Armed Forces (Recruitment Age)

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Patrick Mercer

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies, although I wonder whether, in different circumstances, I might hear you use the words “nanny state” after you hear what I have to say.

I am pleased to secure this debate on a topic that most hon. Members will agree is sensitive and important. I have every respect for the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who has served with distinction in our armed forces and who will respond to the debate, but I am disappointed that the Ministry of Defence could not field a Minister to do so.

That said, I do not consider this a party political question, and Governments of all colours have maintained the status quo. In fact, when I raised the issue during the Armed Forces Public Bill Committee in 2011, the challenges from my own colleagues were even more robust than that from the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The purpose of this debate, however, is to raise the profile of the issue and to ask the Government to consider being the one that makes this much-needed change.

Most people know that the armed services in Britain can recruit from the age of 16 upwards. Most accept it as simply the way things are, but I think many have never really considered what it means to enlist 16 and 17-year-olds and whether the needs of the military really justify that position. It strikes me as amazing that in the 21st century we have 16-year-olds deciding to sign up for the UK’s armed forces—and, in time, for combat roles—when the vast majority of nations across the globe have ended the recruitment of children.

It is correct that recruits do not take part in armed conflict until they are 18, but 16-year-old recruits overwhelmingly enlist into combat roles, so as soon as they turn 18 they can be sent to the front line. Those enlisted as adults are less likely to be in front-line combat positions. I am pleased, however, that following the 2011 Public Bill Committee, the Minister amended the terms of service regulations to allow young people up to the age of 18 to leave the armed services, but he now needs to do more.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Having commanded a company of junior leaders and a battalion of more than 1,000 regular soldiers, I seriously challenge his figures. How can he possibly say that the majority of adults do not go into combat roles and that combat roles rest more with those who are recruited at 16? Nothing in my 25 years as an infantry officer supports that.

[Alex Cunningham]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his work in the military. Perhaps he has more knowledge of the matter than I do, but my understanding is that it is less likely for a person who enlists as an adult to be in front-line conflict. I will check my facts and ensure that, if I address the situation again, I am correct.

The time has come to heed the advice of Child Soldiers International, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF, the United Nations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Defence and raise the lowest age of recruitment from 16 to 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

There is a tremendous difference between countries that deploy children as young as 12 or 13, or even younger, and what we do in Britain, but we are still recruiting children into our armed services. Although they do have the opportunity to leave the armed services before the age of 18, they do not have to make that specific decision. I will address that later in my speech.

Despite the recommendations from the various groups I have mentioned, no British Government have yet carried out a feasibility study for an all-adult military. I realise the Minister’s representative cannot speak for previous Governments, but is that something on which the Government will keep an open mind? Is it something that will be considered within the MOD?

I certainly do not wish to denigrate the efforts of our troops and those who serve at the age of 16 and 17. They serve our country proudly and should be congratulated, like all armed service recruits, on their bravery and commitment, but these are decisions that should be made on the basis of as much information as possible and with full adult consent—and I do not mean the signature of a parent or guardian, but young people making their own decision when they reach adulthood.

[Patrick Mercer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

No, I will not.

In most other walks of life, we would not expect 16-year-olds to make commitments that could potentially endanger their life and safety, and I hope hon. Members agree that the armed services should not be any different, although I again acknowledge the change that means recruits now thankfully have the right of discharge up to their 18th birthday. I also hope that Ministers will agree that someone at that young age is not equipped to take such a serious decision that could bind them to fighting on the front line, in some cases many thousands of miles from home.

That commitment to duty is often made when the recruit is 16 years old, with no obligation proactively to reconfirm their enlistment once adulthood is reached and they can be deployed. We ask an awful lot of our recruits. Teenagers are significantly less mature emotionally, psychologically and socially, and young people from deprived backgrounds, who form the majority of under-age recruits, are particularly vulnerable. It can be no coincidence that recruits who sign up as minors suffer higher rates of alcoholism, self-harm and suicide than those who enlist as adults.

Aside from the moral rights and wrongs of tying children to service at a later date, there is a compelling fiscal case for an all-adult military. Based on data from the MOD compiled by ForcesWatch, the cost of recruiting and successfully training those aged 16 to 17-and-a-half is between 75% and 95% higher than for adults. The longer period of initial training, at 23 weeks or 50 weeks, is enormous compared with the 14 weeks for adults.

According to the latest report of Child Soldiers International, “One Step Forward,” the annual saving of increasing the armed services recruitment age could be up to £94 million, which is enough to fund more than 24,000 civilian apprenticeships. I doubt the MOD wants to surrender even more of its budget, so that cash could instead be used elsewhere to offset the cuts that will see it reduce its regular fighting force from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2017.

I do not want to make my case on the basis of cost savings, but I hope that those who are more motivated by fiscal concerns will see the scope for assisting with the MOD’s commitment to cutting its costs. If the Minister’s representative is not convinced by my argument, or interested in the substantial savings, he may be motivated to make changes because of their political appeal. In March 2013, ICM asked respondents what they thought the minimum age should be to join the forces. Some 70% of those who expressed an opinion said it should be 18, so there may well be votes for him and his colleagues in a change.

There are also issues of long-term social mobility and employability to consider. I have no doubt the Minister’s representative will rehearse the well-worn argument that the Department uses of giving employment and training opportunities to young people who may otherwise be unemployed. The fact is, however, that most 16-year-olds are not in the market for work. In 2009-10, 94% of 16-year-olds stayed on in education. Others may argue that the armed forces provide for young people who come from difficult home circumstances, from a background of suffering abuse or simply because they have been thrown out on the streets. As I argued during the Armed Forces Bill Committee nearly three years ago, the armed forces must not be seen as some kind of escape route from abuse or unemployment. As a nation, we need to develop the support and services young people need, rather than holding up the armed forces as an easy option so early in life.

While I am pleased that the Army continues to set targets for functional skills qualifications in literacy and numeracy, the case can be made that young recruits would be much better served by the state education system in developing those skills. A higher minimum recruitment age would mean that young people need not choose between a higher standard of post-16 education and armed service.

Our country would be better served by an all-adult military. Is it right that many soldiers serving in Afghanistan find themselves there due to a decision they took when they were still children? It is a decision that many would have reversed in adult life, had they been given the chance. We should listen to what the United Nations and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are saying, and join with the overwhelming majority of nations worldwide, which have stopped recruiting children—that is what they are: children—and have raised the age to 18 and upwards. We could do it because it would save the Government money or because it would be popular, according to the polls, but I hope we do it because it is the right thing to do and so that we can leave the military to adults.