| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth): Does the Minister agree that towns such as Hinckley are examples of places in which the improvements should be most effective in
regional collaboration and joint training. Hinckley is the main town in my constituency, and lies not just on the edge of the Leicestershire authority area but on the county and regional boundary.Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that some of the proposals might simply be cosmetic, given that mutual aid arrangements and an existing mechanism are already in place? Is he sure that these are new initiatives, not just existing arrangements that are being dressed up?
Does the Minister accept that the key issue, as seen in Hinckley, is police numbers? When we have problems on Friday night, with the night clubs turning out, mutual aid is often not available across the county boundary.
Does the Minister further accept that the previous Government went a long way towards improving the system of police complaints by getting rid of the Police Complaints Board and replacing it with the independent Police Complaints Authority? I do not think that he will want to ignore that fact.
Finally, I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who spoke on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in saying: is not information technology a cost-effective way of improving co-operation? Are not police forces notorious for following their own noses and having independent systems that cannot talk to each other?
Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. It has been a surprise to me, since I started doing this job, to find out how very different the IT systems are in the various police forces. Furthermore, the six criminal justice agencies--police, prisons, the probation service, the Crown courts, the magistrates courts and the Crown Prosecution Service--all have different systems as well, so ensuring coherence is fantastically important.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the proposals being cosmetic. Indeed, I do not think that he was really suggesting that. Our proposals contain major new elements. Co-operation between forces within regional boundaries will be driven by best-value considerations and a series of considerations of rationality. That is an active element in the discussion.
I agree that what the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others are most interested in is the number of bobbies on the beat. However, I do not think that that diminishes the importance of either of the two aspects of policing that I have announced today--complaints and training--in terms of the regard in which the police force is held by the people of this country.
Point of Order
4.9 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that tomorrow morning the House will be asked to consider the part-time work regulations. Last Wednesday, on "Woman's Hour" on BBC Radio 4, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spelled out who the beneficiaries of that measure were likely to be. So inaccurate was his information that the following day a spokesman from the Trades Union Congress came on "Woman's Hour" to put the Secretary of State's inaccuracies right. People said, "Poor Mr. Byers, I think he must have fuddled his head because he's had a tough week." That is all very well, but is it not a contempt of the House that tomorrow we are being asked to consider legislation laid in the name of a Secretary of State who clearly does not understand it? May I, through you, Madam Speaker, ask whether the legislation could be deferred until it has been reviewed properly by the DTI, so that we know exactly what the Secretary of State's intentions are?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the Speaker of the House does not determine the business programme. That is the responsibility of the Government in co-operation with the Opposition, and is considered through the usual channels. Perhaps I might refer the hon. Lady to the usual channels, where she may put her request for deferment.
Armed Forces (Minimum Age of Recruitment)
4.10 pm
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recruitment of persons under the age of eighteen into the regular forces, the regular air forces and the Royal Navy; to prohibit the calling up of members of the reserve forces who are under eighteen years of age; and for connected purposes.
That is going on despite the fact that, in November of last year, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is why, in January of this year, an intergovernmental working group agreed a draft optional protocol to that convention to deal specifically with the involvement of children in armed conflict. That protocol would prohibit conscription of those under 18 and require Governments to take all feasible measures to end the deployment of those under 18. If and when that optional protocol is ratified, significant steps in the right direction will have been taken.
Under-18s should not be conscripted, and it is right that their conscription should end. Neither should under-18s be deployed in the theatre of war, so it is also right that all feasible measures are taken to avoid such deployment. The most obvious of those feasible measures is simple: to prohibit the recruitment of under-18s at the outset.
That is not a radical idea; it is not even a novel idea. The minimum age of recruitment into the police force is 18 and a half. In August 1914, at the outbreak of the first world war, the minimum age of enlistment into the Regular Army was 18. Even when conscription was introduced in March 1916, the minimum age remained 18.
There were youngsters under that age who reached the front line, but they did so only if they lied about their age--men such as my grandfather, who joined up when he was 16 or 17 and was shot at 18, and my great-uncle, who had lost his leg by the age of 18.
If recruitment into the armed services below the age of 18 were thought neither right nor necessary at a time of such great peril as the first world war, how can it conceivably be thought right or necessary today? Yet, today, there are nearly 7,000 16 and 17-year-olds in the British armed forces. They are too young to vote and to share in the governance of the country; to be tried in an adult court; to drink in a pub; too young even freely to enter into a contract; but they are old enough to kill or be killed on our behalf. This Bill would prohibit their recruitment into armed services.
The first benefit of the Bill would be that it would save some young lives. Since 1982, more than 90 service personnel aged under 18 have died. It is not just in the theatre of war that these young people are at risk; 25 died in training accidents. That should not surprise us. Military exercises are designed, rightly, to simulate the situations that soldiers would expect to face in real military
operations. Their training inevitably involves firearms, weapons and explosives; dangerous activities, as the Ministry of Defence rightly and readily acknowledges.Since 1992, 52 fatalities have occurred in the Army because of firearms. Any one of those could have been a young recruit, because accidents will and do happen, and are more likely to happen with younger recruits. We already know from the road traffic death statistics that young people tend to be less cautious than those who are older. Those young people should not be exposed to training which carries so high and so well-known an element of risk.
The second benefit of the Bill is that it would better protect the fundamental rights of those youngsters while they are alive. It has been recognised for many years that those under 18 require special protection. That is why they were protected by the Factory Acts of the 19th century, and why limitations have been developed upon their capacity to contract. It is why we have specific juvenile courts properly to deal with young offenders in ways appropriate to their age and why European Council directives give them better protection while they are at work. It is why we have the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Those are all measures that comprehend the fact that under-18s need special protection in certain areas. Yet there are inadequate comparable protections for under-18s in the armed forces.
A young adult can make up his mind swiftly and then change it on more mature reflection. That is one of the reasons why we have limits on the capacity to contract. However, once enlisted and after just six months, a young recruit is bound until his 22nd birthday. Although there are discretionary grounds for leaving, there is no discharge as of right. If that young recruit were asked to serve in an area of conflict, there would be no right to refuse. Outside the armed forces, a young person is relatively free to change his mind, but inside, that freedom is necessarily limited.
If that young recruit chose to leave, without permission, the grounds of the military base on which he was based, he would be detained and arrested. Outside the armed services, there are limits on the type of trial to which under-18s can be subjected, but that young recruit would be bound by three service discipline Acts, subject to a separate justice system and, within that system, subject to the same military courts as adults.
I do not believe that that is right. I believe that the best way to resolve the tension that exists between the obvious need for firm discipline within the armed services and the rights of a young person is to prevent that young person from being recruited until he reaches the age of majority. The second benefit of the Bill would therefore be that it would respect the fundamental rights of those under 18 but would not prejudice military discipline.
Indeed, far from prejudicing the armed services, the third benefit of the Bill is that it would positively advantage them. Current UN practice is that troops used for peacekeeping are required to be a minimum of 18, and, ideally, should be over 21. That is because of the skill, experience, patience and discretion needed to do the vital jobs that the armed forces perform on our behalf.
Raising the age of recruitment to 18 would reflect that, bringing the UK into line with the United Nations. Those who are recruited into the armed services in our country would be of the age and maturity necessary properly and better to perform the vital tasks that we ask of them.
I understand that there are those who are concerned about the Bill, and I respect their concerns. The first concern is that a gap might be created for those youngsters who are committed to a career in the armed services from a young age, who want to pursue it as soon as they can and who may benefit from the special opportunities provided. That is why nothing in my Bill would prejudice the Territorial Army, impact upon cadets or prevent the establishment of specialist military colleges for 16 or 17-year-olds outside the regular armed services. That would enable youngsters to join up on reaching the age of majority but with the benefit of appropriately focused training given within a mature military culture. Their choice would be an informed one and their talents would already be developed.
The second concern is that the Bill might overstretch the armed services. I understand that concern but, if there is overstretch, the answer is not to rely on 16 or 17-year-olds but to recruit appropriate numbers of people of the right age and maturity. That is why the Bill would not come into force for two years and why it vests in the Secretary of State all appropriate transitional arrangements.
The Bill would prohibit the recruitment into the armed forces of those below 18. It would ensure that the highest human rights standards are honoured in this country. It would ensure that the United Kingdom can not only ratify the protocol but take a lead in the country and the world. We would then have leverage in places such as Uganda and Sierra Leone to strive for better standards across the globe. However, the Bill would not prejudice the security of this country. It would not prejudice the professionalism of our armed forces or deny the rights of any of our young adults to chose to serve our country as they wish. For all those reasons, I hope that the House will allow me to introduce my Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |