Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Michael Fallon

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[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.

Counter-Daesh Update

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Michael Fallon

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Yes. The military campaign is not over yet, in Iraq or indeed in Syria. We have every interest in staying the course, because we need to keep our country safe. There are still people in Raqqa who wish us harm and want to carry out attacks in this country and in other western European cities. We must not rest until that threat is removed, and then we must pay attention to what the Iraqi authorities want and to the scale of the training that they may now require.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see so many Members entering the Chamber to hear my question. [Laughter.]

I pay tribute to our amazing armed forces personnel, who have acted with the utmost bravery and dedication in this conflict, and I second the calls for an operational service medal to be awarded. Given the special role that the Army has played in training during the conflict, among its many other roles, and given the depth, breadth and complexity of the operations that it now faces not only in this theatre but around the world, does the Secretary of State agree that this would be exactly the wrong time to reduce the number of our regular Army personnel?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am grateful for the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to our armed forces. He will have heard what I said earlier about the issue of medallic recognition for personnel who served in this particular campaign. We have no plans to cut the size of the Army; indeed, in our manifesto we made a clear commitment to maintain the size of our armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Michael Fallon

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right. We are competing for the best of every generation against other sectors of the economy, which of course are growing. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body, in recommending a 1% pay rise in its last report, said:

“We believe that…an increase of one per cent in base pay…will broadly maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector.”

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that last question, figures released to me last week by the Secretary of State’s Department in a written answer show that recruitment to our infantry fell by 18% in the last year alone. Does he not accept that not giving a fair pay rise is having a direct impact on recruitment?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

That is not the view of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As I have just indicated to the House, the pay review body believes that its settlement, recommended last year, does maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector. Some 8,000 people joined the armed forces in the last 12 months, but when the pay review body comes to make its recommendation for next year, it will of course look specifically at the evidence on recruitment and retention—and it does that in a way that some other review bodies are not able to do.