Memorandum from the Religious Society
of Friends (Quakers)
SUBMISSION TO
DEFENCE SELECT
COMMITTEE
We welcome the commitment of the UK Government
to the "Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on involvement
in armed conflict" and the work of the Defence Select Committee
in conducting this enquiry.
We would outline as particular areas of concern:
— The unnecessary deaths caused by
a culture of bullying within the armed forces, which the Deepcut
inquiry has brought to light;
— The absence of a contractual relationship
between the Crown and recruits into the Armed Forces; and
— The declaration made by the Government
when signing the protocol on 7 September 2000 that it would retain
the right to send under eighteen year olds into frontline battle,
where "there is a genuine military need," or "it
is not practicable to withdraw such persons before deployment."
AGE OF
RECRUITMENT
The UN "Convention on the rights of the
child" defines a child as, "every human being below
the age of 18 years, unless under the law applicable to the child,
majority is attained earlier." In UK law under 18 year olds
are unable to enter into contracts enforceable in domestic law,
to vote or to drink in pubs, and yet by enlistment in the armed
forces, regardless of whether they are deployed, young recruits
assume the status of "combatants" and thereby become
legitimate targets in international humanitarian law.
At an age when young people are not considered
to have sufficient discretion to be able to participate politically
and while the armed forces are legally in loco parentis, 16 to
18 year olds are regularly exposed to a level of risk, which would
neither be acceptable in civilian employment nor in boarding school
accommodation for children of a similar age and maturity. Between
1982 and 1999, 92 under 18 year olds died while in the armed forces.[45]
During the period 1996 to 2001, 59 self-harm incidents were elicited
by Surrey Police from an examination of Deepcut Guardroom logs.[46]
In June 2002, 30 members of armed forces were taking the MoD.
to the High Court for assaults.
We submit that the single most positive step
that the UK government could take in relation to the discharge
of their "duty of care" to young recruits would be to
raise the age of recruitment from 16 to 18 years old. In doing
so it would be following best practice within the United Nations
and European Union and adopting a consistent attitude towards
the legal age of responsibility. We further submit the urgent
necessity of a far greater clarity in recruitment information
regarding the nature of the employment "contract" for
members of the armed forces, including the detailed rights and
responsibilities of recruits.
THE NATURE
OF THE
"CONTRACT"
It is a matter of particular concern that the
relationship between armed forces personnel and the crown is not
governed by contract. While the Army Act 1955 provides for a statutory
framework for regulating employment by powers given to the Defence
Council under Army Terms of Service Regulations 1992 SI 1992/1365,
few recruits can have even heard of these regulations let alone
have read and understood them.[47]
The lack of clarity regarding terms of recruitment can only contribute
to a culture of deference in which abuse of authority can remain
unchecked. This is particularly serious in an inherently stressful,
closed training environment, where young people are often away
living away from family and friends for the first sustained period
in their life.
By enlisting in the armed forces under 18 year
olds commit themselves to employment for a period of four years
beyond their 18 birthday and are thereby subject to military discipline
for that period. We consider that especially during their late
teens young people require the liberty to be able to make provisional
decisions and the flexibility to be able to change their minds
about decisions they have made. While young people at university
are often able to transfer courses or withdraw from full time
education without penalty, those who enter the armed forces at
a younger age, often from a less educated background, and as a
result of a less carefully considered decision are not given the
same latitude. Flexibility and support should be the touchstone
of a culture of employment that allows young people both to continue
to learn and to question their values while in employment.
A crucial aspect of maturing is the opportunity
for spiritual and personal development. This needs to include
the opportunity to question and revise attitudes towards the use
of armed force. This is especially importance for those coming
from an armed forces background. The lack of an employment contract
goes to the heart of the problem regarding the situation of young
people in the armed forces. The fact that young people are unable
to leave the armed forces as of right compounds the problem by
making them particularly vulnerable to bullying and the existence
of bullying if it does occur particularly serious.
We are particularly concerned at the apparent
lack of information for recruits as to their rights and responsibilities
on enlistment into the armed forces. Young people should be given
clear information on the nature of the legal commitment that they
are entering into and the avenues of complaint and redress that
are available to them in the case of breaches of their employer's
responsibility to provide a safe place and system of work. In
a deeply hierarchical culture such provisions are especially important.
In the case of bullying taking place at the hands, of or with
the knowledge of, those who are in a position of authority there
needs to be an accessible and independent complaints procedure,
which commands the respect of all employees.
Investigation into the guidance given to NCOs
on bullying is no substitute for an enquiry into their behaviour
towards young recruits.
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Ministry of Defence has a legal obligation
to comply with human rights commitments in their full and most
rigorous sense. Under Human Rights Act 1998 the Ministry is committed
as a "Public Authority" to upholding the European Convention
of Human Rights. All statutory provisions regarding recruitment
need to be construed accordingly.
Article 3 ECHR provides a non derogable standard
that:
"No-one shall be subjected to torture
or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Acts of bullying, such as those identified in
enquiry into the Deepcut deaths, would at the very least fall
within the definition of "inhuman and degrading treatment."
The Ministry of Defence has a positive obligation
to ensure that nothing occurring in the armed forces could amount
to such a violation. While senior personnel may be well versed
in the Human Rights Act, we doubt whether adequate training extends
to those lower in the chain of command and especially those in
non-commissioned ranks whose behaviour may have the greatest practical
impact on the daily lives of new recruits.
EUROPEAN UNION
LAW
Council Directive 94/33 in relation to the health
and safety of young people at work aged under 18 years was implemented
by means of Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997.
For practical purposes these apply to the armed forces[48]
in their entirety. The Directive specifies that young people under
the age of 18 should be protected "from any specific risks
to their safety . . . which are a consequence of their lack of
experience." It is crucial that all ranks responsible for
supervising a safe system of work are not only made fully aware
of these requirements but of their responsibilities for implementing
them.
COMMON LAW
Since Crown Proceedings Act 1947 the Crown has
no longer been immune to general liability for its tortious acts.
The scope of its liability has been extended since Human Rights
Act 1998. The Crown owes a duty of care to all armed forces personnel
to provide a safe place and system of work. In relation to those
under 18 the army is effectively in loco parentis and its
responsibility amounts to that of a parent to an adolescent with
the attributes and capacities of the particular recruit concerned.
Lack of adequate supervision and a complaints mechanism creates
a foreseeable risk of bullying.
CONCLUSION
The disproportionate number of deaths of young
people in the army is an indication that the Ministry of Defence
is manifestly failing in its duty of care towards young recruits.
We wholeheartedly support the conclusions of Surrey police that
evidence of bullying revealed in the enquiry into the Deepcut
deaths makes a compelling case for a broader and more thorough
enquiry. The exposure of under 18 year old enlisted armed forces
personnel to bullying is no more acceptable than would be the
exposure of sixth form school children in a private or state run
boarding school. We urge those responsible in the Ministry of
Defence to:
— Initiate an independent enquiry and
implement an accountable independent complaints system under the
supervision of an Ombudsman for the Armed Forces.
— Provide much clearer information
on the relationship between the Crown and recruits into the Armed
Forces.
— End enlistment into the armed forces
below the age of 18.
Michael Bartlet
Parliamentary Liaison Secretary
April 2004
45 Hansard 26 July 1999. Back
46
Surrey Police Deepcut Investigation Final Report 2004. Back
47
Recruitment into the Navy remains under the control of the Royal
Prerogative. Back
48
Letter John Spellar MP as Minister of State for Armed Forces
to Paul Stinchcombe MP 26 November 1999. Back
| 
