Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th September 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

1: Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
““(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.