiveness of the new arrangements. We must also bear in mind our operational capability. I should add that any hon. Member may exercise the right to ask a written question—looking around the room, I can see that that is done regularly—to verify or confirm the statistics at any point.
With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for the information that he has provided and for his commitment to improving the diversity of our armed forces. I am aware of some information that provides some of the detail that I have talked about, but it is essential for us to be fully aware of diversity and personnel numbers. It is important to ensure that there is no confusion about the number of personnel as a result of part-time equivalents. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and to ensure that it is included in future. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Gerald Jones
Thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I would have thanked Mr Davies as well, but we have not reached the afternoon sitting. We had his support yesterday.
I thank the Clerks for their assistance in drafting and tabling the amendments, which supports better scrutiny of the Bill. I thank the Doorkeepers, who keep us safe, and Hansard for recording our every word in a rapid process that ensures transparency and clarity for the Committee.
I thank the Opposition and Government Whips for their organisational skills in running the process effectively. I thank all hon. Members, and Opposition Members in particular. I think that there is unity of purpose across the House in wanting the best for our armed forces. Finally, I thank the Minister for his constructive approach and for some of his responses, which were helpful at times, and the civil servants for their hard work.
Mr Ellwood
I rise to reflect that at the weekend, we all paused to show respect and reverence for all those in our armed forces who have fallen in the past. Up and down the country, there was a moment of silence to say thank you to those who have served. The country owes them a huge debt of gratitude.
I think we would all agree that our armed forces are the most professional in the world. They can only continue to be so if we recruit and keep the right people. That is why the Bill, in context, plays a wider and more important role in what Britain seeks to do on not only the national but the international stage, as we face the difficult challenges of the 21st century.
I am pleased with the attitude and commitment throughout the Committee. I join the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in thanking you, Ms Dorries, for chairing the sitting, the Clerks for their work and my team for the few hours that we put in behind the scenes to ensure that everything went smoothly. I also thank hon. Members—everyone in the Committee is very committed to our armed forces—and the Whips, who keep us all on the straight and narrow.
I look forward to reconvening on Report and Third Reading, when we can look further into the detail. I am glad of that, because the Bill is an important part of the jigsaw of improving recruitment and retention in our professional and brave armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Monday 29th January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 January 2018 - (29 Jan 2018)
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]
Monday 29th January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 January 2018 - (29 Jan 2018)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of level and impact of part-time and geographically restricted working in the armed forces—
“(1) Within twelve months of section 1 of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the impact of measures contained in that section.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the number of requests for part-time or geographically restricted working which have been granted,
(b) the number of requests for part-time or geographically restricted working which have not been granted, and
(c) the effect of the measures contained within this Act on armed forces recruitment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament the report of the review under this section within three months of its completion.”
This new clause would require a review covering the number of requests for part-time or geographically restricted working that have been accepted and declined and the impact of the Act on armed forces recruitment.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Prior to making any regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation into the impact of part-time and geographically restricted working on recruitment to the armed forces and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require an evaluation of the impact part-time and geographically restricted working has on recruitment to the armed forces.
Gerald Jones
New clause 1 would ensure that the armed forces personnel numbers and diversity statistics are as accurate as possible and that there can be proper scrutiny of the new flexible working measures. It would require that the personnel statistics and the diversity statistics include details of how many personnel work part time. It is vital that there is transparency about the personnel numbers, so that there can be scrutiny, accountability and informed debate.
The recent change in how personnel statistics are reported —moving from monthly to quarterly publication—reduced the opportunities to scrutinise the figures. As I said in Committee, in their consultation on the change the Government made clear the purpose of reporting the figures. The consultation said:
“The main purpose of these statistics is to measure the performance of the MOD against government and Parliament targets, and also to inform general debate in government, Parliament and the wider public.”
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I wholeheartedly agree with the approach that my hon. Friend is setting out, and with the new clauses and amendments before the House. He will recall that I have been trying on a monthly basis to get from the Government many statistics on the crucial issue of recruitment, and they have shown some serious gaps in recruitment. Does he agree that it is crucial that we get the figures on part-time working because they are often used to inflate the overall size of a force, particularly the Army. When we hear about the crazy proposed cuts to the Army, we need to have the full facts in front of us.
Gerald Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it is essential to have transparency and clarity on the figures. If the Government do not give the full picture, they are not fully informing the public debate or allowing us to see a true picture of the Ministry of Defence’s performance. Indeed, they are potentially encouraging a debate based on inaccurate information.
The Government have been accused of trying to fiddle the numbers before. Later in my speech, I shall talk about the mystery that is the Government’s armed forces targets. New clause 1 is an opportunity for them to show that they are committed to transparency and clarity when it comes to the size of our armed forces and the ways in which personnel are serving. It would not be right to suggest that the Army, or any of the services, is at a greater strength than it actually is by failing to separate part-time from full-time personnel, so the personnel statistics must include specific details about the number of personnel who are working part time. I appreciate that the new flexible working practices in the Bill will require personnel to deploy on operations should the need arise, but the Government must admit that it may take time to recall personnel, so it will build a clearer picture of our capabilities if we know how many personnel are serving part time.
Let me turn to the biannual diversity statistics. The Government have been clear that one reason for the introduction of this Bill is to improve the number of women in our armed forces. On Second Reading, the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), said that
“we are committed to see women account for 15% of our new recruits by 2020, and evidence suggests that they see greater opportunities for flexible working in the services as particularly attractive.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 624.]
It is good that the Government are taking steps to get to grips with this because, unfortunately, at present, the situation leaves a lot to be desired.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the female intake is so important is that we have a pretty atrocious record of females getting to senior positions in all three services? If we are to change that, we need young women joining now.
Gerald Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
This highlights more than ever that active steps need to be taken if we are to reach the targets that are in place. The new advertising campaign for the Army is a good example of that. In spite of the negative reaction in some parts of the press, we welcome this new campaign and think that it is quite right that the Army does not limit its recruitment pool, but looks to get the best people from across society.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On the subject of diversity, particularly the number of BAME and African personnel in the Army and the geographical spread among our armed forces, is he as surprised as I was that when I asked a written question about the geographical split in our armed forces—the number from each local authority area and from each constituency—the MOD was unable to provide an answer? Would it not be useful to have those statistics so that each Member of Parliament could take pride in the number of their constituents who were joining our armed forces?
Gerald Jones
My hon. Friend highlights my point that we do need absolute clarity and transparency in the figures, not only on diversity, but across the board.
As I have said, diversity is a strength; it minimises the risk of groupthink. As operations take place in varying locations, a diverse force offers different ways to connect with local populations. If the purpose of the Bill is, in part, to increase the number of female personnel in particular, including through greater retention, why do the Government not see the logic in including information about part-time working in the statistics to show how progress is being made in the numbers of female personnel?
I simply cannot see a good reason for the Government not to adopt new clause 1. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), told us in Committee:
“The number of applications…is likely to be low in the early stages, so collating and reporting information on a monthly or biannual basis on the number of regular personnel undertaking new forms of flexible working would not provide significant or beneficial data.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]
How long does that remain the case? Is there a plan for the Government to bring in reporting when the number of personnel reaches a certain percentage of all personnel? If so, what would that figure be?
Moreover, even if the number of applications is low initially, if there is a data from the initial implementation of the scheme then we could look at trends over time. Of course, the monthly personnel statistics are now quarterly and the diversity statistics are published only once every six months. It does not seem too difficult an ask to include within these statistics the number of those who are serving under the flexible working scheme. Indeed, the Minister told us in Committee how important monitoring would be, saying that
“it will be crucial to ensure that all cases of flexible working are properly recorded and monitored to provide personnel and commanding officers with a record of all the discussions and agreements, so that they can understand the impact and success of the entire process.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]
If there will be a clear record from the outset, why will this not be added to the statistics? It seems that there will be no undue work or additional cost placed on the Department as a result of the new clause. If the Government are confident that this will see a reduction in outflow and even a boost to recruitment, what good reason is there to not include this information?
I hope the Government will see that this new clause is about ensuring transparency and allowing scrutiny and will accept it into the Bill.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Scottish National party welcomes the measures in the Bill that aim to address some of the issues around recruitment and retention of personnel. However, we are concerned that they do not go far enough to tackle the crisis. Unless some evaluation of these measures is carried out, we run the risk of this simply becoming a paper exercise.
The most recent figures show that there was a net outflow of 2,740 personnel from the UK regular forces in the 12 months to the end of September 2017. The MOD said that this difference has increased compared with the 12 months to the end of September 2016, when there was a net outflow of 1,930. According to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 35% are dissatisfied with service life in general, and the impact of service on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving.
There are a number of operational pinch points, which are areas of expertise
“where the shortfall in trained strength…is such that it has a measurable, detrimental impact on current, planned or contingent operations”.
Data on operational pinch points are published in the MOD’s annual report and accounts. The latest report shows that the total number of pinch points, as at April 2017, is 30. Broken down by service, there are four pinch points in the Army, relating to logistical roles; 15 pinch points in the Navy, in engineering and specialist warfare; and 11 pinch points in the RAF, in engineering and intelligence roles, with emerging shortfalls in aircrew.
New clause 2, which is in my name, would ensure that a review is carried out allowing Parliament to monitor and evaluate whether the provisions in the Bill are having a positive impact on recruitment and retention. It would allow Parliament to hold the Government to account, and to monitor whether the measures are addressing the underlying crisis in recruitment and retention.
According to the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 1(4) will give a commanding officer
“the ability…to vary, suspend or terminate the arrangement in prescribed circumstances, for example: national emergency or some form of manning crisis”.
I do not believe that anyone has a problem with the suspension of the agreement during times of national emergency—we discussed this point on Second Reading and in Committee—but we know that there are long-standing shortages in key areas and that the operational pinch points are increasing. We are concerned that a large number of service personnel will not benefit from the provisions in the Bill. The SNP amendment would allow Parliament to keep a close eye on the uptake of flexible working in the armed forces.
We welcome measures that could have a positive impact on recruitment of women, but it is clear that the Government need to do more to meet their 2020 target. The 2015 strategic defence and security review stated that by 2020 at least 15% of the intake into the UK regular forces would be female. In the 12 months to 31 March 2017, only 9.4% of the total intake was female. With women making up just 10.2% of the armed forces, more effort needs to be put into attracting female applicants. What impact does the Minister think the measures in the Bill will have on recruitment of women to the armed forces? What more do the Government intend to do to meet their target for 2020, because on current statistics we are a long way off?
As I said, the SNP welcomes the measures in this Bill, but we believe that this was the opportunity to do far more for service personnel and their families. Although the Bill aims to tackle some of the issues around dissatisfaction, unless personnel are properly represented among defence policy decision makers, it runs the risk of being a paper exercise. I do not think that any of us in this place want that to be the outcome. Having an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing is the norm in many countries. Recognised representation is a key way that the UK Government could better understand the needs and requirements of our armed forces and their families. If the UK Government are serious about improving the lives of our armed forces, they should look at putting an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
May I say how wonderful it is to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker?
I speak in support of the new clause and the wider provisions in the Bill. We have spoken before in this House about the challenges that we as a country face, and how vital it is that our armed forces have the capabilities that they need to tackle the threats that we are confronted with. Much of that discussion has understandably centred on funding, equipment, and having the right number of platforms. However, it really does not matter how many platforms we have and what their capabilities are if we do not have the skilled service personnel trained and retained in enough numbers to staff them.
We currently face a personnel deficit of 5%, with no fewer than 38 operational pinch points across the three services. Clearly, therefore, recruitment and retention is a real problem, and it is beginning to undermine our ability to deploy. While there are multiple issues that we need to address in this area, we know that flexible working offers the chance to begin to rectify the problem. As I have mentioned previously in this House, 46% of service personnel within the Royal Navy cite the lack of flexible working as a reason why they would consider leaving the military. Conversely, a third of all our armed forces cite flexible working as a reason why they would stay. So there is a very real and genuine demand in our military for provisions of the sort that this Bill brings forward.
However, for flexible working to succeed, it is vital that recruitment numbers increase, so that flexible working is a real option afforded to all service personnel. After all, introducing more flexible working at a time of static recruitment would risk exacerbating the problems we face, as we lack the numbers to fill the gaps, and people will not be able to take the options available. It will be important to monitor how many service personnel are working part-time, to identify and fill potential gaps in capacity, and to assess the effectiveness of this Bill’s aims. That is why I welcome my Front Benchers’ new clause requiring this information to be included in the armed forces biannual diversity statistics.
While a lack of flexible working is often cited as an obstacle to recruitment and retention, it is by no means the only one. There are challenges to be addressed in all four areas being looked at in the new employment model—pay and allowances, accommodation, terms of service, and training and education. In the case of accommodation, the recent collapse of Carillion—as everyone in this House knows, a major partner in the delivery of appalling service accommodation—means that these conversations are now even more urgent, and reassurance is a necessity.
On the matter of pay and conditions, little will change until we know what the pay review body is going to recommend this year to move us away from the appalling 1% pay cap. We also need certainty about the other terms and conditions offered to our personnel. Future pay rises cannot be funded by cutting tour bonuses or other allowances.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am profoundly aware of the debt we owe to the men and women of our armed forces. Their commitment to our country is unwavering every day. Our commitment to them, to their families and to their welfare should be unwavering, too. I fear that the message the Government are sending on this front remains mixed. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as an attempt to tackle some of the problems we face and a good start on the work of improving recruitment and retention in our armed forces.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
May I say at the outset that I fully support the thrust of the Bill? It is before us for the very best of reasons, which I think is recognised in all parts of the House.
I would like, in my brief contribution, to comment on the two new clauses. I am attracted very much by the idea of a breakdown of the stats by either local authority or constituency areas. That would be extremely useful to all of us as Members of Parliament and would mean we know where we have a shortfall that we ought to be tackling. That is very attractive.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is correct that it is a changing scene. This is only the start of a story, and we need to evaluate where we have got to. That is a wise suggestion.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—this sounds a bit like a summing-up speech, which it is not supposed to—displays, as ever, a deep knowledge of the subject, which is to be recognised.
I am sorry to do this again, but I should have reminded the House that my daughter is a serving officer with the armed forces. [Hon. Members Hear, hear!] You are very good to me.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West said, it is a moving situation. Mention has been made of accommodation and what the fall of Carillion means for that. We have work to do on the accommodation front. It is a gripe and a source of unhappiness among our armed forces personnel. I merely put down a marker at this stage that there is unfinished business there, but the Bill is worthy, and I applaud the Government for bringing it forward.
Toby Perkins
I support new clause 1, which would allow us to examine how those delivering the recruitment contract will adapt their working practices to promote the new working practices and take advantage of the new recruitment opportunities they present.
It is very important that we hold to account those who are recruiting on behalf of the MOD. There has been significant criticism of the role they have played and their performance so far. There have been a number of amendments to the way they have done that in recent months, which I hope brings about the intended improvements. It would be worth while to examine the way they are delivering on that contract. The intentions behind the Bill are entirely positive and should be supported, as I am glad they are by those on the Labour Front Bench.
I would like to expand on the point that I raised in my intervention about my disappointment and my urging of the Minister to examine how successful we are in recruiting on a geographical basis. Members right across the House take tremendous pride in not only our armed forces generally but their local regiments and the contribution that people in their constituencies make to the armed forces. When I am on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am struck by how Members in Northern Ireland want to meet up with the Irish regiments. It is similar for Members in Scotland and for people like me; I have wanted to meet up with those in the Sherwood Foresters—or the Mercian Regiment, as it is now—to recognise the local contact that we have with the armed forces.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is great to see you back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman —my friend—for his speech. The worry for me is that the more we try to recruit locally, the more we realise we have made a mistake in not actually keeping local regiments local. For example, my hon. Friend—in inverted commas—mentioned the Sherwood Foresters, who are now part of the Mercians, which covers a big area. People I know would much prefer regiments to be much more local, and local normally means good recruiting.
Toby Perkins
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am too much of a traditionalist to call him an hon. Friend in this place, but he knows I call him a friend elsewhere. I agree entirely with what he says about the importance of locality. We could have a wider debate about whether the Sherwood Foresters should have been put into the Mercian Regiment. When I was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we talked about our local regiments, and it became clear that the Mercian Regiment is considered to be the local regiment for people over an incredibly diverse geographical split.
All the more reason, therefore, where information about the original home address of all the new recruits clearly exists, for that information to be made available. That would enable MPs to be part of the programme of trying to drive recruitment and to take pride in the level of recruitment in their area. Just imagine, if we had three MPs all within a few recruits of each other as we approached the end of the year, how much we could be driving such a programme. It would be a real force for good.
If geographical challenges were thrown up in relation to communities—religious or race communities—or areas where the Navy or the Air Force particularly recruit, and the figures were available to all of us, it would put positive pressure on the Government to take action on such things. We talk about diversity, and it seems to me that this is one of the ways in which we could drive it. To sum up, I would be very interested if the Minister would consider the idea of making the information that currently exists publicly available.
Mr Kevan Jones
As I said in Committee, I broadly welcome the proposals. At the top of the armed forces and obviously at ministerial level, there is a recognition that society is changing and that if we are not only to attract people to the armed forces but to retain them, we need flexibility in the way in which they are employed.
The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is very clear, and I cannot understand what the objection to it could be. We need to ensure that one of the main aims of flexible working is to attract more women into our armed forces, but without being able to monitor that through the Department producing reports, I am not sure how we can gauge whether it is a success. The Minister may say that we could rely on tabling parliamentary questions, but I have to say that the quality of the answers from the Department recently has not been great, and it takes two or three attempts to elicit any answers. I do not see anything wrong with how the new clause is structured. It is a matter of making sure that we monitor what is going on.
The same applies to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The other side of this issue is about knowing why part-time or flexible working is refused. In other workplaces, people refused this type of thing have a course of redress. It is important to be able not only to see whether flexible working proposals are being used, but the reasons why they are not being implemented, which could lead to a lot of dissatisfaction. It will be important to have some oversight to ensure that we know if, for example, people leave because at a certain level in the Army or other armed service they decide that they do not like it.
On the broader issue of armed forces recruitment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) raised some interesting points. We are failing on recruitment, and the MOD is now reverting to the usual answer, which is to say, “The reason why we are not attracting people is the economic upturn and we are in a very competitive environment.” That is an old chestnut, and I think I even used it on some occasions when I was a Minister. I am sorry, but that is not the reason. The fundamental issue is that the privatisation model used for recruitment has failed and, as was mentioned earlier, it has also broken the link to local areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) raised the important point that flexible working is part of a bigger package, which is not only about career opportunities for individuals, but about accommodation. In Committee and when we debated the Bill previously, the Minister talked about the future accommodation model. I must say that he is going to have to get on with it, because anyone who reads today’s National Audit Office report on Annington Homes will find that it does not make for very pretty reading. This was one of the worst decisions ever taken by—I have to say—a Conservative Government in 1996, and the legacy it leaves for not just this Government but future Governments is quite frightening.
Ministers think that the future accommodation model is the way out, and I hope it is, but it will have to be done creatively. To look at one statistic alone in the report, if the discount the MOD currently gets is reduced from 58% to 38% when it comes up for renegotiation in 2021, that will cost the MOD and the taxpayer an additional £84 million from a budget that is already very restricted. There will have to be some very creative thinking about how to extract the Government from that contract, but it should not be done at the expense of servicemen and women who rely on accommodation as part of their package. As I said in Committee and the last time we discussed this in the House, I am not opposed to a new accommodation model, but there are two issues: one is that it will take time to introduce; and the other is that it will cost money.
I do not know whether the issue of accommodation will be a priority in the current MOD review, but I ask Ministers to consider it an important part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North rightly said, we concentrate a lot on equipment and it is quite right that we should have the equipment that people need. However, we can have all the equipment in the world, but if we do not have skilled, highly trained personnel behind the equipment—if we do not retain people and keep them, and more importantly their families, happy—we are not going to be successful.
To finish, I would urge that personnel are seen as an important integral part of our defence effort, and nothing should detract from that. The Government have created their own mess with the budget for it. I wish them and the Defence Secretary well in trying to sort this out and in pleading for more money from the Treasury. The current Chancellor was the Defence Secretary when some of these decisions—chickens that are now coming home to roost—were taken. At the end of the day, these are the people we rely on to keep us safe, and the men and women of our armed forces and their families are the ones we should always bear in mind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber for the Report stage of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill and to see again right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues who have been on this journey from the very beginning. I have listened carefully to those speaking in support of new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment 1, which I will come on to specifically in a moment. Lots of views have been put forward that are technically beyond the scope of a Report stage, but that does not prevent hon. Members from raising such points, which are all valid. It reflects the House’s commitment to understanding and indeed scrutinising defence matters as a whole, as well as matters being considered on Report.
There has been much talk about recruitment on a geographical basis and understanding the numbers. I am pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is responsible for this issue and is looking at it very carefully indeed. I say this as a former infanteer. The history of our armed forces—indeed, the Army—across Britain varies depending on whether the unit in question is a corps, a service, or indeed an infantry regiment. There are some huge and wonderful geographical connections, including with my own regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, going back to the Rifles and the Ox and Bucks regiment and so forth. Then there is the RAF and the Royal Navy, which recruit nationally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise that I was not here at the crack of the Minister’s speech. As he and other hon. Members will know, the cadet force plays a significant cross-community role in Northern Ireland, in both the nationalist and the Unionist communities, and the force has grown. I am proud to be the spokesperson for the cadet forces in Northern Ireland in this House, and I would reiterate what he has said. What happens in Northern Ireland helps us to move forward as a country.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend, if I may call him that, makes an important point. I had the opportunity to visit Belfast recently for Remembrance Day, which was very moving indeed, and I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces is to visit Belfast shortly.
Let me turn to the group of new clauses and amendments we are debating. I welcome the opportunity to speak again about whether there is benefit to imposing a statutory requirement to evaluate and report on the impact of the new flexible options on the armed forces. The size and strength of our armed forces is of course important. It has been a recurring theme in recent debates, most recently in Westminster Hall. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing that important debate, and I pay tribute to all who contributed. The Minister for the Armed Forces said in that debate that we must do everything we can to persuade our young people that the armed forces remain a great place to work.
Recruitment remains a challenge for the armed forces, as has been reiterated today. We face strong competition from other employers. We acknowledge that, but we also acknowledge that we can do more to encourage our people to stay, so that we do not lose their valuable skills and experience. That is why we are responding with a range of short and long-term initiatives to ensure that the offer of a career in the armed forces remains competitive. This Bill will help by enabling us to make the changes necessary to enable our armed forces to work flexibly, reflecting the realities of modern life.
The amendments and new clauses in this group revisit the theme of placing various obligations on the Ministry of Defence to publish reports on the effects of flexible working measures on the armed forces. These measures involve a major change of approach to the terms under which some of our brave armed forces serve this country and are an important part of how we modernise our armed forces. The changes are as important as some of the other modernising steps taken in recent years, such as our change in policy on homosexuality, introduced in 2000, and our decision in 2016 to allow women to serve in close combat roles. The measures we are considering are another positive step in the right direction and are aimed at making serving in the armed forces a more attractive proposition, both for those who already serve and those considering serving.
What we propose in this Bill lies at the heart of our armed forces covenant. For that reason, Earl Howe committed during the Bill’s passage through the other place to report on the impact of the new measures in future armed forces covenant annual reports. I commend this to hon. Members as an appropriate place for reporting on the impact of the new measures. Indeed, the latest report, published in late December 2017, trailed the introduction of the measures in this Bill. In debates and in the information we have published, we have been clear that the introduction of these measures is not a silver bullet that will instantly resolve the recruitment and retention challenge that we face—and that the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene has raised.
Mr Kevan Jones
The publication of that information is obviously a welcome step. The Minister says that the report will talk about progress, but will it produce the statistics or, more importantly, the numbers declined and the reasons for that, as would be required under new clause 2? If the good intentions behind this Bill are not followed through, we could have people declined flexible working, which could lead to more disenchantment rather than success.
Mr Ellwood
If I may, I will come to how we recognise and acknowledge the impact of the Bill, which I think will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We believe that these measures, along with a range of others that the Department is introducing, will impact on recruitment and retention, not immediately but in the longer term. We should also be clear that we are competing with other, wider societal factors that are affecting our ability to recruit and retain, such as record youth employment and a smaller number of 16 to 24-year-olds entering the workforce over the next few years. This is an ongoing journey of change, which will be undertaken at a steady rather than a high-speed pace, against a background of continuing societal change. However, we fully recognise the importance of maintaining effective metrics following the introduction of these measures, to enable us to judge how well they are working and whether we need to make other changes.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister is rightly dwelling on how these measures could help with recruitment in other areas, but this is also about looking at capabilities, particularly in cyber. The Bill provides a different opportunity for people to serve and bring skills into the armed forces that we may need in the new online space.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will perhaps touch on in more detail on Third Reading, when we come to it. It is important to recognise that the conduct of wars is changing. The type of people we need to recruit is also changing, and he gives an excellent example of the need for us to improve our cyber-capability. A great example of that is not necessarily to train in-house, but to recognise that there are high-end skills in the civilian sector that we can introduce through greater use of reservists.
Mr Kevan Jones
Let me ask a clear question: what is the resistance to producing these statistics? The Minister talks about a matrix, whatever that means in civil service-speak, but this is a pretty straightforward question.
Mr Ellwood
It is a straightforward question, and I did tell the hon. Gentleman that I would get to it shortly. I then gave way to another Member and he asked me the same question again. If I can make a little progress, before he asks me a third time, I am sure we will get to where we want to be.
We absolutely recognise the importance of keeping the effect of these changes under continuous review, in terms of the benefits to our personnel and the impact on recruitment, retention and diversity. I remind hon. Members that the overall number of personnel taking up the new opportunities will initially be small and that flexible working is but one of several initiatives aimed at improving recruitment and retention in the longer term. It would therefore be extremely difficult to isolate the impact on recruitment and retention that is due solely to the Bill. Introducing a system of measurement would be difficult and would delay what we are trying to achieve.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is complete and utter nonsense. I accept that the numbers might be smaller as the system gets going, but surely there must be a way of logging this. I do not know why the Ministry is so opposed to producing these statistics. Clearly, in the early days, it could say that the system was bedding in. The Minister is going to get freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions about this, so he might as well produce the information.
Mr Ellwood
I fear that unless I say something to win the hon. Gentleman over, we might go around this merry-go-round many times. I will certainly look at this, but in Australia and other countries that have successfully gone down this road, the initial take-up has been so small that introducing a measurement system would delay the initiative’s introduction, and the numbers will be so small that it would be difficult to determine whether the effect is the result of the initiative or others that are being introduced. To discourage him from intervening again in two minutes, let me say that I will be more than happy to look at this and discuss it with him in the future.
The Ministry of Defence meets its obligations under the public sector equality duty to provide information on the workforce in relation to the protected characteristics identified by the Equality Act 2010, through the disclosure of information relating to the gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and age of personnel. Our new UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics will, like the monthly publications they replace, provide detailed information and analysis on the number of service personnel by strength, intake and outflow, and detail is provided for both the full-time armed forces and the reserves. The number of people who take up the new arrangements will be significant to us, because obviously they are the people we want to retain, but it will be modest at first— somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the armed forces. We therefore judge that collating and reporting information on a cohort of such a size would not provide significant or beneficial data, particularly in the early stages.
Mr Ellwood
Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, let me say that as the system grows and develops, I will certainly consider whether introducing such a thing would be worthwhile.
The principal long-term aim of the Bill is that we attract, recruit and retain people from a more diverse cross-section of society with the knowledge, skills and experience that we need to deliver operational capability. Let me be clear that we will not see results overnight. We are proposing good, positive steps in the right direction, but this is one of several proactive initiatives that we are introducing as part of an ongoing journey of change. We need to modernise our armed forces if we are to attract and retain the right mix of people and skills, which is why we are introducing these measures alongside others, collectively managed under the armed forces people programme. That programme includes the future accommodation model, which has been touched on, and the enterprise approach.
The MOD has been transparent about the challenging recruitment and retention climate in which we are operating. British society is changing and, if we are to compete in the jobs market, so must defence. Shortages in our traditional recruiting grounds and record youth employment mean that we must modernise and make our offer more attractive to those who are already serving and those we want to recruit. These measures will benefit a small but significant cohort, such as women and men starting a family, those with caring commitments and those who wish to undertake long-term studies. We have a good body of evidence on the demand for such ways of working that has been derived from external reports, internal surveys and focus groups. Our ongoing flexible duties trial shows that providing our people with modern choices will help us to retain highly skilled personnel who might otherwise leave.
I should reassure hon. Members that intake and strength by rank, trade and specialisation are regularly monitored and managed at service level and centrally by the MOD. Commissioning an external body to evaluate the early impact of the flexible working measures would serve only to delay their introduction in 2019.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I remember the Minister bringing the Second Reading debate to a conclusion 40 minutes early. I just want to touch on what he said about looking at evidence. The 2015 peer review body highlighted in its evidence that people sometimes join the forces to get skills before moving on to better-paid jobs elsewhere. One of the ways around that would be to give them a decent pay rise. Will he commit to that?
Mr Ellwood
If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the debate, he would have heard me say that a pay rise is being considered by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The 1% pay freeze has been lifted, which is good news, and we look forward to the recommendations that will be made in March.
The MOD already gathers evidence on the impact that new forms of flexible working will have on our people. We think that that will provide more value than any evaluation from an independent contractor. We do not need to introduce more evaluation, further levels of statistics or additional reporting. It remains our view that imposing new statutory obligations would be unnecessarily costly, delay the introduction of the new measures and benefits for our people, and add little value to what we are trying to achieve. As I have said, we recognise the importance of keeping the effects of these changes under continuous review, in terms of the benefits to personnel and the impact on recruitment and retention.
Mr Ellwood
If the hon. Gentleman asks the parliamentary question or makes the FOI request, I will respond.
I said earlier that the introduction of the new flexible working opportunities falls firmly within the scope of the armed forces covenant, which I think the whole House can be proud of. I assure the House that we will monitor the introduction of the new measures during the first year of implementation from 2019, and report on the impact in future armed forces covenant reports. Given the reassurances that I have offered, I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) will withdraw new clause 1.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. We tabled the new clause largely for probing reasons. If he will not accept it, I hope that he will reflect on our debate and that the Government will publish the information available. I do not think that arguments about cost and delay stand up when the evidence is already there and no additional work would be required. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Mr Ellwood
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said, we have the best armed forces in the world, as I believe is illustrated by their standards, commitment, training and actions. We need only look at what they have achieved in defeating Daesh in Syria and Iraq, at the training they are providing with troop-contributing nations in Somalia and at the humanitarian support they provided in the Caribbean last summer. They help to define our international reputation and how we are seen across the world. That crucial hard power sits behind the soft power that we utilise so well, so we equip our armed forces well and train them well, but their professionalism comes from our ability to recruit and retain the best.
The work of our armed forces in defending our shores and interests, and in working with our allies, is all the more important to provide capable, visible and enduring hard power, given the more dangerous chapter that the world is experiencing, as is illustrated by various threats to the international rules-based order that we helped to create after the second world war. As I said on Report, the conduct of war has changed as technology and tactics have advanced. We ask different things of our armed forces—our soldiers, sailors and air personnel—than we did even just a decade ago.
The Bill completes its passage through Parliament much as it started its journey last year. That is testimony to the wide support given to the new flexible working arrangements here and the other place, where the Government agreed that any regulations made under the new provisions that the Bill will insert into the Armed Forces Act 2006 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. It shows, too, the willingness to ensure that we all do what is right for our armed forces.
I am very grateful for the positive engagement and support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank the Public Bill Committee for its excellent work in thoroughly examining the Bill and how it will support our armed forces. I also thank its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), for keeping all members of the Committee in good order.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for his involvement in Committee and his careful probing of the Bill. Of course, I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has a long history of involvement—as well as interventions—for his positive contributions at the Bill’s various stages. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for her interest in and concern about the Bill.
We all recognise the challenges that we face in recruiting and retaining our people. The Bill is a small but important step towards improving opportunities for our armed forces. I make it clear, as I said on Report, that it will not lead to sweeping changes, but it is the right thing to do. It will help to modernise our approach and make us more competitive in the jobs market. We believe that the Bill will help in the long term, and improve recruitment and retention.
While the new measures will be made available to all regular service personnel, we believe that they will be particularly attractive to women and those with caring responsibilities. We hope that the Bill will make a difference by providing our people with an alternative to having to choose to leave the service that they love. It will make a difference to our success in helping to keep the skills, knowledge and experience that we need in defence.
We have made it clear throughout the Bill’s passage that operational capability is our red line and that this is not about creating a part-time armed forces or, indeed, saving money. The vast majority of our people will remain in full-time regular service. The Bill has the support of the service chiefs and, more importantly, of the services and the families federations. We are immensely proud of the achievements of our armed forces. They work hard for us and we owe them and their families a great deal. This flexible working Bill will provide our servicemen and women with an opportunity for some respite from their full-time commitment when they need it most. The Bill is for them.
I will end on a personal note by saying what impact I think the Bill will have on our armed forces. In the history of our armed forces, seismic moments have changed things for good or bad, and for ill or positive. They have changed the conduct of war. Going back to Agincourt, for example, the introduction of the longbow changed how war moved forward, as did the introduction of the tank at the battle of Cambrai. The introduction of the first aircraft carrier—HMS Hermes—in 1919 was another critical moment for our armed forces. However, with less fanfare, I believe that this Bill, which I hope will gain Royal Assent, will make its mark by changing the way in which our armed forces are perceived and our ability to retain important people in them. It sits next to two other major changes—they will not be as big as those procurement changes that I mentioned—with the opening up of all roles to women in our armed forces and the change on rules regarding homosexuality.
In closing, I thank General Richard Nugee, the Chief of Defence People, and his team for their work on putting the concept forward and seeing it all the way through to the end stages. I also thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, who, in the role that I have today, pioneered this approach. It has been a real honour to take the Bill from Second Reading through to today, and I hope that it will have the House’s support.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the unstinting work of our armed forces. The Opposition will support the Bill on Third Reading this evening because we want to see greater flexibility for our armed forces personnel to serve in ways that are compatible with the demands of modern family life. We also want to attract the widest possible pool of people to the excellent careers that the forces offer, including those who may require flexible working conditions to serve.
I thank my noble Friend Lord Touhig for his work on the Bill in the other place, including the important amendment that he secured to ensure that the Bill’s finer details that are introduced through regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister confirmed, meaning that both Houses will have to vote on them. That will give further opportunity to explore and address some issues that we have raised today.
As I have said, we welcome the Bill and hope that its provisions will make a meaningful difference to personnel who may need temporary periods of flexible or part-time working and/or limits on separated service. The reality is that any of us could find ourselves requiring this kind of flexibility in our work, particularly as the complexities of modern life mean juggling work and home responsibilities, and when often both parents work full time and a complex set of arrangements is in place for childcare and the care of elderly relatives.
Family arrangements can be all the more complex for members of the services, with the expectations of constant readiness and deployment. In these circumstances, it is understandable that some service personnel may look for greater flexibility by moving into civilian sectors. However, it makes no sense to lose highly skilled and dedicated service members simply because they need a more flexible working arrangement for a specified period of time. That is where the Bill comes in. If the flexibility encourages more potential recruits to consider a career in the forces, that is a very good thing, because the services will benefit from being able to draw from the brightest and the best, from all backgrounds and communities.
Of course, the Bill is not a silver bullet to address the real crisis in recruitment and retention that is facing our armed forces. Every one of the services is running below the stated targets and numbers are down year on year. I know that the Minister shares my concern about this state of affairs. There is a strong feeling across the House that personnel numbers cannot be allowed to slide still further. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Government are still committed to an Army of 82,000. If so, how does he propose to achieve that, when the latest statistics show yet another fall in the trade trained strength of the Army, with just 77,444 personnel serving?
It has become increasingly clear that the Government’s decision to outsource recruitment services to Capita lies at the heart of this issue, as the company has delivered neither value for money to the taxpayer, nor an increase in personnel numbers. In fact, the Army’s recruiting partnership project with Capita has completely failed to deliver the savings that were promised. Capita is already charging the public purse £54 million more than anticipated at this stage. In all, the Government have spent more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money on recruitment in the past five years, yet personnel numbers in all three services have fallen dramatically in that time.
Many of us have heard worrying accounts of recruits being unable to sign up because of failures in IT programmes. In that context, it is not at all clear what possible benefit the contract with Capita is providing. It is time for Ministers to seriously consider whether the contract could be delivered more effectively back in-house by experienced officers as opposed to civilian staff, who no doubt do their best, but are being hamstrung by Capita.
As well as addressing problems with recruitment, we must consider the difficulties with retaining personnel across all three services. It is deeply worrying that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has found an
“over-riding sense of uncertainty and an increasing”—
perception among the forces—
“that the offer will only get worse”.
The Minister mentioned the lifting of the pay cap, but we know that there are delays and considerable uncertainty about what it will actually mean. Satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits are at their lowest levels ever recorded—barely one third of service personnel are satisfied with their basic pay—and after seven years of below-inflation pay rises, it is high time to take decisive action and give our personnel a meaningful pay rise.
We learned last week that the Government would be carrying out a fresh defence review due to report in the summer. This represents a unique opportunity to address some of the real challenges we face around personnel numbers. Despite widespread speculation about further cuts to our defence capabilities, including to the Royal Marines, I sincerely hope that the Government will take the opportunity afforded by the review to invest in our armed forces and ensure they have the resources they need. They will find considerable support on the Opposition Benches if they are successful in this endeavour. Returning to Third Reading, however, I reiterate our support for the Bill.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I rise briefly to support the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on its successful passage, which I hope the House will support in a few minutes’ time.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, this is a modest Bill, but sometimes the smaller steps are the most important. Like him, I too believe that in time the Bill—soon an Act, I hope—will be seen to have had quite radical consequences. Of course, as he said, it is part of a series of wider reforms, but it is an important part. Seven years ago, only 8% of our serving personnel were women, for example. That is not right for our country, but it also was not right for our armed forces, which were missing out on all the talent and expertise that might otherwise have been available to them. That is why we set a new target of 15% female participation among each new intake by 2020, and we are now, I understand, well on the way to meeting that target. The Bill will help. It will show anybody—male or female—considering a career in the armed forces that they are now modern employers able to recognise people’s changing expectations over the lifetime of their careers. It will enable employees, for the first time, to apply to work for the days and hours that suit them best.
I make three final comments on the Bill. First, we will have to do more to attract women leavers back into the armed forces. We will have to find ways of working harder at not missing out on the experience they had and which they might have had to give up, perhaps to start a family or move elsewhere with their spouse. I believe—my right hon. Friend might want to respond to this—that we will have to look at how women coming back into the armed forces can quickly recover the rank and entitlements they would otherwise have achieved.
Mr Ellwood
It was remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of the former Secretary of State in this area and in pioneering the Bill. He has long been passionate about this subject, as is reflected in his speech today. Does he agree that the line pursued during his time of allowing those who leave the armed forces well to rejoin well after perhaps a spell in civilian life is worth pursuing?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is definitely worth pursuing, but we need then to focus particularly on women who have left the armed forces and look at further ways of encouraging them to rejoin at a later stage of their lives or careers.
Secondly, women and recruits from the black and ethnic minorities still need more role models: it is not just about seeing other women or other members of the black and Asian communities alongside them; it is about seeing more senior officers who have built successful careers who they can look up to. We need to see more women and ethnic minority candidates reaching three-star and—one day, I hope, in the fullness of time—even four-star rank. If we are to attract more people from outside to areas where we are short, we have to show them that they can not only have worthwhile careers but get to the very top.
Finally, of course, that applies to the Government themselves, as was pointed out a little earlier, I think. I, too, regret that after the recent reshuffle—I will not comment on how successful or not that reshuffle was—there is now no female Defence Minister. As the matter has been raised, the House might wish to know that when the Prime Minister formed her first Administration, back in June 2016, and was moving my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), I made it very clear that we needed at least one woman Minister on the team, and I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was appointed a Defence Minister. I congratulate her, of course, on her promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but that does leave a gap, and it is a mistake—if I may put it as boldly as that to the Treasury Bench—to have five Defence Ministers and for them all to be male. If we are to get more women and—in the fullness of time—more people from the ethnic minorities to join up, we have to show that this kind of change is embedded from the top.
That said, I support the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on getting it through.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the Minister for his work on the Bill around which there has been much consensus across the House, and I pay tribute to those involved in drawing it up.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not committed to publishing the statistics called for in the amendment and new clauses tabled by the Opposition and the SNP. No doubt, however, we will return to this issue, through parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and so on, to ensure we are properly capturing the picture. I understand what he says about the small uptake initially, but we need to know that there is a small uptake initially and that it is increasing, and without the statistics, that is not possible.
The SNP has some concerns about the housing that armed forces personnel and their families are expected to live in. I repeat some of the comments about pay. It is imperative that we get the pay correct for members of the armed forces if we are to recruit and retain the best. I have raised leave entitlement several times. It is not enough that it can be carried forward and carried forward; safeguards must be in place to make sure that people can take their leave when they need to. There must also be safeguards in place for families to make sure they are supported when spouses are deployed and when they are on base and that the education of their children is considered when they join up.
The SNP will continue to call on the Government to set up an armed forces representative body. It was in our manifesto, and we will continue to raise this issue. The Police Federation is able to liaise with the Government. The armed forces and armed forces personnel do not have similar abilities. It would give a voice to those affected by the issues raised today—issues that affect retention and recruitment, not simply flexible working. I call on the Minister to look seriously at the issue of a representative body, but I thank him once again for his work on the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker
For the sake of clarity, I will say it more loudly: Miss Kirstene Hair.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all Members who have already contributed to this important debate.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to have armed forces personnel stationed in our constituencies will know of the tremendous effort, both physical and emotional, that those men and women put into their work every day, and will also know of the impact that the Bill will have on people who, whether in times of conflict or in peacetime, are determined to provide us with the greatest protection possible.
In my constituency, the distinguished servicemen of RM Condor are a constant reminder to residents that they can rest safe in the knowledge that world-class professionals are nearby. Although most of those who serve in 45 Commando come from hundreds of miles away, the Royal Marines are rooted in the community. Locals are incredibly proud of the base, which is, quite simply, an integral part of the fabric of Angus.
Given the sacrifices that armed forces personnel are prepared to make, not only in risking their own safety but during the difficult extended periods away from their friends and families, it is morally right for us to do everything in our power to help them in their chosen career. I am therefore delighted that the Bill has received support from Members on both sides of the House. As has been said before, it is a Bill for families. Long periods previously separated parents from children and partners from each other, and personnel were unable to be with ill relatives. That need not continue, because the Bill offers balance.
The changes will benefit those who currently serve, and will also support recruitment in the future. Like other Members, I am particularly hopeful that more female personnel will be attracted to such roles—or, perhaps, attracted back to them, if they have previously left. We have said that we want to recruit the best, but that means that we must offer the best, and the working practices proposed in the Bill are more in line with structures that are commonplace throughout the private and civilian public sector in the United Kingdom.
The Bill is a small but significant step. It deals with an issue that has been much considered and debated, with the needs of our troops measured against the necessity of maintaining our country’s security and national defence at all times. Much has been said in the other place about the term “part-time”, which has been granted a note of derision and scorn that it does not deserve. The Bill relates to hours of work, distance from families and the question whether increased flexibility will help soldiers and their loved ones to lead better, more balanced lives. Its benefits are part of the commitment that the Government have made to transforming the armed forces into the modern, diverse and more effective organisation to which the Secretary of State again outlined his commitment in the House last week: a military in which personal circumstance or background is not important—unlike commitment to professionalism, skill, and making the people of the United Kingdom so incredibly proud and undoubtedly safe.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. I was trying to work out how many armed forces Bills I had dealt with over the past 16 years, either as a Minister or as a Back Bencher. [Interruption.] As the Minister says, I am a veteran.
This, I think, is one of the simplest Bills I have encountered, but, as the Minister has said, it is important. It is intended to ensure that working practices in our armed forces are modern, but also attractive to those who are thinking of joining. The Minister may think me pedantic in wanting to know how its implementation will be monitored. However, I think we need to ensure not only that the armed forces are offered these opportunities, but that the information is cascaded down the chain of command, so that people are aware that they can ask for flexible working arrangements, and those who are in a position to make the decisions recognise that they can use them.
Training will be needed, and, in some cases, attitudes must change. I have no problem with the senior levels of the armed forces, who have, I think, bought into this, but the Bill must have an effect in practice, throughout the chain of command. That is why I think it important for us to monitor the number of people who take up these opportunities, and also when and why they are refused. Is there a good reason for that? I know that civil servants have convinced the Minister that such monitoring would be an onerous task, but I do not accept that for one minute. As the system beds in, the information will obviously need to be produced internally in the Department, for monitoring purposes, and I find it difficult to understand why it cannot subsequently be published. I think that in future, as a result of freedom of information requests or parliamentary questions, the Minister, or his successor, will have to publish it anyway. I also think that it would be positive to project the fact that the forces are introducing flexible working by giving examples.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the first of five interventions that I intend to make.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about the need to trickle information down to commander level to ensure that people are aware of the opportunities. That will be incentivised and supported by local commanders, but there will be a higher approvals authority. It is all based on operational capability, which we must not lose sight of. I hope that that clarifies the way in which the system will work.
Mr Jones
I accept that. I do not question for one minute what the armed forces will do in trying to ensure that the information is instilled in the chain of command, but this is a new way of working for them. I am not criticising them, because it is inevitable that when such a change is introduced in any company or other organisation, some people will not get it, and some will positively resist it. Some people will see it as a radical change. I think we should ensure that those who ask for flexible working are given good reasons why, in some cases, it cannot be implemented. I accept that there will be operational reasons.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we are considering introducing a new element of flexibility into service in the armed forces, we should look again at the maximum enlistment time? Although the military have moved towards extending the retirement age in view of our ageing population, perhaps it is time to revisit that as well. People who are well into their 60s, and even 70s, are quite capable of doing some of the modern jobs in the armed forces, which would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.
Mr Jones
I think it is a fact of life that the pool of 18-year-olds is becoming smaller. I hope the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) should be brought out of retirement; I do not know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing for the armed forces, but it would certainly be interesting for them. However, he has raised an interesting point. When I was a Defence Minister, people who could have made a further contribution were leaving the forces in their early to mid-50s, for reasons connected with, for instance, pensions. Given that that pool of 18-year-olds is getting smaller, we should also revisit the idea of recruitment from Commonwealth countries, which has been successful in the past. It has made a tremendous contribution to our nation’s defence over the last few years.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend has referred to serving personnel of a slightly more mature aspect. Might not the most effective way to ensure that flexible working proceeds as the Bill proposes be to ensure that at least one one-star officer takes the opportunity to sign up for it?
Mr Jones
That is an interesting concept, which returns me to an important point made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We need new role models, and not just in the context of flexible working. We need, for instance, to see a senior general who is a woman. We can do all the talking we like about trying to encourage women to join the armed forces and take an active part in advancing their careers, but unless there is a career path that will help them to progress, many will assume that that will never be achievable. We need only look at our US counterparts and others, where female officers have attained the highest rank. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth): why can these provisions not be open to senior managers and others in the military and other armed forces? That would send a positive message that it is important.
I welcome the Bill, but disagree with the Minister in that I do not think it is a silver bullet, because people join our armed forces and are retained for reasons not only to do with work-life balance, but because of pay and other things such as career breaks, which other armed forces in the world offer, enabling people to leave the armed forces and then come back. That does two things: it gives the expertise that those individuals have learned in the armed forces to business, charity and other sectors, and brings a wealth of knowledge back into the armed forces, which is needed. Career breaks are not unusual in the United States and other countries. This Bill is a start in terms of flexible working, but I hope that that will develop through career breaks and other initiatives.
Carol Monaghan
Some countries make far better use of reservists for that same reason. They bring their armed forces skills into civilian life and vice versa. Some countries’ armed forces have huge numbers of reservists making up their ranks, as opposed to UK armed forces which have only a very small number.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a good point; reservists do add something, but I am talking about regular members of the armed forces being able to leave for a certain period of time on the understanding that they will come back. In the United States, many on senior military courses leave to do doctorates or work in business and do other things and then come back into the armed forces, and doing that is not seen as a black mark against their career; on the contrary, it is seen as enhancing both the armed forces and those individuals’ careers.
This Bill is a start, therefore, and I assure the Minister I will be scrutinising how it works in practice and the uptake of its provisions. I also join him in thanking the Clerks and everyone involved in the Bill on making sure it has gone through both Houses with a degree of consensus from all sides and with additions to the offer that we can now give to people who want to join our armed forces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call the hon. and gallant Bob Stewart.
Bob Stewart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful for colleagues’ full support for my re-joining the armed forces; the uniform would probably be a bit bigger, but I remind Members that Blücher was much older than I am when he effectively won the battle of Waterloo by turning up and helping Wellington. [Interruption.] Late? He was just in time—which was the system used for equipping the Army about 20 years ago.
I will make three quick points. First, I support the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who made the very good point that flexible working works best when units are fully recruited. If they are not fully recruited, the numbers available to carry out the jobs are much lower and consequently the units will be less efficient. So there is a direct link between recruiting and flexible working.
My second point is a damascene conversion. I was always until recently against women serving in close combat roles. I had to be convinced, but society has changed, which was crucial to that change in me, and perhaps my full support for it has come from within my own family. My wretched but beautiful daughter has said she will only join the armed forces if she can serve in a combat role. I applaud her for that and right at this moment she is on selection.
My third point is something on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and I fully agree: the move to return recruiting to regimental unit level. Commanding officers—as I was once, when Blücher was a lad—have always had, and should always have, a responsibility for recruiting their units. This has diminished recently. I understand that the MOD intends to bring back regimental recruiting teams; some have never gone because they have always been on-strength. The other form of good recruiting practice is keeping the Army in public eye-type arrangements, where they march through the county. That is a good way to demonstrate our armed forces’ presence.
I summarise by saying that this is a jolly good Bill and I fully support it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I am slightly concerned that there will be a diminution now in the regularity of what seems to be our weekly defence meetings, as this was the only Defence Bill in the Government’s Queen’s Speech for this two-year Parliament. However, it has been a good Bill and I thank the Minister for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and the way she has engaged with it on behalf of the SNP. He and the House know of her long association with the armed forces, of which she is rightly proud, and she better informs all of us whenever she takes part in these debates.
I wish to pick up on what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), said about the fact that there is now no woman in the ministerial team. There are no women serving as heads of the armed forces of course, and there is unlikely to be one any time soon. Only three of the 12 senior managers who make up the senior civil servants at the MOD are women. I think I am right in saying that that makes the MOD the only all-male-run Department in terms of ministerial faces. I invite the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks or one of his esteemed colleagues to intervene on me to save a recommendation, which I fear might have the opposite effect, that I made last time for the promotion of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). I fear my recommending her promotion is perhaps the kiss of death, so I invite the right hon. Gentleman or someone else on the Conservative Benches to redeem that recommendation, if not now, certainly behind the scenes.
I feel as though I am repeating myself—forgive me for this—but I want to pick up on some of the things the Government have not brought forward. If they do bring them forward, however, they will find 35 Members of the SNP willing to support them. One of those things is an end to the Capita contract, as mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State. It is a rip-off and it is farcical. We largely agree across the House that it is farcical and it needs to come to an end. It does a disservice to those who serve in uniform.
I mentioned the issue of housing to the Minister at the recent Defence Question Time. The housing is in a dreadful condition. Carillion receives 1,500 calls a day in complaints from people living in the CarillionAmey estate up and down the country. We can read all about that. It goes beyond broken lightbulbs. We are talking about boilers remaining broken down for weeks on end and people moving into accommodation whose kitchens have no units or cookers. They deserve so much better. Frankly, some of the standards would not pass the social housing standards of the 1970s and 1980s. If the Government were minded to resolve that issue, they would have the support of 35 SNP Members of Parliament, of many on their own Back Benches and of many, if not all, on the Labour Benches.
My last point relates to pay. I accept that there is an independent pay review body and that the 1% cap has been lifted. That is to be welcomed. However, the review body only makes recommendations to the Government and the Government can of course go much further. I understand that they could go further right now and that they do not need to wait any longer.
It is regrettable that members of the armed forces and other public sector workers across the board have had a real-terms pay cut because of the freeze and because of inflation. It would show a bit of goodwill to give those people a decent pay rise. If the Government were minded to do that, they would have our support.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
There are a lot of good things in the Bill, but one of the tests to determine whether the Government value the public services and the armed forces will be whether they award them a decent pay rise. Obviously that has to be negotiated. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a recommendation from the pay review body is simply for a minimum and that the Government could go a lot further.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We have previously had a debate on pay. I accept that it is not the dominant issue for members of the armed forces, but we would be kidding ourselves on if we did not accept that it was a major factor in recruitment and retention, as the pay review body’s own evidence suggests.
Kirstene Hair
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is regrettable that the Scottish Government increased the income tax for servicemen and women?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am amazed that it took the hon. Lady so long to make that point. As she knows, because she attends these debates—sometimes—the changes in taxation have actually brought in a tax cut for the vast majority of serving personnel in Scotland, including some in her own constituency. They are among the lowest-paid members not only of the armed forces but of the public sector across the UK. By contrast, the pay freeze for someone on, say, £21,000 represents a cut of £400. I am willing to engage in a debate on pay, and I am happy to defend my Government’s record, but would she accept that it is time for the pay cut imposed by her Government to go? Nothing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot really ask questions across the Floor of the House if the hon. Lady is sitting there being quiet and well-behaved.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I think there was some looking at the feet there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take your point.
It has been mentioned that members of the armed forces do not have a body like the Police Federation to advocate on their behalf, so it falls to Members of this House to do so. Some Members of the party of government —albeit a minority—seem unwilling to take on Ministers about this, although I commend Conservative Members who are not backward in coming forward in that regard. We do our armed forces a disservice if we do not do that. So let us be radical and follow the good practice that we see elsewhere. Let us give them a body on a statutory footing to make sure that they are represented around the table.
Mr Ellwood
I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman. To suggest that Ministers are not making the case, along with Back Benchers on both sides, for funding for the armed forces in the defence budget is to misunderstand and indeed to be asleep in the debate that has been taking place over the past couple of months. He is also completely ignoring the banding and the progressive pay scales that are in place. It is absolutely right to have a debate about pay, but he must recognise that the banding does not mean that there is a pay freeze. He is missing out a chunk of understanding about armed forces pay.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I almost do not know where to begin with that. As I have mentioned, there was a debate in this House specifically on armed forces pay, and I am well aware of the banding that is in place, but the Minister has the power to offer a pay rise. He does not need to wait for a recommendation or to take the recommendation from the pay review body. It is after all only a recommendation. I know that he fights his hardest for cash for his Department and for the armed forces—I read about it in The Times newspaper on a daily basis—but let us be honest: the defence review has been kicked into the later part of the year, the Government have apparently removed its fiscally neutral element, and from what I can see, three of the four announcements made by the Secretary of State on Thursday are going to amount to more cuts in capability elsewhere. I do not doubt that he and other Ministers do their best to take on what the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) described as
“the pinstripe warriors at the Treasury”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 128WH.]
However, it is about time that we started to see some of the fruits of their labours and of those who sit behind them on the Back Benches.
Jim Shannon
It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I commend the Minister and his Department for their hard work and for the support that they have managed to gain on both sides of the Chamber for the Bill, which represents a step forward for our armed forces personnel. Service in uniform in my constituency is normal and recruitment levels are high. These debates resonate closely with the people back home. Recruitment is also at an all-time high for the part-time services, and it is good news to be able to report that in the Chamber tonight. Government policy is obviously going in the right direction, not only in my constituency but across the whole of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the Bill as an appropriate set of measures that will better reflect the needs of 21st century service personnel and their families than the arrangements that we have previously had. However, I would like to highlight an anomaly about the appeals process. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to this point tonight, but, if not, I would be happy to hear from him at a later date. There does not seem to be anything about it in the Bill. It is not an earth-shattering matter, but it has been brought to my attention by soldiers who have asked me to raise it here.
The system outlined in the Bill will involve going through the ombudsman if a service person wishes to appeal. However, it has long been a securely held view that the ombudsman experience is not a good one, and that it probably involves too lengthy a process for the sort of events for which this measure is designed. I know that the Minister is keenly interested in introducing a measure that will help soldiers, and if we can introduce one that will improve the appeals process, we should do that. There are families who need help and resolution, and the ombudsman appeals can often run for months, if not years. The management of that caseload represents a considerable burden.
The present process does not seem to have been terribly successful in bringing about resolution in a timely manner, and it is my opinion and that of others outside the House that the opportunity presented by the Bill to change the system has not been fully utilised. I look to the Minister for a response when he is able to give me one, if he does not mind, and I respectfully ask that the matter be given further consideration. Would it not be more appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to empower the service to be a better employer, to refer appeals to the immediate chain of command? I personally would like to see that happen and I believe that many others would as well. It would be much more in keeping with how almost all other personnel issues are managed.
The Minister referred to the excellent work of the cadet forces across the whole United Kingdom. I commend the Government for the way in which we are building up the cadet forces not only on the mainland but back home in Northern Ireland. When both communities there see the cadet forces as an option for younger people, it enables us to achieve cross-community involvement and integration in a way that is also helping us to move forward politically, now and further down the line. I commend the Minister for his commitment to extra reserve forces in Northern Ireland and to the capital build, which will enable us to grow. The Minister has given us that commitment. The confidence and supply agreement we have in partnership with the Government has sought to achieve that as well. We look forward to it being delivered.
I also welcome the commitment to the recruitment of and elevation in the ranks for women and those from black and minority ethnic groups. On a recent visit to Shrivenham and in other visits, it was clear from our discussions that there is a strategy in place and that the Minister and the Department have committed to making these changes, which are starting to work, with recruitment figures already starting to rise. We obviously recognise that there are other things that must be done, so it is good to have this continued recruitment strategy.
I gently ask the Minister to consider the ombudsman issue and the appeals process because that could lead to a smoother operation for our armed forces, and the Bill is designed for that. I commend the Minister, the members of the Public Bill Committee, the Hansard staff and all the Committee staff who do such hard work behind the scenes to make these things happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 23 October 2017 (Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Jesse Norman.)
Royal Assent
Thursday 8th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 January 2018 - (29 Jan 2018)