Armed Forces Bill

Clause 54 relates to some of the other clauses that we have dealt with, but it gives me the opportunity to ask about children in the armed forces, by which I mean those under the age of 18 and how they will be dealt with under the Bill. We have just considered offences that may be dealt with at summary hearing. Indeed, clause 50 deals with the jurisdiction of a court martial. Clause 54 deals with charges that may be heard summarily only with permission or by a senior officer, and some of those charges will apply to the category that I have referred to—children. International law—in particular, article 1 of the convention on the rights of the child, which entered into force in 1990, states:"““For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.””" We are one of the 192 countries that have signed that treaty, which came into force in May 2000, and we ratified the protocol on 24 June 2003. That protocol sets 18 as the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, and my first question is whether that is the case with under-18s in our armed forces. Can they be involved hostilities? [Hon. Members: ““No.””] I want to get a clear answer on that, because it has an important impact not just on an earlier debate but on the way that under-18s are treated. Presumably, if the hon. Members who shouted no are right, under-18s will not be subject to clause 54, which is all about being dealt with summarily by a senior officer. However, I should like to hear an explanation of that. Before under-18s come into the armed forces, parental consent is supposed to be obtained from parents or legal guardians. Consent must be given freely by the youth and the parent or legal guardian, but are there any special arrangements for orphans or those who have been in care, or are they not accepted into the armed forces? I should like an answer in that respect. My next point—I want to make four points in all, and this is my third—is whether there is complete equivalence between the way that under-18s are dealt with under court martial arrangements and in civilian criminal courts. I should like to get an explanation of that, because it is important that there should be a degree of equivalence. I note that there can be a period of detention and training followed by a period of supervision and I welcome that. That should be under the auspices of the armed forces. However, there is a quirky bit in the law. The Library tells me that if an offender breaches his or her supervision requirements upon release from custody, that can be dealt with only by a civil court, not a service court. I wonder why that quirky element exists. If the supervision is laid down by a court martial, it should be undertaken by the same people. They seem the obvious people to undertake that supervision. The Library also tells me that there are arrangements for those under the age of 15 who are persistent offenders. That is an interesting point. How do the armed forces deal with persistent offenders? Will they be subject to clause 54 and will a senior officer become involved in those cases? My last point relates to the most serious offences, such as murder. In a civilian context, a judge would have a say, but we have a funny arrangement whereby the Secretary of State also has a say on terms of imprisonment and how those people are dealt with. That seems to apply to youths who commit offences of that sort, even though they are in the armed forces. I seek clarification on that.