I was referring only to the circumstance previously described, of someone not 'signed in', who would not be claiming MTDs and would therefore not be paid in that particular instance. Therefore not a casual worker engaged and 'under control' of the MoD.
In short, these are all the really tricky issues that the government has to overcome through proper legislative changes, that cut through the uncertainty and unreasonableness of the relationship. TA - 'casual worker', not employee as defined in 96 Act cited by Duke, and not even 'contracted' on a zero hours contract, because no 'statement of particulars' exists. AR 'future' - to be part time employees with TACOS scaled down but aligned to Reg TACOS (including pension rigts) to facilitate commitment as an employee on flexible terms. Will we ever get there?
I must admit to being pessimistic - or realistic, take your pick.
First, you need to convince Parliament that we need compulsion in peacetime for peacetime Ops and exercises. The laws already on the books allow compulsory mobilisation en masse for TTW, war and so on. We only have a problem as the Army couldn't deploy 1 in 10 on peacetime standing tasks without the TA then AR. Said tasks are now politically terminally toxic, so why do we need changes ? It is perceived that the Army will be either at home on NTMs of various lengths or deployed on something which is actually helping to protect the UK for which there will be massive popular support. (Save of course ELLAMY style dets of the usual suspects)
Reality may differ of course, so the task the Army face is to convince government that change is actually needed. So again, how are you going to persuade politicians that they should spend political capital, brass off employers, cost firms money - all in the middle of a bloody recession FFS ! - to support future massively unpopular campaigns of choice.
Then we have the fact that if you're looking at the task of defending UK PLC then we need a larger RN. We do not need 82k regular soldiers. Given the economy there is no money; so cutting the Army again to pay for the RN is the least worst option. So why do we need the AR on a hair trigger again ?
And finally, the Army has told Parliament that FR2020 will work under current legislation. Either the Army as a body is untrustworthy and incompetent or no changes are needed.