Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 27 February 1996 vol 569 cc1369-408

3.8 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 4 [Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("each House of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may he for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33 and 36. These amendments are almost drafting amendments. There has grown up by tradition, as I understand it, in legislation dealing with defence matters, the expression "Parliament" rather than "both Houses of Parliament" or "each House of Parliament". That is an odd expression. In other Bills that I have covered from this Front Bench I have noticed that mostly we refer to the "Houses of Parliament" or "joint Houses of Parliament", or whatever it may be. "Parliament" as a single entity is a rarity. In Committee, the noble Earl recognised that fact. It is carried forward from history.

In the case at issue, when we ARE talking about reports to Parliament I believe that it would be simpler to provide that those reports should he made to "each House of Parliament" rather than to "Parliament". To some extent this is a drafting amendment, but I believe that it would make the Bill better than it is at the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am not sure that the anxiety of the noble Lord is fully justified. If we look at the text on the first page of the Bill we find the familiar words: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled". So "Parliament" has entered as an accepted phrase into our legislation with great frequency for a very long time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, both today and in Committee. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his observations.

I continue to believe that, strictly speaking, the amendments are unnecessary, for in this context "Parliament" means both Houses. Nevertheless, in a spirit of co-operation I am happy to accept the amendments as proposed by the noble Lord.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 36, leave out ("after being made") and insert ("forthwith).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had a discussion about the orders to be laid under Clause 4(5) of the Bill. As at present drafted, the Bill says simply that: Any order or regulations under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made".

There is no time limit; that is done some time after the order or regulation has been made. It seemed to us that it would be appropriate for the orders or regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible.

As the noble Earl will remember, we proposed a formulation in Committee which was "as soon as made". The noble Earl pointed out that that created difficulties. I understand and take the noble Earl's point that "as soon as" implies almost instantaneous action, which might be rather difficult. However, in other parts of the Bill we have the expression "forthwith", and it seemed to me that the formulation "forthwith" might he more palatable to the Government than "as soon as". In that spirit I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord has once again expressed his concern that no time limit is laid down within which regulations under Clause 4 must be laid. In Committee I illustrated that the Ministry of Defence is prompt in laying such regulations before Parliament with the example of Amendment 16 to the Territorial Army Regulations 1978, which was made on 18th January and laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd January. I also gave an undertaking that such regulations would continue to he laid before Parliament at the earliest convenient moment. I hoped that the noble Lord would be happy with that assurance, as he indicated he was at the time.

I acknowledge that when the question of the meaning of "forthwith" came up in our discussions, I undertook to look further into the matter. "Forthwith" carries with it the meaning of "as soon as possible given the circumstances". That is certainly the interpretation that we would put on it. That is why it is entirely appropriate when dealing with matters of the seriousness of call-out and recall and why it is inappropriate here.

The regulations which will be made under Clause 4 are essentially concerned with the internal government of the armed forces. The numbers of changes and amendments can be considerable and of great complexity, but will often be concerned with matters of detail or minor significance. As an example, Amendment 16 to the Territorial Army Regulations runs to around 100 pages and deals almost entirely with minor amendments or matters of detail. Such changes are made relatively frequently, and to be required to lay them before Parliament immediately seems to me to he excessive. There would certainly be extra costs involved in doing so. For example, instead of passing documents through the normal internal mail it would be necessary to use special messengers.

I am not clear why the noble Lord wishes to impose this burden on the Ministry of Defence in respect of the reserve forces. It does not confer any benefit on the reserve forces. It offers no advantage to Parliament over the present arrangements, which work well.

In any case, the issue goes far wider than this Bill. There are many other powers to make regulations in the defence area alone, and it is not clear whether the noble Lord would wish such regulations to be laid before Parliament forthwith. Indeed, would he wish all regulations under any statute which are required to be laid before Parliament to be laid forthwith?

Altogether I do not believe that this is an appropriate amendment. I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw it.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response.

The House will wish to take note of the fact that these regulations and orders relate inter alia, under Clause 4(1)(a), to: the government and discipline of any reserve force". That is not an insignificant matter. It is not something which is pushed under the table. If there is to be a change to the government and discipline of any reserve force I believe that Parliament ought to be informed officially "forthwith".

The noble Earl said that most of the orders are insignificant, but I hope that he takes the point that there is a possibility that orders will he made under Clause 4(1)(a) which are of extreme importance to Parliament and the reserve forces. I should have thought that somehow we should try to reconcile the position that I have taken, which I admit perhaps goes too far, with the position the noble Earl has taken.

Therefore, I hope very much that before Third Reading we can talk further about the matter and see whether we can arrive at an arrangement that will satisfy both of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [Pensions]:

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("provided that the pensions of those in civilian lift ARE fully safeguarded.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of pension entitlement for those members of the reserve forces who are liable to he called upon under the terms of the Bill.

We are most anxious to ensure that those who perform this duty are not disadvantaged thereby. In particular, we do not want their pension entitlement to be undermined. Many will be members of private occupational pension schemes. Their ultimate entitlement under such schemes is dependent upon the continuity of scheme membership, in particular contribution continuity, and any breach of continuity may adversely affect ultimate pension entitlement unless steps are taken to ensure that such continuity is protected in some way.

It is true that at one time people of working age gave little thought to pension entitlement until perhaps about 10 years before they were due to retire. All that has changed. The Government have been anxious to make people pension minded because of the concern that in the next century no government may be able to afford to pick up the tab if individuals have not made such provision. The Maxwell scandal and the subsequent Pensions Act have all combined to make people pension conscious. That is a good thing. But it means that individuals affected by the Bill will wonder about the possible effect upon their civilian pension entitlement if they are called upon to breach the contribution record as a result of being called to give service under the terms of the Bill. We do not wish to put people who give up their time and perhaps put at risk their health and their lives to be disadvantaged in pension terms because of what they have done for this country. Hence the amendment.

The Minister may claim that Clause 8 contains some safeguards. Clause 8(1)(b) allows for, the making of payments towards the provision of pensions".

That presumably can cover civilian pensions although it is not clear from the text. However, the commitment is not explicit. We believe that it should be. It may be argued that this could result in additional expenditure. We believe that that has to be faced if it is the only way in which such a guarantee can he provided. If employers can he persuaded to retain employees on service duty in their own occupational schemes that would be a good idea. In any event the addition of the words to the clause—the provision does not specify precisely how it should be done; simply that there should be a guarantee—still leaves it open to the Government to make appropriate arrangement by way of regulation.

We raised the issue in Committee and I had the impression that the Minister was sympathetic to what we sought to do. We believe it right and proper that some guarantee should be on the face of the Bill. I hope that this time round the Minister will be disposed to accept some form of guarantee. If he does not accept this wording, at least let us have something on the face of the Bill before it leaves the House after Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baroness is on to a point of some significance. I have no doubt that the Government realise fully that it would be very wrong indeed if the civilian pension of someone called up under the Bill should be endangered. Many pension schemes, as those who have experience of them know, insist on continuity of membership and contribution. Therefore I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister says. As matters now stand, it seems a point about which the House would do well to concern itself.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. Consideration of their rights is often raised by people as regards the Territorial Army. When considering a six to nine months' commitment, the issue will be important to them. However, one area which must be looked at even more closely is making the information about how pension contributions will be supplied available to those considering taking up the special agreements. Without that detailed knowledge, many people will be scared away in case their pension is put at risk.

Earl Bathurst

My Lords, I, too, beg the Minister to pay heed to the amendment. Without the provision, or something similar, I do not believe that members will join the reserve forces if only because of persuasion by their families if their pensions are interfered with in any way as a result of that service. I beg my noble friend to find some way of meeting the point put by the noble Baroness.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I find myself in agreement with the sentiments expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken. The Government understand the necessity to safeguard the civilian pension provisions of reservists; that was made abundantly clear during the consultation process. That is why we have a power to permit us to do it in Clause 82(2) and (3).

In Committee and again today the noble Baroness expressed concern that the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient. I believe that she implied that having a permissive power was not the same as using it. I can assure the House that we intend to use the power. Indeed, the concerns expressed by reservists have been such that we do not believe that the Bill would he properly effective without protection for civilian pensions. We are aware from the responses that we received during the various rounds of consultation on the Bill that reservists see pension provision as very important. Their primary concern is that a period of called out service should not reduce the eventual retirement benefits from their civilian pension scheme. We therefore have it as a policy objective to safeguard the reservists' civilian pension during a period of permanent service. In essence, so long as the individual were prepared to pay any employee's contribution due, we would pay the employer's contribution, thus ensuring that there was no loss of period of reckonable service.

As I imagine noble Lords are aware, the field of pensions is very complex. We therefore see even more than the usual benefit from a period of consultation on the regulations in this area. Informal discussions with the pensions industry, reservists and employers are already under way. Many variations are possible. However, the essential choice is between complicated administration with precise benefits and simpler schemes which fit the Bill on average but not exactly in every case. The precise arrangements, therefore, have yet to be worked out.

I think that a statutory duty would be difficult to word. The formulation tabled as amendment to Clause 8 is somewhat imprecise. I feel that such a statutory provision would add little or nothing to the undertaking that I have given this afternoon. If the noble Baroness wishes for further assurance, she might find it in the Government's recognition that action on civilian pensions is necessary to maintain the support of reservists themselves for the more flexible use of reserves. I hope that the assurances I have given will be sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed statement. I note in particular his comment that provided the individual concerned paid the employee's contribution, the Government would be prepared to pay the employer's contribution in a number of instances. That is very important because that is the way in which continuity would be maintained in many cases. I am grateful indeed for the assurances that have been given. I note that the noble Earl thinks that the wording is a little vague and perhaps not precise enough. We are committed to the notion that there should be a statutory duty to ensure that pensions are fully safeguarded. However, in the detailed statement he has gone a long way to meet the concerns that we had on this side of the House. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Enlistment of men in the reserve forces]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 4: Page 4, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 13 and insert—

("(c) any consul-general, consul or vice consul or any other person duly exercising the functions of a British consul in any place outside the United Kingdom.

(3) A recruit may not be enlisted in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom which is specified for the purposes").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in our view enlisting is a serious and significant matter. Clause 9 recognises that. Clause 9(2)(a) refers to an enlisting officer as, a lord-lieutenant or deputy lieutenant holding office under Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980: or an officer of the regular services or of any reserve force".

There follows a strange reference to, any other person authorised for the purpose".

We believe that that diminishes and demeans the act of enlistment. The wording is altogether too casual, vague and wide. We have put forward the amendment in the hope that it will make the process specific wherever it takes place, whether within the United Kingdom or overseas.

The second part of the amendment deals with Clause 9(3). I say in all humility that it is simply a matter of drafting. We hope that the amendment simplifies the language and expresses clearly the intention. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. As I said in Committee, Clause 9(2)(c) perhaps emerged in too broad a form. It is, though, prudent to retain the ability to recruit overseas, should the need arise. I therefore gladly agree to the proposed amendment, which brings the wording into line with that of Section 1 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955.

With the leave of the House, I wish to raise an issue relating to the clause brought to my notice by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It concerns lord-lieutenants who are named in Clause 9 as persons who may act as enlisting officers. Lord-lieutenants are appointed under the power in Sections 130 and 131 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. That is not changed by the Bill, although there is a proposal for a consolidation measure to bring the provisions relating to lord-lieutenants into a single Act. As the House will recall, the Reserve Forces Act 1980 was a consolidation measure. The power in Section 130 of that Act replaced powers in the Local Government Act 1972. Section 131 replaced powers in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Unfortunately, the change did not come to the attention of those responsible for appointing lord-lieutenants.

My noble and learned friend believes that that oversight may place the validity of the appointments in a certain amount of doubt. He wishes to remove any possible doubt. The position is being investigated with urgency and I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward a suitable amendment at a later stage of the Bill, we hope on Third Reading.

Lord Judd

My Lords, we ARE grateful to the Minister for his response and for the gracious way in which he made it. We take the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I commend the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.30 p.m.

Clause 19 [Orders and regulations as to enlistment etc.):

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 5: Page 7, line 38, leave out from ("forces") to end of line.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Turner, and myself. To take the noble Earl's words, we again found that in Clause 19 the wording was somewhat broad. We debated the matter thoroughly in Committee. There could he an anxiety lest regulations under Clauses 4 and 19 could override matters on which there is already expressed statutory provision. As we understand it, that is not the Government's intention. I hope that the amendment is helpful because it is designed to remove any possible grounds for misunderstanding. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, we had an interesting debate on the matter in Committee. I believe that there was a general welcome for the flexibility of the provisions in the clause for enlistment and re-engagement. Experience has shown that the equivalent provisions of the 1980 Act were too rigid.

However, I recognise that there were concerns about the apparent scope of the power in the clause as drafted. I have considered what the noble Lord said on the issue and am happy to accept the proposed amendment, which gives those powers greater clarity.

Lord Judd

My Lords, we are again grateful to the Minister for his response.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Service of marines in the Royal Fleet Reserve]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 6: Leave out Clause 21.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we find Clause 21 confusing. Of course, we recognise that it concerns the discipline Acts and there are references to them in Amendment No. 52, tabled by the noble Earl, relating to Schedule 9. The issues raised by the clause cover the basis for effectiveness and clarity of command in demanding operational situations. If the Royal Marines take the role of naval personnel who have their own designations of rank, surely while they do that it will be clearer for all concerned if they were known by the rank designation which is immediately recognisable and familiar to others within the Royal Fleet Reserve.

I should like to say how much we appreciate the fact that an amendment was put to us by the Minister's office. We found that the suggested amendment did not in this case meet the point which we are making. If anything, it underlined our anxiety. That is why we put forward the amendment at this stage in the hope that between now and completion of the passage of the Bill the Government will find some way of meeting the point. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he found the clause somewhat confusing. I shall try as best I can to explain its purpose. As I said in Committee, the provision is necessary because the Royal Fleet Reserve contains both ex-regular naval ratings and ex-regular Royal Marines. The issue does not arise in relation to the volunteer reserves because the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve are distinct legal entities. There would be some logic in having separate ex-regular forces as well, but since the Royal Fleet Reserve as a whole is only a little over 4,000 strong, it would be difficult to justify the administrative complexity of dividing it.

Naval ratings and Royal Marines serve alongside one another with great distinction. They do, however, have different jobs, training, ranks, promotion requirements and so on. As we discussed in Committee, they ARE also treated differently under service law. That aspect is not mentioned in the clause because the necessary provisions are in Section 210 of the Army Act 1955 and Section 112 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

I am sure that a former Royal Marine would not think it right to he required to serve as a rating and Parliament has agreed. Clause 21 simply repeats the substance of Section 52 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which itself originated in Section 1 of the Naval Reserve Act 1900. If the House were now to decide to remove the statutory protection, would it be with the intention of requiring marines to serve as sailors? Certainly, if the House wished it to have that effect, it would adopt the noble Lord's amendment. I firmly believe that it is most desirable to retain the clause.

As the noble Lord mentioned, I undertook in Committee to consider whether Clause 21 could be made clearer. Parliamentary Counsel succeeded in producing a revised form of words which I passed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. With the benefit of the explanation which I have just given, I hope that there may be scope for noble Lords to look again at the wording of the clause. It remains available. If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, or any other Peer cares to table it for Third Reading, I should be happy to accept it. In the meantime, I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that Clause 21, whether in its current version or in a refined form, is a necessary part of the Bill.

Lord Judd

My Lords, again the spirit in which the noble Earl speaks is greatly appreciated. He said that the wording could be in its present form or in a refined form. We hope that between now and the passing of the Bill he will be able to consider the points that we made in Committee and have re-emphasised this afternoon. Of course, we take his point about law but our concern is about operational clarity. If people work in a demanding situation, it is surely better that there should he as much familiarity as possible with the status and rank of the people who may give orders or instructions.

We believe that there is possibly room for confusion. We therefore hope that the noble Earl will consider the point again. In the meantime, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [Parliamentary control of commitments]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 12, line 14. leave out from ("in") to end of line 16 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, we find this subsection as drafted a little mystifying, despite any rationale that might be advanced in terms of existing practice. Why is the Navy alone exempted from the reference to parliamentary authorisation? Our amendment aims to bring the Navy into line with what seem to he very sensible provisions for the other two services. For that reason we have put forward wording that we hope covers the point. The same point will arise on Amendments Nos. 11, 15, 17 and 25. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I take this opportunity to speak to those amendments at the same time. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, again, I should like to be helpful to the noble Lord. Unlike the Army and the Royal Air Force, the numbers of officers and men serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have never been subject to statutory parliamentary control. The Bill reflects that, continuing with the structure that was used in the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

However, Parliament does in practice provide maximum numbers for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. It will cause no difficulty to generalise the references in these clauses. I am therefore content to accept the amendment that the noble Lord tabled.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not feel I am being patronising when I say that I must commend him for his spirit of co-operation this afternoon. We are delighted, and express our appreciation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Employers' consent before entering agreements]:

Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 13, line 19, at end insert—

("( ) It shall not be an obligation on an employee outside a special agreement to inform his employer of service in the reserve force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It seeks an assurance that it will not become an obligation for those who are members of the Reserve Forces to inform their employers of that fact. I do not plan to press the amendment. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that no such obligation will come into force.

At present, many members of the Reserve Forces do not feel that they have to tell their employer, or indeed they do not want to tell an employer for whatever reason, that they are members of the Reserve Forces. I have come across that in the LADs that I have commanded. A surprisingly high number of members of the Territorial Army do not want their employers to know that they are members. The amendment seeks an assurance that there is no intention to create such an obligation. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. However, I see some difficulties and very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to help. Clearly, nobody can he forced to advise an employer that he or she is a member of a reserve force. On the other hand, if it comes to a call out, particularly following our discussion on the subject of pensions, it would be rather odd if the employer did not know that an employee was a member of the Reserve Forces and was suddenly told that this would happen and that pension rights should be preserved. Perhaps the noble Earl can give us some guidance on that point.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising this matter and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his remarks. On the underlying point, I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not impose a general obligation on reservists to disclose their reserve status to their employers. We encourage reservists to inform their employers of their membership. We know that many do so and seek, and gain, their employer's co-operation. That often extends to additional leave for training, for example.

Equally, we know that some reservists feel it better not to inform their employers. We respect their view. The three-way relationship between the reservist, his employer and the Ministry of Defence can function only if there is openness and trust on all sides. That is as much the case in the relationship between the reservist and the employer as it is in the other part of the relationship. It would damage that trust for an employer to ask an individual whether he was a reservist and for the individual to reply untruthfully.

It would be most unusual for there to be a statutory provision to enable an individual to avoid having to answer the question truthfully or at all. Many consequential difficulties could arise from that. For example, reserve forces membership might be a material fact where an insurance policy was being taken out by the employer. The employer could not disclose it to the insurer if the individual had given a false answer.

It is axiomatic that members of the reserve forces have a call-out liability. If or when call out occurs, it would be impossible for the individual to hide his absence from the employer, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly said. Indeed, for the employer safeguards under Part VIII of the Bill to operate it will be necessary for the employer to be formally advised of the call out. It could sour the future employment relationship for the employer to discover at that point that the reservist had misled him.

Altogether, we believe it best to leave the existing position unchanged. Some employers will ask about reserve status and the employee should answer truthfully. Others will not ask, and the reservist is under no obligation to volunteer the information. I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord that all is well.

3.45 p.m.

Earl Bathurst

My Lords, is it true that, so far as employment is concerned, a reservist could not be disadvantaged—neither by declaring his membership, nor, on call out, by the employer putting him at a disadvantage as a result of his being a member of the reserve forces? Is that correct under another section of the Bill?

Earl Howe

My Lords, we shall discuss that point, probably under Clause 121 of the Bill. I suggest to my noble friend that we leave the debate until that point.

Earl Bathurst

My Lords, I thank my noble friend.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is the one that I sought. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 [Consent of new employer]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("of) to ("such") in line 14 and insert ("subsection (2)(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 29, 32 and 37. These are all minor amendments in the interests of clarity, or to correct internal cross-references in the Bill. I am obviously willing to say a little about each if that would be helpful; however, I believe that they are all self-explanatory. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Call-out notices]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 15, line 38, leave out subsection (6) and inser—

("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address: and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, it might be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 24 and 28.

We realise that the noble Earl has been examining this matter. I gather that he may be willing to meet the point made by us in Committee about the need to be confident that, in deeming a notice to have been served, there must be real evidence that the notice has in fact been delivered to the person concerned or to another identifiable person at his or her last known address. That is particularly important in an age of increasing mobility, when people move vast distances at short notice. We cannot just assume that they will always be exactly where we thought they were. We hope therefore that this amendment covers that point and that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I must support the sentiment behind the amendment. On a number of occasions, I myself have had the misfortune of trying to track down errant individuals over a number of weeks, only to find that they moved to three or four different places. This is an important amendment which needs consideration.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I believe I emphasised in Committee that it is important to be able to serve call-out notices by post. A notice can only be deemed to have been served if it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the points that he raised. As ever, they are pertinent and in the interests of the individual.

Noble Lords will recall that when the matter was raised in Committee I agreed to consider it further. I have done so. I agree that the Bill as drafted is a little unfair to those who ARE away from their place of residence. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, protect those individuals who are absent from their place of residence when a call-out notice is sent. I believe that the changes are sensible. At the risk of lavishing benevolence on noble Lords opposite, I am happy to accept them.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I should be very content for the noble Lord to retain those sentiments for the rest of the afternoon. Let me reciprocate by saying that on this side of the House, if we must have a government of another political persuasion, we are reassured and delighted to see the noble Earl fulfilling his role. It is very reassuring. We are grateful for his response. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:

Page 17, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").

Page 17, line 34, leave out ("report to Parliament") and insert ("lay before each House of Parliament a report").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them together.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 43 [Call out of special members]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 22, line 38. leave out subsection (7) and insert—

("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Exercise of functions by officers]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 24, line 28, leave out ("45.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. 1 beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:

Page 24, line 45, leave out from ("in") to end of line 46 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services").

Page 25, line I, leave out ("report to Parliament") and insert ("lay before each House of Parliament a report").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 50 [Liability of members of reserve forces under call-out orders]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 26, line 24, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 27 and insert ("who are in service under a call-out order shall not be reckoned in any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Call out for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 27, line 30, after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 52]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 28. line 44. after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Call out for warlike operations]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 29, line 34, after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 54]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 30, line 38, after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 56 [Call out for certain operations]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 31, line 34. after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 56]:

Lord Bramall moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 32, line 6, leave out ("9") and insert ("6").

The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Attlee. With the indulgence of the House, I should like to read a short letter from a commanding officer in Bosnia—in this case, from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) to a Territorial Army headquarters in this country. It will, I feel, help to provide a valuable background and urgency to this particular clause and to the whole Bill. The letter reads:

"Thank goodness for the Territorial Army! I write both as the (temporary) Commander Equipment Support and as Commanding Officer 3 Battalion REME. Without wishing to appear melodramatic, the 30 Territorial Army soldiers who arrived before Christmas saved the REME bacon. I was faced with a 'surge' that began mid-December with no additional manpower—all we had was the same organisation that was designed to support a relatively static UN operation. I also had to find and sort out 'bases' for any future REME reinforcements. I cancelled Christmas and New Year R&R for my soldiers but without the influx of Territorial Army soldiers we would not have coped: as it is, we ARE barely coping. All of the Territorial Army soldiers have been quite excellent. To a man, they are enthusiastic, cheerful and willing. Their motives for coming here vary from wanting to do something a little different to good, old-fashioned patriotism. They fitted in to the battalion with ease and immediately became a valuable part of the team; the additional skills some of them have brought from their civilian occupations have already been an extra bonus. I apologise if this letter seems a little gushing. My thanks are heartfelt; we were hard pressed over the Christmas period and would have looked very bad indeed were it not for the fact that so many of your soldiers were willing to give up their Christmas to help us out".

That is all splendid stuff. What the letter does not mention, and it is highly relevant and causing senior officers in the Army some concern, was the difficulty which was experienced in getting that number of REME volunteers to leave their jobs or getting their employers to release them. Taken altogether, that both emphasises the importance and urgency of the whole Bill and indicates the need to set the maximum period for which territorials and reservists can be called out at a realistic and reasonable level, acceptable to both employees and employers alike. It was that important factor which influenced our amendment which in Clause 57 seeks to reduce that period from nine months to six months.

I should point out first, in case it has escaped noble Lords' notice, that the figure in subsection (6) of Clause 57 refers back to Clause 56, which in turn covers:

"operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property; or … anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster".

In short they ARE largely humanitarian operations. It does not cover warlike operations, which come under Clause 54, let alone those under Clause 52, which deal with situations of more immediate urgency, of imminent national danger and a possible attack on this country. Those have their own conditions. We are talking about conditions far short of general war.

I submit that, under those circumstances, however badly the reinforcements are needed by the overstretched regulars and however convenient it may be for the staff to have them for a longer rather than shorter period, it is utterly unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to leave their jobs for more than six months. That would equally apply to employers releasing them for longer than that period. Even six months is a big sacrifice and a large slice out of a career. Even with regular troops, unaccompanied tours linked to six months are fairly stringently enforced. As a former commanding officer, I know that a sea-change occurs after that time.

So to ask more of both parties would, I believe, lead to fewer people volunteering or more opting out, which could jeopardise the whole scheme. Moreover, I suggest that six months should be perfectly adequate. These are not the types of operation which would require much, if any, preliminary specialist training. I stress again that I am not talking about operations under NATO control. The reservists or volunteers would already be trained in the basic skills. There would be a certain amount of on-the-job training. Indeed, as that letter showed, skills obtained in civilian life might prove an extra bonus. So they should have no difficulty in fitting in with the six-month tours of the regulars. They can always—the machinery exists—volunteer to serve for longer, should they so wish or should the urgency be very obvious.

So, on all counts I urge the Government to accept the six-months cut-off period in this clause. I and many of those in the TA with whom I come in contact also believe—although, I stress, not the widely representative TAVRA council, which I know does not agree with me on this point—that it may make all the difference between enthusiastic and lukewarm acceptance of this important and urgent Bill and therefore between its success and failure. This is an important amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to which I have put my name. First, I ought to emphasise, as did the noble and gallant Lord, that we are discussing call out for what might be called humanitarian operations. We are not talking about war-like operations or about war. We are talking about cases of natural disaster, protection of life or property and alleviation of distress operations, which are summarised in Clause 56, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out. We are not attempting to change the maximum period of service under Clauses 52 or 54; we are simply concerned with humanitarian relief missions.

It may be that a definition of what is a "war-like" operation could help us in this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl could give us a precise definition of what is a war-like operation and what is a humanitarian operation. To give one example, as the noble and gallant Lord said, as the operation in Bosnia is under NATO command, that may be defined as a war-like operation. On the other hand, I imagine that an operation in Rwanda under the United Nations command may well be considered a humanitarian operation. Perhaps the noble Earl can clarify those points.

We need to know now, rather than when the Bill is in operation, what the obligations of reservists will be for humanitarian operations. I join forces with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in believing that, if the Bill is to be as effective as we want it to be, a period of six months maximum service under what will be Section 56 is the right period. Anything longer than that will be a serious disincentive to people who would otherwise wish to sign up as reserves.

4 p.m.

Lord Vivian

My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as an honorary colonel of a TA unit. I regret to say that I do not support Amendment No. 23.,

On my reading of the amendment, it will enable individuals to he called up for service for a period not exceeding nine months. I understand that honorary TA colonels and the executive council of TAVRA strongly oppose any reduction from nine months to six months. I also understand that the regular Army and the Territorial Army units wish the period to remain at nine months.

If the right team spirit is to be built up it is essential that there should be a period of pre-training before any deployment, he it operational, peace-keeping or humanitarian duties, which is what the amendment involves. It is most important that reservists blend in, in the same way as the regulars, and that both regulars and reservists get to know each other well.

If the period of service is reduced to six months, it will only allow the reservists to spend around four-and-a-half months with the unit. That would leave a gap of one-and-a-half months when new reservists would fill in and, to my mind, be much less effective. The one-and-a-half month reservists would be left behind by the outgoing unit and taken on by the incoming new unit. They would have to become familiar with the new unit and with all the new methods that that unit may employ.

Four-and-a-half month deployments would be disruptive. They would not be in the interest of good man management and would make it more difficult to build up the necessary close relationship between reservists and regulars. They would also be more expensive. I do not support the amendment.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. My noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall has vast and comprehensive experience of military matters, as we all know. No one is better placed to balance the requirements of the services against the interests of the volunteer and his or her employers. He pointed out in Committee that regular soldiers are only away from home for six months, which should be enough to persuade us all of the virtues of Amendment No. 23.

I am grateful to my noble and gallant friend for reading out the letter, which I too have seen before. It is especially relevant to this debate in that the volunteers to whom my noble and gallant friend referred undertook minimal pre-deployment training. By "minimal" I understand that they merely ran through their Army training directives, which made sure that they knew how to operate their weapons, how to protect themselves in the event of an NBC attack and understood the basic principles of first aid, in which they had already been trained. That was so even when they were going to an operation which could be classed as war-like.

As my noble and gallant friend said, Amendment No. 23 is only relevant to Clause 56. Thus the pre-deployment training need not be prolonged and should not take more than two or three weeks. For some types of operation it might be longer. If a much longer period of pre-deployment military training is required it would suggest that the call-out should he made under either Clause 52 or Clause 54.

The attitude of the employers will be crucial. If an employer is sure that the volunteer will be away for no more than six months he may not take steps to have that volunteer exempted from call-out. It should be remembered that employers will be tempted to have the best quality men and women exempted from call-out. But those high quality men and women will be equally valuable to the volunteer reserve unit when engaged in operations. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Lord Carver

My Lords, I too support the amendment. We should remember that it is unlikely that the Government will at any time compulsorily call up a member of the reserve forces for this type of operation. I admit that they may want to, but I hope that they would always be able to rely on members of the reserve forces volunteering for such operations. As my noble and gallant friend said, if such a volunteer wishes to serve for more than six months, he can always do so.

We are also talking about members of the reserve forces who are called up as individuals to reinforce or strengthen some other unit or for some specialist purpose. It is almost inconceivable that complete TA units would be called up for the operations specified. The arguments put forward by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall and my noble friend Lord Attlee are strong arguments, both from the point of view of the employer and of the volunteer. It is important for both to feel that if the reservist is compulsorily called up, it will not be for more than six months.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, we had an interesting discussion on this point in Committee and I drew attention then to the position of those serving in public bodies such as hospitals, who have a specialist interest. If the specified operations are humanitarian, such people may well be required—even in this country if the IRA bombing continues.

Do we really have enough information? I understand the position of the honorary colonels and they are right to press for the maximum period that they think proper for their purposes. But do we have enough information about the attitude of employers who will be asked to release, for this period of nine months, people who they really want? Before we place that obligation upon employers, as well as those who are ready to volunteer as reservists, we ought to ask their view. If at the end of the day it is found that, despite what the honorary colonels want, the withdrawal of specialists for humanitarian purposes interferes with the operations of employers, in particular hospitals and similar institutions, we should think again and make it six months. Therefore, for the moment I support the amendment.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, the assumption made here is that all the operations are humanitarian and that for the sixth-month rather than nine-month period which the amendment proposes they will remain either humanitarian or associated with disaster relief. One wonders whether that is a safe assumption. What happens if our armed forces get involved in operations in a theatre to which they have gone initially for humanitarian purposes? We have only to remember Somalia to recognise that it is not a safe assumption that any operation that starts as a humanitarian or disaster relief operation will invariably run its course as that and nothing else.

4.15 p.m.

Earl Howe

My Lords, we had an extensive debate on this important issue in Committee. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today, in particular my noble friend Lord Vivian who supported the wording in the Bill.

I turn initially to the point of definition raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Part VI contains three distinct powers of call-out. Clause 52 covers the most serious type of crisis. Clause 54 applies when warlike operations are in preparation or in progress. Clause 56 applies to humanitarian operations but also to peacekeeping and disaster relief operations. Whether a particular call-out power may be used in any given circumstances is a matter of act. The reservists who serve in Bosnia have been called out under Section 1 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 because it is clear that our forces are prepared for warlike operations. If the Bill were in force call-out might be under either Clause 54 or Clause 56, since the purpose of the operation would be essentially peacekeeping. If it were desired to call out reservists for peacekeeping operations that did not have a warlike element, clearly only Clause 56 would be applicable. United Nations-sponsored operations in Rwanda may be a good example, although whether it is under NATO or UN command is not strictly relevant. Whether or not it fell under Clause 56 would depend entirely on the facts of the case.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, rightly drew our attention to the possibility of the nature of the deployment starting as one thing and changing to something else. It is conceivable that the circumstances of an operation changed while reservists were called out. Clause 61 contains a power that would permit those individuals to be treated as if they had been called out under a different power appropriate to the new circumstances. That would not worsen their position. They could be released from service under the old power and immediately called out again under the new.

I do not believe that there is as great a difference between the Government's position and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as may appear at first sight. As he indicated in Committee perfectly correctly, it is the aim of the Army to limit emergency tours to six months for regular soldiers. However, one recognises that that is not always possible. Some personnel, especially in the logistics corps, serve for longer. The Royal Navy routinely deploys for seven months and often nine months. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord and I are agreed that the six-month target should be applied to reservists; that is, that reservists should not normally serve on operational tours for more than six months. I can happily give an undertaking to that effect. However, we part company when the noble and gallant Lord suggests that six months should be the statutory limit on called out service under Clause 56. It is clear to me that reservists should be able to undertake six-month operational deployments when called out under Clause 56. It is also clear that deployment must form part of a longer period of called out service. Time must be allowed at the start for the process of mobilisation itself. Time must be allowed either for individuals to be assimilated into a regular unit or for a group of reservists to form up; and time must be allowed for training, sometimes general, sometimes specialist and sometimes specific to the theatre of operations.

Inevitably, after the operational tour there will be a certain amount of administration to complete. After a six-month deployment a regular soldier is, quite properly, given leave, usually one week for separation and three weeks from his normal entitlement. Reservists should receive no less. I suggest that that will he just as important after humanitarian operations as in other cases. Our servicemen and women work just as hard and may have experiences that are as traumatic in humanitarian operations as in other kinds of operation. It is important that that leave should be protected from employer pressure to return to civilian work.

Following the debate in Committee the three services have reviewed the position. They have been able to draw on their current experience of call-out for operations in the former Yugoslavia. For the reasons I explained, the services remain of the view that a nine-month total period of called out service is necessary. Anything less will not permit the services to plan on reservists undertaking six-month operational tours alongside their regular colleagues.

Since the debate in Committee we have also taken fresh soundings within the TA. The volunteers are keen to be able to be called out to join regular units on operational tours, and they know that that requires a nine-month limit. The TA colonels, who make frequent visits to the units for which they are responsible, ARE unanimous that nine months is appropriate. One of those TA colonels is my noble friend the Duke of Westminster. He has written to me to express his views as the senior serving yeomanry officer. He asks me to say that he and the seven yeomanry commanding officers are unanimous in supporting the Government's view. I understand that the chairmen of the 14 Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations are also unanimous in their support of the nine-month limit, as the noble and gallant Lord himself indicated.

The House will appreciate that not all operations under Clause 56 will require the prolonged support of reservists. Some may last for only a few weeks or months. We will call out reservists for shorter periods than the maximum permitted whenever possible. We have done just that in the case of operations in Bosnia. I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that the TA REME provided twice as many volunteers as were sought for the Bosnia call-out. We must be able to plan on the basis of nine months' maximum permanent service for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The proposal to limit permanent service to six months will allow only about four and a half months in theatre, assuming that a long period of pre-deployment training is not required. The time in theatre will be further reduced if more pre-deployment training is required. For a prolonged operation the more limited the time reservists can spend in theatre the greater the number of reservists we will require to call out each year to fill a certain number of posts. That alone will both increase costs and inconvenience more employers.

The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the attitude of employers. I said in Committee that if a particular employer or reservist felt that he had good grounds on which to object to the duration of a call-out he could apply under Part VIII of the Bill for any of a number of remedies. He could seek exemption from call-out, deferral of call-out, or an earlier discharge date. These measures demonstrate that we are fully seized of the necessity to place as small a burden as possible on reservists and their employers. However, at the same time we must be able to make good and economic use of our reservists where there is a need for their service. In the consultation process the majority of employers were content with the nine-month period. Employers who would find that difficult can seek exemption.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, will be deal with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley? In view of what my noble friend said earlier, it would seem that that point has been overtaken except that my noble friend said that there would be cases involving humanitarian relief when men would be called out not for nine months but for six months. Let us suppose, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, it ceases to be a humanitarian matter but becomes an operational matter. Will it then be possible for that period of six months to be extended?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I believe that I covered that point earlier. I certainly endeavoured to do so. I mentioned that under Clause 61 there is a power which would allow individuals to be treated as if they had been called out under a different power should the circumstances of the deployment change. The point I emphasised was that that would not worsen their position were those circumstances to occur because they could be released from service under one power and then immediately called out again under the new power. That is how it would work. I believe that that answers the point that was raised.

There is more I could say about the damaging impact of the six-month limit that would be imposed by the amendment. I believe that the Government's proposals carry wide support within the services, within reserve forces particularly and within the TAVRAs. I hope I have now said sufficient to persuade the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, not to press the amendment.

Lord Braman

My Lords, I am most grateful for the thorough and articulate reply that the noble Earl has given on this very important subject. I am glad that we have had a good debate on the amendment. There ARE two sides to the argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has made abundantly clear, including giving me a lecture on man management, which he is perfectly entitled to do.

I do not want the Government to be over-optimistic about the relish that employers and employees will have in the future about compulsory call up. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, I do not think they should underestimate the position, particularly in the medical services, where I think the National Health Service will have strong views about letting their surgeons and anaesthetists go out to humanitarian operations overseas for too long when they have plenty of humanitarian operations to do back in their own country. I hope that the Government will be conscious of not compulsorily calling out these people for any longer than is necessary. The noble Earl gave an assurance that he had that very much in mind and that in the normal course of events six months overseas would be the maximum, the rest being taken up with some sort of mobilisation procedures.

I believe that the penny has dropped on this point. But if it has not dropped there could be considerable trouble ahead. The Government have taken great steps to consult inside the services, with the TAVRAs and with the regimental colonels. They have done a very good job in that. In view of the consultation that has taken place and in view of the Minister's assurance that he is conscious that it would be wrong to give the impression that volunteers or reservists would always be called up for more than six months, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 [Call-out notices]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 33, line 34, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have spoken to Amendments Nos. 24 to 28. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Liability to recall]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 36, line 37, leave out from ("service") to end of line 39 and insert ("under a recall order shall not be reckoned in any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 68 [Recall for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 39, line 10, after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 [Maximum duration of service on recall]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 40, line 9, after ("to") insert ("each House of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Recall notices]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 41, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any recall or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 72 [Period of service and release]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 42, line 2, leave out (" 68(7)") and insert (" 68(8)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 30:

After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

RECALL NOT TO AFFECT SERVICE PENSIONS

(". Where a person to or in respect of whom a service pension is payable has been accepted into service under a recall order—

1. (a) any pay or other emoluments to which he is entitled in respect of his service on recall shall not be reduced by reason of the service pension;
2. (b) the service pension shall not be withheld or reduced by reason of any such pay or emoluments.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the light of the Committee debate on pensions, I reviewed the provisions in the Bill. One particular provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 had not been carried forward into the Bill. It concerns those in receipt of a service pension who would be, as former regulars, liable to recall into service under Part VII of the Bill. The usual Treasury rule is that when an individual in receipt of a public service pension is re-employed in a similar capacity that pension should be stopped or abated. Section 31(5) of the 1980 Act gives statutory exemption from that rule to service pensioners recalled to service in an emergency. This amendment replicates that protection for those liable to recall under Part VII. They will not all be service pensioners but a proportion will be. This is a very straightforward point. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part VII]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 43, line 45, after ("before") insert ("each House of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 80 [Regulations under sections 77 and 78: supplementary]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 47, line 8, leave out (" 69(7)") and insert (" 69(6)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 85 [Power to suspend payments due to national danger or great emergency]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 50, line 5, after ("before") insert ("each House of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 97 [Punishment etc. of offences of desertion or absence without leave]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 54, line 40, after ("of') insert ("desertion or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 35. These two minor amendments correct the references to "desertion" in Clause 97. The words "desertion or" are, from the construction of the subsection, clearly missing from Clause 97(2). Clause 96(2) creates an offence of absence without leave. The reference to that subsection in Clause 97(4) means that the words "desertion or" should be removed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 55, line 3, leave out ("desertion or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 116 [Regulations as to associations]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 62, line 21, after ("before") insert ("each House of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 121 [Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 63, line 24. leave out ("section 58 or 59") and insert ("Part VI").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 63, line 29. at end insert—.

("( ) After section I. there shall be inserted—"

Obligation not to discriminate.

1A.—(1) It is unlawful for a person. in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain. to discriminate against another on the grounds that he is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

1. (a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or
2. (b) in the terms on which he offers him that employment; or
3. (c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, on the grounds that that employee is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

1. (a) in the terms of employment which he affords him; or
2. (b) in the way he affords him access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities to services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or
3. (c) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to benefits, facilities or services of any description if the employer is concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of benefits, facilities or services of that description to the public, or to a section of the public comprising the employee in question, unless—

1. (a) that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits, facilities or services by the employer to his employee; or

1. (b) the provision of the benefits, facilities or services to the employee in question is regulated by his contract of employment; or
2. (c) the benefits, facilities or services relate to training.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 38 which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We return to this amendment on the issue of non-discrimination in employment because it will be recalled that in Committee, following a briefing that we received from the British Medical Association, we tabled an amendment which sought to make it illegal for employers to try to prevent employees from joining the reserve forces and fulfilling their training and other obligations arising from that. We received information that the Minister was sympathetic to our point of view.

We were assured by the BMA that it is common for employers in the NHS to try to discriminate, despite assurances to the contrary. Some NHS trusts ARE apparently issuing contracts which do not permit medical staff to join the reserves. The BMA in particular was concerned that the competitive nature of the internal market was likely to lead to an increase in the number of trusts attempting to do that and to put obstacles in the way of staff wishing to join the reserves.

As I said earlier, the Minister appeared to be aware of the BMA's concerns when we discussed the matter in Committee. However, he does not appear to have tabled a government amendment to try to come to terms with those concerns, so we have largely repeated the wording that we tabled in Committee. I hope that the Minister will now be able to say that he is prepared to accept our amendment—or, if not this, something similar which could be accepted formally on Third Reading.

It is not only a question affecting employers in the NHS. Our amendment would cover employers generally because we believe that discrimination against employees who want to become members of the reserve forces should not be permitted and that it should be stated on the face of the Bill that such discrimination is illegal. The BMA is still worried about the matter. Indeed, as recently as this morning I received a telephone call from its office asking whether we intended to pursue the amendment. In the circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment this time round. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I support the amendment which returns us to an issue that was raised in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in Committee that one way of avoiding discrimination was to work through the National Employers' Liaison Committee. That body has done great work in the past and should be praised.

However, I should like to press the point that it is not only the National Health Service which could he affected. In the case of the high readiness reserve, what would happen if a particular section of the business community saw that its employees would be needed for particular operations and started to take it upon itself to write into contracts of employment clauses forbidding employees from becoming reservists? That is more likely to apply in the case of smaller companies which will fall outside the general system of negotiation. What would be the attitude of the Ministry of Defence to that? How would the MoD address the problem? I realise that it is unlikely that the Minister will support the amendment, and that reintroducing such provisions would need primary legislation which is unlikely to be brought forward. Therefore, what measures does the Minister envisage being taken if the scenario that I have outlined comes to pass?

Lord Renton

My Lords, naturally in principle one should be in favour of an amendment of this kind. On the face of it and at first glance, it looks sensible and sound, but all manner of complications arise. They are analogous when wartime comes—some of us still remember that—with the principle of reserved occupations in time of war. If that principle were to be accepted by the Government as part of our legislation, I expect that the provisions would have to be redrafted stating very considerable exceptions in order to deal with circumstances where it would manifestly be wrong to compel somebody to refrain from employing a person in the reserve forces. Therefore, I would expect my noble friend to be cautious on this matter. I was not able to be present in Committee, but I understand that the matter was at least raised then. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it now.

Earl Howe

My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, we discussed this issue extensively in Committee. I am not convinced that the case that she makes for an anti-discrimination provision is the best way ahead. The proposal is full of good intent, but I fear that it would not have the desired effect because it would damage the relationship between employers, the reserve forces and those employees who are also reservists.

I am firmly of the opinion that the constructive approach that we have adopted to date should continue. Building and maintaining the three-way partnership between employers, reservists and the Ministry of Defence requires openness and trust.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the work of the National Employers' Liaison Committee (NELC) and I too take this opportunity of saying that the Government ARE most appreciative of NELC's work. It has been particularly helpful during consultations on the Bill. It is upon that body that much of the successful co-operation rests. We have no wish to move from this co-operative approach, which is generally successful, to one which cannot help but be adversarial in nature.

An anti-discrimination measure would also be widely perceived as a punitive burden on employers. The expense to business of complying with such a measure would be unwelcome to employers. Businesses would not welcome the constraints on their management flexibility that would be imposed by having to avoid any suggestion that they were treating a reservist in some way unfavourably. Many employers might as a result come to the conclusion that the easiest way of avoiding the problem was simply to avoid recruiting reservists in the first place. Discrimination of that nature at the time of recruitment to employment is inevitably difficult to substantiate.

It follows that far from encouraging the employment of reserves, such a measure could be counterproductive. Any change in employer attitudes would affect not only the volunteer reserves, but also ex-regular servicemen and women seeking to establish a civilian career. Nor do I believe that the amendment would be of benefit to reservists in employment. It would inevitably begin to change the relationship between a reservist and his employer from a constructive and open one into being an adversarial and confrontational one. In those circumstances, neither the reservist nor the employer would benefit.

Perhaps I may comment in passing on a thought prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. To achieve even a modest and effective provision in the spirit of the amendment which the noble Baroness has proposed would require a quite substantial Bill in its own right. The Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act run to over 70 and 80 sections respectively. An initial assessment is that a substantial number of sections would he needed to achieve an equivalent level of protection for reservists.

During the proceedings in Committee and again today, the noble Baroness expressed concern that some employers were attempting to bar employees from joining the volunteer reserves by writing terms into their contracts to that effect. It appears to be the wish of the noble Baroness to make it unlawful to incorporate a term in a contract which purports to bar an employee from being a reservist. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary. The existing law copes with that situation. The Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 provides that it is a criminal offence to sack an employee who is a reservist because of his or her reserve liability. Therefore, if an employee became a reservist in breach of a term in his contract and the employer attempted to sack him, the employer could be prosecuted for so doing. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it might also be an unfair dismissal. If action less than dismissal were attempted that might be constructive dismissal.

I believe that the existing provisions in law achieve the effect that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords desire. I cannot agree that any significant change in the law is necessary. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I urge her to think again.

Before I conclude, perhaps with the leave of the House I may address briefly two separate but connected issues relating to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. In the light of the debate in Committee, we have looked again at the provisions of that Act, which I remind noble Lords gives reservists who enter into a period of permanent service a right to reinstatement in their civilian employment. It also makes it a criminal offence to dismiss an individual for being a reservist before the date on which he is required to report for the purpose of commencing his permanent service. That would leave an individual who attended on the day his call-out notice required, but who was not accepted into service, without either of the protections that I have mentioned. That is undesirable and I intend to bring forward a simple amendment on Third Reading in order to rectify that deficiency.

During an informal discussion the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised the position under the 1985 Act of a female reservist who was granted maternity leave while called out. The 1985 Act makes no explicit mention of maternity leave. That might not jeopardise the position under the Act of a pregnant female reservist, but I recognise that it would be preferable for the position to be beyond doubt. I will consider whether an amendment can he prepared for a later stage in the consideration of the Bill, perhaps even for Third Reading next week.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation. However, I do not altogether share his sanguine view about the lack of necessity for any kind of protection on the face of the Bill. It is clear that people who have studied the Bill, including members of the BMA, have real doubts about the degree to which their members are protected if they wish to become reservists. They are keen to have some kind of provision on the face of the Bill which gives the necessary protection as they see it.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, commented on what happens in the case of war and reserve occupations. I believe that in such a circumstance there would he a necessity for special legislation to protect that position. Real anxieties were expressed by a number of people when the Bill was first published and I am not at all certain that the Minister's explanation covers them all. Nevertheless, I will read Hansard and study what has been said because the reply was detailed with references to the 1985 Act and so forth. It is to be hoped that we will arrive at a situation in which people feel they are adequately protected.

I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration that he has given to other aspects of the 1985 Act. I look forward to seeing the text of the two amendments which he intends to introduce at Third Reading, including an amendment in relation to women who become pregnant. That issue was raised during our informal discussions and in our discussions in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 [Absence for voting]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 64, line 18, leave out from ("at") to end of line and insert ("—

1. (a) any election of a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament, or
2. (b) any local election, or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rubric of Clause 124 is "Absence for voting". In Committee I made the point that the clause refers only to voting at an election of a Member of Parliament. As I also said in Committee, I believe that no one should be punished on account of his absence from duty in the election of either a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament or even voting in local elections. I am pleased to say that the force of that argument was accepted by the noble Earl. In that spirit, I move the amendment to include Members of the European Parliament and local councillors as being people for whom reservists might conveniently vote without penalty. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment, in particular the reference to local elections. It would be most unfortunate if potential voters missed their opportunity to vote.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue in Committee and I believe that he makes a powerful point. It is right that individuals should have the opportunity to vote in elections of all kinds. The amendment provides for that and I am happy to accept it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 40:

After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—

APPLICATION OF ACT TO PERSONS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE RESERVE

FORCES OR REGULAR SERVICES

(".—(1) Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members) shall have effect with respect to the application of this Act in relation to members of the reserve forces who are members of the transitional class. (2) Nothing in the Reserve Forces Act 1980 shall apply to a member of a reserve force who is not a member of the transitional class or, in the case of a person who is to be transferred to the reserve from the regular services, is not capable of becoming a member of the transitional class. (3) In this Act "the transitional class", in relation to members of the reserve forces, shall be construed in accordance with Part I of Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. The three amendments adapt the provisions of the Bill to those individuals with reserved rights to be called out under the existing powers in the Reserve Forces Act 1980 and the prerogative powers applicable to certain officers. They will be able to opt to become fully subject to the Bill. The new clause after Clause 127 introduces the schedule. It also provides that the Reserve Forces Act 1980 will not apply to individuals fully subject to the Bill. The new schedule draws together transitional provisions which were formally spread throughout the Bill in what I believe to he a much clearer and more coherent form. The amendment to Schedule 8 is a consequential change.

The Bill includes the repeal of almost the whole of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. However, the repeal of the sections which continue to apply to these individuals with reserved rights will not he made effective immediately. Those sections will continue to be in force while there are individuals subject to them. In particular as regards former regulars, that could be for a considerable period. In theory, it could be as long as 43 years. That period would be reduced if those who had most recently joined the regular services were to opt to be subject to the new liabilities. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, for reasons which my noble friend has given, it is plain that we need the new clause. It is purely a drafting matter but the proposed new schedule in Amendment No. 51 appears to be incredibly elaborate. One would have hoped that some general phrase which covered all or most of the provisions referred to could have been inserted instead of the mass of detail. Indeed, it might have been done by delegated legislation.

Speaking for myself and for many others, one does not like to see Acts of Parliament cluttered up with too much purely technical detail. I say that in the hope that the draftsman on this occasion and other draftsmen on other occasions may well advise the Government on ways in which we can ensure that Acts of Parliament are not cluttered with such relatively minor detail.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I too accept the need for such a schedule. It sets out with a certain amount of clarity what is necessary. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that some of the drafting of the schedule appears to be odd. I am surprised to find expressions such as "transitional officer" and "transitional man". I presume that "transitional man" includes "transitional woman". I am not quite sure what that means but I find that transitional men and women may raise a number of problems with which your Lordships may not wish to deal.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I believe that it would he accurate to say that either of those situations could arise.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows more about this matter than I do. I ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that the drafting is of the standard which legislation requires. I understand that the subject matter is right and needs to he dealt with but perhaps the Minister would look at that matter.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Renton for their remarks. As I said, I am satisfied that the schedule is necessary and, indeed, as I have indicated, I believe that it sets out in a clearer and more coherent form provisions which were previously spread about the Bill.

However, having heard those strictures, I shall certainly study the wording. I am entirely in sympathy with the general theme of the remarks made by my noble friend—that is, that Occam's razor, as it were, should be applied wherever possible to Plato's beard. I am sure that that is something which should commend itself to all parliamentary draftsmen. Having said that, I commend the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Charitable property on disbanding of units]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 76, line 21, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 to 49.

These minor and technical amendments serve principally to bring the provisions on charities established for the benefit of reserve forces in Scottish law more into line with those for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to clarify the duties of the Lord Advocate in connection with this schedule.

I should not wish to burden your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the amendments but I should he happy to explain any questions that are raised with me. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am not an expert on Scottish charity law. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me in what respect Scottish charitable law differs from English and indeed Welsh charitable law so that these amendments are necessary.

Earl Howe

My Lords, that in itself would require an essay and perhaps more debating time than is available this afternoon. I should he happy to encapsulate in as brief a space as possible, perhaps on paper, to the noble Lord, the precise aspects in which Scottish charitable law differs from English law. Rather than read out the extensive notes which I have here, perhaps the noble Lord will accept that suggestion.

Lord Judd

My Lords, while we are looking at this matter, I wonder whether I may draw attention to Amendment No. 42 and merely register a point. While we are delighted to see that the Government are proposing this amendment and that the lines in question should he deleted, we are concerned that at several points in the Bill in the early stages of drafting there have been extraordinarily general provisions. We seek an assurance from the Minister that he will take that up with those concerned to make sure that future legislation is specific. It is distressing that we should always have to go back to passages like this in order to make sure that very sweeping generalisations are removed.

Earl Howe

My Lords, with the leave of the House, as we are on Report, I shall respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Amendments Nos. 42, 45 and 48 arise as a result of examination of the Bill since its introduction. Some slight inconsistencies have been revealed between the provisions of Part III of the schedule, which deals with succession to charitable property in Scotland, and their counterparts for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I say, we are seeking to bring Scottish provisions into line with those which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These amendments simply make minor drafting changes.

I share the noble Lord's frustration at having to make such alterations and to bring in general provisions but I am advised that they are extremely necessary and desirable for the good governance of the country.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 49:

Page 77, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Page 77, line 32, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").

Page 77, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 42 and insert ("for the court to make an order—

1. (a) providing that paragraph 9 shall cease to apply to that property or part; and
2. (b) exercising,").

Page 77, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—

("( ) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may exercise any such power as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to make such order as it considers to be appropriate, whether or not that power would normally be exercisable at the instance of such a petitioner.").

Page 78, line 5, leave out ("may") and insert ("—

1. (a) if he has not given a direction under paragraph 9, may; and
2. (b) if he has given such a direction, shall,").

Page 78, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may, subject to any such direction, exercise any such power to make such order as it considers to be appropriate, whether or not that power would normally be exercisable at the instance of the Lord Advocate.").

Page 78, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("affect") in line 11, and insert ("None of the following, that is to say, a warrant, a direction under paragraph 10 or an order under paragraph 11 or 12 shall").

Page 78, line 45. leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Transitory and transitional provisions]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 86, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—

("(4) If any such officer or man is transferred to a reserve force on or after the day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members)—

1. (a) he shall he regarded for the purposes of paragraph 2 of that Schedule as if he had been a member of that force since immediately before the appointed day;
2. (b) the references in that paragraph to "that time" shall be taken to refer to the time at which he was transferred to the reserve force.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 51:

After Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE

APPLICATION OF ACT TO TRANSITIONAL MEMBERS

PART 1

THE TRANSITIONAL CLASS OF MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE FORCES

1.—(1) The transitional class consists of persons who—

1. (a) ARE members of a reserve force:
2. (b) for the time being fall within paragraph 2 or 3; and
3. (c) have not made an election under paragraph 4.

(2) In this Schedule "transitional member" means a member of a reserve force who for the time being is a member of the transitional class; and "transitional officer" and "transitional man" shall he construed accordingly.

(3) In this Part of this Schedule "the appointed day" means such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

2. A person who, immediately before the appointed day, was an officer or man of a reserve force falls within this paragraph if—

1. (a) he has remained a member of that force without interruption since that time; and
2. (b) he has not extended his service in, or become an officer of, that force since that time.

3. An officer or man who becomes a member of a reserve force on or after the appointed day, on transfer to the reserve from the regular services, falls within this paragraph if—

1. (a) he joined the regular services before the appointed day and did not re-enlist, re-engage or extend his service, or become an officer, in the regular services on or after that day;
2. (b) he has remained a member of the reserve force concerned without interruption since being transferred from the regular services; and
3. (c) he has not extended his service in, or become an officer of, that force since being so transferred.

4.—(1) A person who is a transitional member of a reserve force by virtue of paragraph 2 or 3 may elect to cease being a transitional member.

(2) An officer or man serving in the regular services who—

1. (a) joined those services before the appointed day: and
2. (b) has not re-enlisted, re-engaged or extended his service, or become an officer, on or after that day.

may elect not to be a transitional member on his transfer to the reserve.

(3) An election under this paragraph is irrevocable and must be made in the prescribed manner.

(4) A person who has made an election under this paragraph shall cease to be or. as the case may he, shall not become a transitional member of the reserve force concerned.

5.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule "man", in relation to the regular services, means a person of or below the rank or rate of warrant officer.

(2) A person in permanent service on recall (whether under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, in the case of an officer, otherwise than under this Act) shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as serving in the regular services.

PART II

APPLICATION OF ACT TO MEMBERS OF TOE TRANSITIONAL CLASS

6. The provisions of this Act (other than section (Application of Act to persons currently serving in the reserve forces or regular services) and this Schedule) apply in relation to members of the transitional class in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.

7.—(1) Any reference in this Act to a reserve force, to two or inure of the reserve forces or to all the reserve forces shall, unless the context otherwise requires, he construed as a reference to the whole of the force, or of each force, concerned, including any transitional members.

(2) Any reference in this Act to members. officers or men of a reserve force includes, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to members, officers or men who are transitional members.

(3) This paragraph has effect subject to the exceptions and modifications in the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.

8.—(1) In the application of section 17(1) to a transitional man. the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

(2) Section 17(2), (3) and (4) do not apply to transitional men.

9.—(1) In the application of sections 18, 20 and 21 to a transitional man, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

(2) In the application of section 21 to a transitional man of the Royal Fleet Reserve, the reference to training and other duties includes a reference to training or other duties in pursuance of any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

10. Section 22 does not apply to transitional members of a reserve land, air or marine force.

11. In the application of section 24 to a transitional member who has entered into a full-time service commitment—

1. (a) for the reference in subsection (7) to permanent service under Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to permanent service on call out under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, under any other call-out obligations of an officer; and
2. (b) for the reference in subsection (8) to training under section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to training required under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, under any other training obligations of an officer.

12.—(1) Transitional members may (subject to the provisions of this Act) enter into a special agreement or an employee agreement; and Parts IV and V apply accordingly.

(2) Transitional members of a reserve force do not lose their status as transitional members by virtue of either becoming special members of the force or (where they continue as ordinary members under section 42) ceasing to be special members of the force.

13. In the application of section 31(1) to a special agreement entered into by a transitional member, for the reference in paragraph (d) to permanent service under Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, under any other call-out obligations of an officer.

14. In the application of section 34(5) to transitional members. the reference in paragraph (b) to section 57(11) shall be omitted.

15. In the application of section 40(5) to a transitional special member—

1. (a) for the reference to section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other training obligations of an officer;
2. (b) for the reference to Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to the corresponding provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer.

16. An order may he made under section 41(6) suspending the operation of section 41(1)(c) in relation to transitional special members, notwithstanding that Part VI does not apply to transitional members.

17. In the application of section 45(5) to transitional members, the reference in paragraph (b) to section 57(11) shall be omitted.

18. Part VI does not apply to transitional members.

19. Regulations under section 77, 82 or 83 may make provision. in relation to transitional members liable to be called out under—

1. (a) the Reserve Forces Act 1980, or
2. (b) any other call-out obligations of officers,

corresponding to the provision which may be made in regulations under that section in relation to members of the reserve forces liable to he called out under Part VI of this Act.

20. In the application of section 95(1) to a transitional member—

1. (a) the reference to any provision of this Act includes a reference to any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer; and
2. (b) for the reference in paragraph (a) to section 58(3)(c) there shall be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of that Act or those obligations.

21. In the application of section 96(2) to a transitional member, for the reference to section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other training obligations of an officer.

22. In the application of section 101(2) to transitional members—

1. (a) the reference in paragraph (a) to any provision of this Act includes a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer;
2. (b) the reference in paragraph (d) to training includes (except in the case of members of a reserve naval force) a reference to the corresponding training required under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, under any other training obligations of an officer.

23. In the application of section 122(1) to a transitional man, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

24. In the application of section 124 to a transitional member, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be. under any other call-out obligations of an officer.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 87, leave out lines 8 to 38 and insert—

("1.—(1) Section 205(1) (persons subject to military law) of the Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph (e) there shall he substituted the following paragraphs—

"(e) every officer of the Territorial Army who is not a special member; (ea) every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not); (eb) every officer of the army reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve;".

(3) In paragraph (g) for the words from "called" to the end there shall he substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve:".

(4) In paragraph (h) for the words from "embodied" to "parades" there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty". 2. At the end of section 205 of that Act there shall he inserted the following subsection—

"(4) In this section— "full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996: "permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer; and "special member" has the same meaning as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996."

3.—(1) Section 210(2) (application of section 205 to Royal Marines) of that Act shall be amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (a) there shall he inserted the following paragraph— (aa) any reference to an officer of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to an officer of the Royal Marines Reserve or a marine officer of the Royal Fleet Reserve;".

(3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(b) any reference to a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or man of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or a marine of the Royal Marines Reserve and to a marine warrant officer or non-commissioned officer or a marine of the Royal Fleet Reserve; and (ba) any reference to the permanent staff of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to the permanent staff of the Royal Marines Reserve or the Royal Fleet Reserve."

4. In section 210(3) of that Act, for the words "the Royal Marines Reserve or" there shall be substituted the words "or the Royal Marines Reserve and a marine officer, marine warrant officer or non-commissioned officer or a marine of".

5. In section 210(4) of that Act, for the word "or" there shall be substituted the words "and to marine officers, marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers and marines of".

6. After subsection (5) of section 210 of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6) For the purposes of this section references to marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers and marines of the Royal Fleet Reserve shall be construed as references to persons who were transferred to that force from the Royal Marines or who enlisted in that force as marines."

7.—(1) Section 211 (application of Act to reserve forces) of that Act shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

1. (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "any reserve of officers" there shall he substituted the words "the army reserve"; and
2. (b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(b) officers of the Territorial Army when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the Territorial Army,".

(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(2) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 17 shall apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the army reserve and the Territorial Army as if the references to forfeited service were references to a period of permanent service or, as the case may he. of service as a member of the force concerned, which is to be disregarded under section 97(6) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996."

(4) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(4) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (4A) below shall apply to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the army reserve and the Territorial Army only when they are in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve or the Territorial Army.

(4A) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) above are—

1. (a) sections 150 to 153 of this Act;
2. (b) except insofar as they may he applied by regulations made under section 102(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to the award of stoppages and sections 144 to 149 of this Act."

(5) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(6) Section 182 of this Act shall not apply at any time to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the Territorial Army."

(6) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(8) An officer of the army reserve or the Territorial Army may be attached temporarily to any of Her Majesty's naval or air forces whether or not he is in permanent service but, if not in permanent service, shall not be so attached except with his consent."

(7) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) In this section— "full-time service" mean service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996; and "permanent service" means permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer."

8. In paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 (provisions as to Royal Marines: application of section 211) to that Act—

1. (a) after the words "Royal Marines Reserve" there shall be inserted the words "or marine officers, marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers or marines or; and
2. (b) for the words "any reserve of officers" there shall be substituted the words "the army reserve".

Air Force Act 1955 (c.19)

9.—(1) Section 205(1) (persons subject to air-force law) of the Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect.

(3) For paragraph (f) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(f) every officer of the air force reserve or Royal Auxiliary Air Force who is not a special member; (ff) every officer of the air force reserve or Royal Auxiliary Air Force who is a special member, when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not);".

(4) In paragraph (h). for the words from "called" to the end there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve;".

(5) In paragraph (i), for the words from "embodied" to "parades" there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty"

10. For subsection (3) of section 205 of that Act there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(3) In this section— "air forces commission" means a commission in the Royal Air Force, the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; "full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996; "permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer; "special member" has the same meaning as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996."

11 .—(1) Section 210 (application of Act to reserve forces) of that Act shall he amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(a) officers of the air force reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve,"; and.

(b) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(c) officers of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force,".

(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(2) Subsection (4) of section 17 shall apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the air force reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as if the references to forfeited service were references to a period of permanent service or, as the case may he, of service as a member of the force concerned, which is to be disregarded under section 97(6) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996."

(4) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(4) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (4A) below shall apply to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the air force reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force only when they are in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

(4A) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) above are—

1. (a) sections 150 to 153 of this Act;
2. (b) except insofar as they may be applied by regulations made under section 102(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to the award of stoppages and sections 144 to 149 of this Act."

(5) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(6) Section 182 of this Act shall not apply at any time to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force."

(6) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(8) An officer of the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force may be attached temporarily to any of Her Majesty's naval or military forces whether or not he is in permanent service but, if not in permanent service, shall not be so attached except with his consent."

(7) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) In this section— "full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996; "permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer."

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53)

12.—(1) Section 111 (application of Act to naval forces etc.) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(3) Any officer or rating of any of the naval reserve forces is subject to this Act while—

1. (a) in permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer;
2. (b) in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
3. (c) undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not); or
4. (d) serving on the permanent staff of the Royal Fleet Reserve or the Royal Naval Reserve."

(3) In subsection (4), for the words from "naval" to the end there shall be substituted the words "person recalled to the Royal Navy under section 30 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or Part VII of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is subject to this Act from the time he is accepted into service until duly released or discharged."

13. In section 132 (definitions of Her Majesty's forces, etc.) of that Act—

1. (a) in subsection (7), for the words from "warrant" to the end there shall be substituted the words "marine officers and persons who were transferred to that force from the Royal Marines or who enlisted as marines.";
2. (b) for subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(8) In this Act "naval reserve forces" means the Royal Fleet Reserve (except so far as it consists of marine officers and persons who were transferred from the Royal Marines or who enlisted as marines) and the Royal Naval Reserve." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Again, I shall endeavour not to burden your Lordships with a long exposition on the amendments.

Schedule 9 makes changes to the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. The changes take account of the new forms of service introduced under the Bill. Their effect is as follows. Special members under Part V of the Bill will invariably he subject to service law only when on duty. Conversely, individuals on full-time reserve service under Clause 24, and members of a reserve force serving on the permanent staff of that force, will he subject to service law at all times.

The schedule also removes obsolete terminology from the sections of the Service Discipline Acts concerned with reserves. The amendments to Schedule 10 are minor consequential changes to the schedule of repeals. I beg to move.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House at this stage. Earlier the noble Earl said that he would look at Clause 21 and the possibility of. refining the wording. I hope that when he does that and considers the arguments that we put forward, he will look also at the implications of this schedule to see how far it is tied 10 accommodating the points about which we ARE anxious as distinct from investigating ways in which the situation could he changed.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am happy to take that point on hoard and I shall look into the matter as the noble Lord suggests.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Repeals]:

Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:

Page 89, line 27, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.

Page 89, line 35, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert ("Section 205(1)(c).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.