UK Parliament / Open data

Armed Forces Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Garden, presenting and explaining his amendment. When I looked at it before he spoke, it seemed like a multiple independent military vehicle. First, it says clearly in subsection (1), "““under the age of 18””." I was not aware until my noble friend Lord Attlee spoke that training for such action could begin at such a young age. I apologise for taking your Lordships back to 1957 when I served for two years under the National Service Act, and three members of my squad celebrated their 18th birthdays during the first three weeks of our training. I know that circumstances have changed. I hope that the Minister will not dally unduly with my sundry thoughts. Perhaps he will cover my queries in writing; I am not asking for a reply this afternoon. I am interested to know that it would be possible for young men, and possibly young women, under the age of 18 to serve in combat areas. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Garden, explained that detailing who will or will not be in their 19th year in a ship’s company when the ship might be called into action would be extraordinarily difficult. Such a provision would be extraordinarily hard for all three services, especially as they are now. I have great sympathy with subsection (2), and understand it, thanks to the tragic events at Deepcut. But how would that subsection mix with what we understand from subsection (1), and with what my noble friend said—that young men and women may start their training at the age of 17? If they are permitted to serve in a combat area or are deemed safe to use live weapons, why should they be proscribed from carrying out guard duty with live weapons under the watershed age of 18? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about subsection (3) which states that, "““dedicated locations, and particular attention is to be given to their care””." That is praiseworthy but no doubt the Minister will have an excellent explanation. I do not seek to waste more of your Lordships’ time this afternoon.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

686 c616 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top