Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

3: Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
“(ha) enabling a person serving with a regular force to take breaks from full-time service subject to prescribed conditions;”, and”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore argue that the noble and gallant Lord should allow his fears to be allayed. For the reasons I have set out, I firmly believe we should let the language of the Bill remain intact. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, on reflection, will feel similarly.

[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.