Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for moving the clause. I note the Government’s willingness to align the military judicial process so that it is more akin to a civil jury. The concern of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches is that, in the evidence recently given by Judge Lyons to the Committee, he stipulated:

“I believe, in the modern world, that the maintenance of discipline is in everyone’s interests, and as a first step I would wish to see it opened to OR-7. I think opening it further is a step too far at this stage.”

What concerns me and my SNP colleagues is that when pushed on the rationale for such an opinion, Judge Lyons was unable to substantiate why someone with substantial service under OR-7 should be excluded. Therefore, the judicial process, in terms of peer judicial decision, does not reflect the reality of military life.

I hope that the Government will consider accepting the amendment. There are those who have substantial service in the armed forces, not just in the sense of command but in lived experience of being in the Army. Some of the evidence given to the Defence Committee’s Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, and the armed forces ombudsman’s evidence in recent Defence Committee meetings, reflected that the judicial processes of the armed forces are not held in high regard by many serving and former service personnel. The amendment would—at least in some sense—go some way to rectifying that, ensuring that the military process is reflective of the reality of military life. At this point, if the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, I will press it to a vote.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The issue was quite clearly looked at by Judge Lyons in his report. As has just been said, there is no rationale for why other rank 7 was seen as a particularly relevant cut-off point. The important thing is that we make the move to mirror the civilian justice system, although I certainly accept that there are differences between the two because of operational issues.

To be judged by one’s peers is a fundamental right. The provision would exclude large numbers of individuals, including some who may have many years of experience in the armed forces and of sitting on courts martial. I do not think that a good enough reason for excluding those individuals has been put forward in evidence. One possible justification was that people would not understand the procedures. Well, I find that rather patronising for non-commissioned officers, some of whom have been in the armed forces for many years. I would draw a parallel with civilian courts, where there is no qualification process or aptitude test for sitting on a civilian jury. It is for them to weigh up the evidence.

I think that Judge Lyons was basically saying in his report that the movement he outlined was all that he could get away with in the military legal system. I think that he was pushing for further change, but quite clearly did not want to offend or cause things not to go further. I think that he certainly saw this as a step towards, possibly, allowing other ranks to sit on courts martial.

The important point is to ensure that the individuals being tried feel that they get a fair hearing. In the hierarchical way that courts martial are judged at the moment, individuals might not perceive the process as fair because they are judged by more senior officers who determine promotion and other prospects for lower ranks, and might not only have limited understanding of the individual’s life experience, but could ultimately influence the outcome of the individual’s career, for example. I do not think a good enough reason has been put forward for why this cannot be extended, and I therefore support the amendment.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I will say just a couple of words in support of my colleague’s amendment. The Bill should be seen as an opportunity to modernise and to introduce some fairness—or perceived fairness—into service justice.

To include the NCOs and lower ranks is a step towards a more equitable method of delivering service justice, and how that is viewed by personnel is important. It is important that those sitting on a court martial board understand the experience of the people before them. Unfortunately, the experiences of commissioned and non-commissioned personnel can often be quite different. This is a real chance to build greater fairness, and perceived fairness, into the system. I urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I appreciate that point, but the outcome that we are trying to achieve will be similar. The clause was drafted in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The role of the Lord Advocate in agreeing the protocol reflects those comments prior to its introduction. We have been around the houses and got those people’s views.

On the involvement of the Scottish Government in developing the protocol, the Lord Advocate is of course a member of the Scottish Government, so there is no question of the Scottish Government not being involved in the creation of the protocol in Scotland. In addition, new section 320B(8) of the 2006 Act provides that the Lord Advocate and the Director of Public Prosecutions may also consult anyone else thought appropriate.

I hope that helps to explain how we have designed the clause in a way that is sympathetic to the differing constitutional arrangements across the UK, and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

[Mr Jones]

May I begin by thanking Justice Lyons for his review? In his evidence to the Committee, he clearly outlined why amendment 19 is needed. I am a veteran of the 2006 Bill Committee, and it is quite clear, as Judge Lyons said in evidence, that when this amendment was made to that Bill, the intention was not for the wholesale movement towards serious crimes being heard in courts martial in the UK. They were for exceptional circumstances in which, for example, one crime had been committed overseas and one in the UK, given the ability of the court martial to deal with such cases. That was a sensible way forward because the service police would clearly be the lead authority in the investigation of such serious crimes committed abroad as murder, rape or manslaughter,.

The problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined eloquently, is to do with confidence in the system. When the system was outlined, I do not think courts martial were meant to deal with these serious crimes. I support the military justice system, and I do not think the amendment would do anything to damage it. I think it would boost confidence in it.

The problem with the current system has been outlined. The conviction rate for rape is not satisfactory—I accept there are problems not just in the military system but in civilian life as well—and one of the key issues is investigation. The Minister said he was confident that the service police have the capacity to investigate such serious crimes. I would not want to criticise professional individuals, but, as with anything, the more specialism someone has and the more cases they deal with, the more expertise they get in gathering evidence and in supporting victims.

Clearly, the service police deal with a limited number of serious cases, so I would have thought that, when such alleged crimes are committed in the UK, it would be important to involve the local civilian police, who deal with serious sexual assaults, rapes, manslaughter and murder more often. Because of that experience not only in gathering evidence but in dealing with victims, they should have primacy. I am old enough to remember the Deepcut inquiry undertaken by Lord Justice Blake and know those cases in detail. I accept that is going back a number of years, but the clear problem there was the way in which evidence was not gathered—in some cases it was ignored or destroyed—and the assumption, without rigorous investigation, that suicide was the main cause of death in all cases.

The amendment is really about the system’s integrity and getting confidence for victims as well. As we saw in evidence from Forward Assist and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, there is an issue in ensuring that, first, those who complain think they will be listened to as victims, and secondly, the armed forces’ hierarchical structure is not an impediment to the proper investigation of serious accusations. I can see the reason for courts martial dealing with cases in exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the 2006 Act, such as those that take place overseas and in this country, but I cannot see why routine cases in the UK are not dealt with by the civilian courts. I therefore support the amendment.

The Minister said it is a policy decision, but I am not sure. The intention was there, and I do not think much has changed in the past 15 years. What we need to do now is to ensure that, as was outlined in evidence we heard from the Victims’ Commissioner and other witnesses, the victim is at the centre of any system we put in place.

[Carol Monaghan]

I will say a few words in support of the amendment. The Defence Sub-Committee has been taking evidence on the experience of women in the armed forces. We know there are a whole range of issues specific to female personnel. When we are looking at serious crimes such as rape, so many different issues have to be considered —we need to consider consent and whether there is a proper reporting structure—and those who make complaints must have confidence in the system.

We have already discussed the membership of the court martial board. How can someone have confidence in a trial when those who are deciding the outcomes are likely to be male and of higher ranks, and not likely to have any understanding of the woman or the victim’s experience? In other words, they will not have anything in common with the person who is bringing forward the complaint.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 8 already includes a power in new section 343AF for the Secretary of State to widen the scope of the duty to additional public bodies and functions in the same or additional areas following a consultation. That renders unnecessary the suggested new clause to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to define which bodies and which specific functions in the new areas are covered by the duty. I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree not to press the amendments.

[Mr Jones]

I rise to support the amendments and to say to the Minister that he has read his civil service brief well—if he could do it a bit more slowly, we might be able to follow it. I do not think he addressed any of the points in the amendments. Again, like a lot of things that the Government do, the spin and presentation is very different from what will actually be put into practice. We should not be surprised by that, because we have a Prime Minister who is an expert at saying one thing and doing another.

The Bill would put the covenant into law, but there is very limited movement on that, with an emphasis on local authorities and the local level. I accept that the delivery of services is done at local or regional level, but we have to recognise that a lot of the policy areas are influenced by national decisions.

The Minister might care to read the 2008 Command Paper entitled “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans,” which was the origin of the covenant report and was launched by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, Bob Ainsworth. Its key point is to ensure that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of their service to the nation. I implemented it, and we had armed forces champions across main Government Departments. The main emphasis was to try to hardwire support for the armed forces community, including veterans, serving personnel and their families, into policy making. By excluding Whitehall Departments, the Bill will make it very difficult, even with the best will in the world, to ensure that some Departments have due regard to those things when they consider policies. If it is good enough for local authorities and local health boards, it should be good enough for the national Departments.

The scope of the Bill needs extending if the covenant is to have teeth in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has mentioned, that move would be supported by the Royal British Legion and the British Armed Forces Federation, because a lot of the issues that affect members of the armed forces are completely outside the scope of local authorities, the devolved Administrations and others. One issue that has been raised—I know a later amendment addresses this—is around foreign and Commonwealth soldiers. That is a Home Office policy in which due regard has clearly not been given to those brave servicemen and women who have loyally served this country, and who will be disadvantaged, because of their service, in getting leave to remain. I do not understand the idea that the main Government Departments should not be covered.

The Minister says that those Departments are scrutinised by Parliament and various Select Committees, and so on, but if we had “due regard” in law it would mean that when policy was being determined within Departments, they would have to have due regard to the effect on service personnel, their families and veterans. That would have a strengthening effect, which was certainly what was intended when the idea was launched in 2008. An opportunity is being missed to ensure that the main Departments will be covered by the legislation.

Another issue that has been raised is something that lets off the MOD. The Minister says that most of the areas in question concern things that are delivered locally by local authorities, but one of the biggest complaints that the service family federations have raised is armed forces housing. There are examples of local provision not being fit, so that it would not be accepted if was provided in the public sector. There are areas that fall within the remit of the MOD that are not covered by “due regard”, and so those things will continue.

An opportunity in the Bill is being missed and the publicity around it—that it will be a sea change—is not being lived up to. The onus is being put on local authorities and providers. I support that, but they are not the problem, to be honest. As with a lot of things in this country, the delivery of local services is often to be commended. The innovation in local authorities and the things we heard about in evidence from the devolved Administrations are light years ahead of what happens in Whitehall.

As to the importance of local delivery, I accept that it might be patchy and might vary, but that came out of the work of the MOD pilot on the welfare pathway, which I think worked very well. It was taken up by the coalition Government and renamed the armed forces covenant. There has been a willingness on the part of local authorities and local bodies to make change. However, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for Departments, and I have not yet heard a good reason why those responsibilities should not fall to central Departments as well.

I understand how Whitehall works, and that civil servants might not like that to be part of the checklist that they have to check off when they develop policies. However, it would certainly strengthen the position with respect to making sure that armed services personnel and their families, and veterans, are not disadvantaged, and that they are at least taken into consideration and given due regard when new policies are brought forward.

The Minister talks about the statutory guidance, and I thank him for the draft that we have been sent. We will perhaps talk about it later, but it will only be as good as the enforceability for veterans, service personnel and their families, so that they actually get redress when things go wrong.

As I have said, I think that this is an opportunity missed, and I cannot yet see a good reason why what I have suggested should not be covered. If the amendments were accepted, the Government could quite rightly say that the armed forces covenant had been put into law. Without them, there will be very limited scope for the armed forces covenant to have any legal backing at all. With that, I conclude my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

In answer to the Opposition’s veterans spokesperson, I can say that that option is being considered as well as judicial review, not instead of. But these options are being considered at the moment as we try to find a way forward. Clause 10 and schedule 3 are part of wider reforms to support service personnel through the complaints system and to increase efficiency and reduce delays within the service complaints process.

This clause will be complemented by a programme of other changes that do not require primary legislation. The Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours highlighted a lack of confidence in the current system. The previous service complaints ombudsman for the armed forces has also made an assessment in her annual reports that the service complaints system is not yet efficient, effective or fair. It is crucial that our service personnel feel confident that complaining will not adversely impact them. Therefore, complaints must be dealt with appropriately and in a timely fashion to build that trust further.

It is key then that legislative changes are implemented to ensure that the service complaints system is more efficient. Ensuring that complaints are resolved in an appropriate timescale is part of a wider package of reform to increase trust. Clause 10 changes the minimum time limit that can be set out in regulations for submitting an appeal against a first level decision or for making an application to the service complaints ombudsman to two weeks. I should point out that bringing the minimum time limit down to two weeks does not mean that all appeal applications will be limited to two weeks regardless of the circumstance. Where a serviceperson’s duties mean that this will not be appropriate, additional time will be provided.

Clause 10 also provides the ability to set out in regulations the grounds on which appeals can be brought, for example where correct process has not been followed or where new evidence has come to light which may have had a significant impact on the original decision. At present, an appeal can be brought against a decision body where the complainant does not agree with its decision for any reason, with no limits on what that reason can be. This legislation will ensure that an appeal can be brought only where there are procedural errors or where new evidence is provided.

Schedule 3 makes a consequential amendment to equality legislation to make sure that procedural requirements remain consistent with the changes in this clause. Service personnel will not be penalised by this clause and mechanisms will be in place to ensure that individuals requiring extra time to submit an appeal will be able to do so where appropriate. We must ensure that we modernise and reduce delay in the service complaints system, creating, where we can, a consistent experience across defence and following best practice from other parts of the public sector.

[Mr Jones]

The important thing to say is that everyone wants the complaints system to be efficient. It is in the interest of the complainant. It is in the interest of someone who is accused that they get a swift resolution. The evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West highlighted, is that the delay does not help anyone. Part of it is due to not only the complexity of some of the cases but, in some cases, the inefficient way in which the armed services, particularly the Army, deal with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I welcome this proposal, because I think it is a huge step forward in terms of having oversight of the service police. I support the idea of having a separate ombudsman or complaints procedure, rather than the current police complaints procedure. Obviously, it will be a learning curve for whoever is appointed and for the system.

I want to ask about the way in which it will be formed. Obviously, as the Minister has outlined, it will mirror some of the systems that are already in place for oversight of the civilian police force. It will be helpful in terms of understanding how service personnel can make complaints.

There are two aspects that I would like some clarification on. One is about how this is going to be communicated to service personnel. It will be a new departure, and an important point will be to ensure that service personnel know that this is open to them, in terms of making a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way in which service personnel deal with a complaint or any other concerns they have regarding issues relating to their service.

I would also like some clarity about complaints from civilians. In many cases, civilian contractors are employed on Army bases, RAF stations and naval facilities. Many civilian personnel also live at armed forces facilities if they are married to or are in a relationship with members of the armed forces. This is about whether or not they will be able to make complaints as well. Clearly, there may be situations involving civilians who are dissatisfied with the way in which service police investigate something or the way they are tret. I would be interested to know what the remit is.

The other area relates to families of service personnel. I accept that much has changed since Lord Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut, but I spoke to the families of the four young people who tragically lost their lives, and one of the issues was their huge criticism of the way in which the service police conducted those investigations. Will there be an option for the families of service personnel, especially in cases where someone loses their life, to make a complaint to the new ombudsman if they are not satisfied?

Overall, I welcome this proposal. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I think it will not only help service personnel, but help drive up standards in terms of the way in which service police operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The question is—

[Mr Jones]

Chair, wait a minute. I asked some questions —I’d expect the Minister to reply to at least some of them.

[Johnny Mercer]

I think that the questions you asked have been answered in the speaking note that I just went through.

[Mr Jones]

With the greatest of respect, they haven’t.

[Johnny Mercer]

Which one do you feel hasn’t been answered?

[Mr Jones]

The issue around civilians, in terms of the jurisdiction and families being able to complain. I know you’re just reading the notes out, but it might be worthwhile just thinking, when you’re reading them, that some people might want to scrutinise this, rather than have to listen to you reading what the civil servants have told you.

[Johnny Mercer]

The reality is that that question around jurisdiction has been answered. I am happy to repeat the answer, but it has been answered already.

[Mr Jones]

I don’t think it has.

[Johnny Mercer]

Okay. Would the Clerks like to come in and confirm whether or not it has been answered?

[Mr Jones]

It is not for the Clerks to do that.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Beg to move formally.

[Johnny Mercer]

I beg to move formally, Chair.

[Mr Jones]

No—could I have an answer?

[The Chair]

Minister, are you happy to wrap up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I will wrap up there. Thank you very much.

[Mr Jones]

Chair, can I make a suggestion to help the Minister? If he does not know the answer to that question now, could he possibly write to Committee members to answer the points that I have raised? They are perfectly legitimate points. We are not hostile in any way; it is just that the Minister is clearly not on top of his brief.

[Johnny Mercer]

As ever, I am hugely appreciative of the advice from Mr Jones. I am more than happy to write another letter on any of these issues. I am more than happy for him to have a copy of everything I have said today, and if he still has questions, I would be more than happy to sit down with him and go through them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If he knew what he was talking about, it might help, Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power of commanding officer to award service detention: Royal Marines

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 to 17 stand part, and that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you for that point of order, Minister, which is on the record.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Sunderland. If the Minister had listened to the speeches, he might have got the questions.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not think that is a point of order; it is a personal opinion.

[Mr Jones]

It’s not for you but for the Chair to decide that.

[The Chair]

Order.

Clause 18

Posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished service offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 19 confirms that a British overseas territory can rely on section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the UK service justice system to a British overseas territory force even if the section does not extend to that territory. The clause is necessary as the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357.

[Mr Jones]

Chair, can the Minister slow down? He is going at a rate of knots here.

[Johnny Mercer]

Sorry—was that an intervention, or a complaint?

[Mr Jones]

It is a complaint to the Chair, asking the Minister to slow down; he is rabbiting on at such a rapid rate of knots that I cannot hear a word.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not think that is rabbiting on. I think that is a very personal insult, Chair. Is there a point of order or an intervention, or shall I carry on?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will of course slow down my speaking to make sure my hon. Friend can clearly understand what I am saying.

[Mr Jones]

Right hon. Friend, actually.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am terribly sorry—my right hon. Friend, with emphasis on the friend.

The clause is necessary because the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357. This is the first time that a British overseas territory has made use of section 357.

Unlike other British overseas territories, as a result of amendments made in 2011 and 2016, the Armed Forces Act 2006 no longer extends to Gibraltar. This clause therefore confirms that the Government of Gibraltar can make use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the service justice system contained in the Act, with or without amendment, to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

[Mr Jones]

I have a question about the circumstances under which the Royal Gibraltar Regiment would use the powers and on what occasions. How many times is it envisaged that it will do so?

[Johnny Mercer]

Is my right hon. Friend asking me to predict the future? Is he asking how many times they are going to use this power?

[Mr Jones]

I want to know on what type of occasions they will use the power and whether the Department has done any estimates of how often it will be used.

[Johnny Mercer]

The clause simply brings the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act into line with our other overseas territories. It is simply about aligning what happened when the 2006 Act came in. The amendments that were made in 2011 and 2016 no longer extend to Gibraltar, because of changes in the overseas territory. We are simply realigning Gibraltar with the rest of the overseas territories at this time.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister write and explain on what occasions it would be applied and if any number of cases have been envisaged?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to write to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Age of Recruitment

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 328, subsection 2(c): leave out “without the consent of prescribed persons.”—(Carol Monaghan.)

This new clause would raise the age of recruitment into the Armed Forces to 18, in line with NATO allies and UN standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I understand that there are individuals who wish to support a ban on those under 18 joining the Army. I know that that has been campaigned on for quite a while now. Those individuals draw an analogy between what the Army does and the situation of child soldiers around the world. I do not agree with that, and I must say I do not agree with the provisions of the new clause.

It is quite clear now that individuals under 18 cannot be sent into combat, which I totally support and think is right, but we must balance that against the opportunities that recruiting 16 to 17-year-olds gives those individuals. I suggest that anyone who wants to see the positive way individuals can and do improve their lives visits the Army Foundation College in Harrogate.

Many of those individuals, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West highlighted, come from deprived communities; many have been failed by the education system, so credit to the Army particularly for the work it does at the Foundation College, giving people a second chance, which the education system has failed to do. On my visits there, what appalled me was the fact that the education system had failed individuals, but the Army had given them a second chance with raising basic numeracy and literacy skills. Individuals who would possibly not have had an opportunity to have a fulfilled career were able to do so through the work undertaken at the Army Foundation College.

The other issue raised is the duty of care for those individuals, but we have come a long way on the duty of care for under-18s. There was a huge problem with the way under-18s were supervised and looked after, especially those who joined the armed forces who came from care, for example. Mr Justice Blake’s reforms following Deepcut had a huge amount to do with that.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

We will disagree, I am sure, on the age of recruitment, but on new clause 2 on minimum service terms, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if under-18s who are recruited at 16 remain within the armed forces, that minimum service should be included? While we may disagree on the recruitment age, should that minimum service not be included within their service period?

[Mr Jones]

I will come on to that—I was going to address that in the second part of my contribution.

There has been change in terms of the duty of care of individuals. Ofsted, for example, now inspects places such as the Army Foundation College, and the practices that the Army has in place to ensure that there is a duty of care around those young people set an example that many other institutions could follow. In terms of the opportunity it gives people, I would not want, by banning under-18s, to stop many young people getting the positive move forward in their lives and the opportunities that the Army gives them.

There are two issues on which I do agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, relating to early service leavers. That is not just an issue for under-18s, but for those who join post 18. To be fair to the armed forces, they have done quite a lot on ensuring that early service leavers have support. That is an issue that I raised when I was in the Ministry of Defence, because some of those individuals end up in the social services network, homeless and so on.

The question is about when people leave, if they are under 18 and decide that the armed forces, or the Army in particular, are not for them. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think there is a package around those who have left care and joined the armed forces. Anything that can be done to improve their experience is the right thing to do.

I am not against new clause 2, but we need to look at what happens in practice. There are quite good reasons why people have to sign on for a certain period of time, because of the commitment. From my experience, however, there is a mechanism to enable most people who do not want to stay in the Army and other armed forces to leave. I do not think it is such an onerous straitjacket as has it been described by some individuals.

I understand where the hon. Member for Glasgow North West is coming from, and I accept that there is a difference of opinion, but overall, my experience is that service in the armed forces gives great opportunities to many young people who would not get them if we did not recruit under-18s. The important thing to say is that many people who join at that age go on to have very good and fulfilling careers in the armed forces, and they also gain life skills and technical skills that they use when they leave the Army and move into civilian life. That is why I do not support the new clauses.

[Mr Holden]

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have had constituency cases of young people who have really benefited from going to Harrogate at age 16, who are thoroughly enjoying and making the most of their time in the armed forces, and who have been joining up with our local regiment, the Rifles, as part of that. I urge hon. Members to think properly about the new clauses and the impact that they will have on some young people who have found a real path in the Army, with the extra training and support that it can provide both educationally and more broadly.