Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: After Clause 340, insert the following new clause- ““SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL UNDER THE AGE OF 18 (1) Service personnel under the age of 18 are not permitted to serve in combat areas. (2) Service personnel under the age of 18 are not permitted to carry out guard duty with live weapons. (3) Service personnel under the age of 17 are to be accommodated in dedicated locations, and particular attention is to be given to their care.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement on Report that we should defer debating this amendment until Third Reading. Amendment No. 6 seeks to constrain the manner in which those members of the Armed Forces under the age of 18 may be used and treated. There would be a prohibition on service in combat areas, and they would be prohibited from guarding using live weapons. The amendment also requires special handling of those members of the Armed Forces who are under 17. I described in Committee how the amendment would implement the clear recommendations stemming from Nicholas Blake QC’s investigation into the tragedy of Deepcut barracks. I also explained our disappointment over the Government’s response to the Blake report. I remind your Lordships what the Blake report said. Recommendation 3 was: "““The Army should plan to eliminate the need for soldiers to join their units in the field army on completion of Phase 1 and 2 training until they reach the age of 18””." Recommendation 27(iii) said: "““The minimum age for trained soldiers in the field army to conduct unsupervised armed guard duty should be 18””." Recommendation 2(i) said: "““Those under 17 should be trained in establishments exclusive to this age group””." The Government, in their response to the report, have given various reasons why they are either unwilling or do not have the resources to implement those recommendations. In any event, it should not have needed the horrors that we all read about and debated following Deepcut to make the Government face up to their responsibilities in this area. On 24 July 2003, the United Kingdom ratified the UN optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. This protocol says in Article 1: "““States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities””." Article 3 recognises that, "““persons under the age of 18 years are entitled to special protection””." The amendment both deals with the Blake recommendations and brings us in line with what we have ratified in the UN protocol. The Minister wrote to me on 24 October. I, too, pay tribute to the ceaseless work that both he and the staff have done in briefing us and keeping us aware. The problem is that there is always no change; and there are always explanations of why there is no intent to modernise in this Bill, but merely to bring together ancient law. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us which other European nations take the view that under-18s can be put into combat. His letter tells me that the proposals by Blake and ourselves regarding combat areas ignore, "““the practical reality that does very occasionally arise. For example, ships have been diverted to operations at minutes’ notice””." That means that the MoD is in breach of its obligations under the protocol. It should not place under-18s in a position where it knows that this may happen. It is not terribly difficult to keep them in the training area if there are going to be under-18s in the armed services. If the MoD is to hold to its position where the United Kingdom is internationally criticised for its policy and will not put in place these most basic safeguards, we shall subsequently need to examine carefully whether recruiting under-18s into the military should continue in this country. I beg to move.