My Lords, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Judd is clearly designed to cover the general issue of the recruitment of 16 and 17-year-olds into the Armed Forces. It is worth reflecting on the history in this country of young people in the Armed Forces. In the 19th century, two young men—aged 15, I think—received Victoria Crosses. I have no doubt that on 30 May, my noble friend Admiral Lord West will find some way of reminding us that it is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland, at which, famously, a young person, Jack Cornwell, Boy 1st Class, won the Victoria Cross at the age of just 16. So before discussing the present terms of recruitment, we must remember that in the past young recruits have played a brave part in the history of our Armed Forces.
Things have changed, however; nobody would suggest it is other than absolutely right that things have changed. In terms of how we represent ourselves to the world, these young people, the terms and conditions, and so on, we must take a thoroughly modern approach. I hope that the approach being taken by Her Majesty’s Armed Forces is satisfactory, but this is an appropriate occasion to test those conditions and receive, I hope, assurances from the Minister. He has helpfully sent us an email, which I will quote from, and I hope he will read those assurances into the record. In his email, he makes a number of points, but I will quote the key ones:
“No-one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process … Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK except where the operation does not involve personnel becoming engaged in, or exposed to, hostilities”.
The third important point is:
“All recruits aged under 18 are enrolled onto apprenticeships”.
Obviously, it would be useful if that could be fleshed out a little more. The next point is:
“All Service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, and the right of discharge is made clear to all Service personnel on joining the Armed Forces”.
Given those assurances, we continue generally to support the recruitment of young people into the Armed Forces. We think it has the potential to provide a good grounding for their future career and life in general.
3 pm
However, I have a couple of additional questions. First, there is a lingering doubt in one’s mind about the opportunity to withdraw from the Armed Forces at 18. How is that facilitated? Is it facilitated in a non-coercive environment where the young person clearly knows that he or she has that choice? Are they reminded, approaching their 18th birthday, that they have this option? Do they have available any advice to help them make that decision?
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, we are proud signatories of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For the avoidance of doubt, Article 1 says:
“For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”.
Majority is not attained earlier in the UK, so clearly these 16 and 17 year-olds are children for the purposes of the convention. Article 3(1) says:
“In all actions concerning children”—
which these people clearly are—
“whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
Does the Minister feel that the Armed Forces fall under those general categories? If so, do they have the obligation set out in Article 3 to take the rights of the child as paramount in how these young people are handled? What mechanism do the Armed Forces have to show that they have properly discharged that responsibility?
As to the slightly more complicated question of whether my noble friend Lord Judd’s idea of a report is the right vehicle by which to continue to focus on this area of concern, I will listen to the debate and to the Minister’s response. But, if we are to continue to have young people in the Armed Forces and as a generality we find that an attractive idea, it is absolutely clear and important that the general public should be confident that the rights of these young people are properly protected and that their ability to leave the Armed Forces, if they so choose, before their age of majority is ensured.