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.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Glenarthur
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 October 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
785 c246 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-11-22 15:47:31 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-11/17101129000158
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-11/17101129000158
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-11/17101129000158