Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence


Commanding Offices: loco parentis

Why do Commanding Officers not act in loco parentis towards trainees under the age of 18? What would it mean if they did?

  The law is not clear in providing a single definition of a "child" or "minor", which depends entirely upon the purpose of the relevant legislation. The Education Act 1996, for example, and many employment rules, define a child as someone under compulsory school age. The various offences commonly known as cruelty to children are in most cases offences in connection with those under the age of 16. Licensing and gambling legislation defines a "child" as being under 18.

  So far as confirming an individual's suitability to work with "children and vulnerable persons" is concerned, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 extended the scope of enquiries (with the Criminal Records Bureau) to cover those so employed. Part II of the Act defined a child as anyone under the age of 18, except those in full time employment where a child was considered to be someone under the age of 16. A "vulnerable person" was defined as those substantially dependent upon others—essentially the physically disabled, the sick or those with severe learning difficulties.

  Consequently, the legislation and the need for CRB checks did not apply to those working with Service personnel under between the ages of 16 and 18, although it did, for example, apply to those employed with the cadet forces and Service Children's Education Schools. These requirements, and associated definitions, were set out in MoD policy guidelines issued on 19 July 2003.

  The Services take their responsibilities towards their people extremely seriously and are very well aware of the particular welfare needs of all recruits and trainees. Maturity and experience however varies considerably between individuals, and Commanding Officers are directly responsible and accountable for ensuring that a pragmatic supervisory care regime is in place for all recruits, trainees and other students, whether aged 16/17 or 18 plus. This pastoral and welfare regime goes well beyond the delivery of military, technical or specialist training and /or education. In addition (though this would not generally be relevant to those under training), restrictions are applied to the operational deployment of under-18s, in accordance with the UK position on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  The Services accordingly regard their "duty of care" responsibilities as arising from the employment of all individuals (including those under 18), and not arising from specifically acting "in loco parentis" to those within the 16-18 age group. A CO does not have the rights and obligations imposed on a parent or other guardian (such as a local authority looking after a child in care) in respect of a recruit who is a minor. Neither, for example, would a school attended by such a person, or another employer, have such obligations. However, the age of the recruit, the all-encompassing nature of initial training, and other factors particular to the recruit such as his or her maturity and intelligence would all be relevant to the degree of care required under the duty of care. It is, however, the case that the care and welfare of those under 18 merit particular attention, and COs are well seized of this need. The CO will always ensure appropriate involvement of the parents of a recruit or trainee, taking into account the wishes of the recruit or trainee.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 March 2005