HL Deb 29 November 1967 vol 287 cc94-6
LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a decision has now been made on the recommendations of the Committee on the Age of Majority regarding opportunities for boys of 15 who join the Forces to secure discharge before they are 30 years of age.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)

My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration is taking into careful consideration the views expressed in your Lordships' House on October 23, 1967, the last occasion when my noble friend raised a similar Question, and also on November 22, 1967, when your Lordships' House debated the Latey Report on the Age of Majority. My honourable friend regrets that he cannot make a Statement as he had originally hoped. He will announce his conclusions as soon as he possibly can, but it will not be easy to satisfy everyone.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I tabled this Question before our debate which took place last week? In view of the fact that the Minister then said that this matter was being looked at urgently, can be press the honourable gentleman to reach a very early decision upon it, because it is becoming a scandal that boys should be retained in the Services from 15 to 30 years of age against their will.

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, without commenting on the substance of what my noble friend has said, I will certainly pass on his views to my honourable friend. I would make the point that this is a problem with some extremely complicated long-term implications for the Armed Forces. I realise that months have now passed since the Report on the Age of Majority was published, but I would ask my noble friend to contain himself in patience for a little longer.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I repeat the question that I put to my noble friend some months ago? Why is it that a boy of 15 is able to enter into a contract through a parent which is legally binding in the Services, whereas it is not legally binding in any other field in the country?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, I cannot add to the answer which was given to that question on a previous occasion. As I have said, my honourable friend will be reporting his conclusions on an examination of the whole problem, as it affects both the age of majority and its specific implications for the Armed Forces, as soon as he possibly can.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, does not this matter refer to an insignificant minority of those who are in the Armed Services, and are the problems of the Defence Ministry so complex that this elementary human principle of liberty can continue to be denied?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, the problems of the liberty of the individual in an organised society have been argued at great length over the centuries. I should be delighted to debate them further with my noble friend, but I am sure that he would not wish me to do so to-day. I have made the point that these matters raise complicated and difficult problems for my honourable friend. This is not, as my noble friend has said, a question of a derisory minority, but of a substantial number of people. It raises substantial problems, and my honourable friend is determined to resolve these before reporting his conclusions.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I speak as one who joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1914 and served his full stint—whether he does not think that some of these young boys make the finest soldiers in the British Army? Furthermore, if it is alleged that they do not know their minds when they go in, may it not be that perhaps they do not know their minds when they decide to come out?

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a big human problem involved in this Question? In many cases these boys of 15 are living in homes, and they are got out of the homes by being encouraged to go into the Services. Then, when the boys reach the age of 21, they do not like Service life, but have no hope of getting out. Cannot that position be rectified?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be aware that the Latey Report on the Age of Majority made certain recommendations covering this point. Some of those recommendations present no problems at all; others do present problems, and it would be wrong for my honourable friend, or the Government, to come to a conclusion on this matter before all the implications have been examined.

VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN

My Lords, would not the Minister agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said? He was in my regiment, so he would be quite well trained. Would not the Minister agree that the more boys of 15 who join the Army, the better? And let them be taught some discipline while they are at an age when they can understand; and let them get their hair cut.

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, the noble and gallant Viscount has always interesting and constructive things to say about these matters. I will bear in mind what he said about the length of people's hair. I should like to congratulate him on his good fortune in having the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in his regiment—a piece of good fortune surpassed only by Lord Leatherland.

VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN

My Lords, at somewhat different levels.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, whereas my noble friend Lord Leatherland and the noble and gallant Viscount opposite have survived the war, there are some who joined at 16 and who have not survived? Perhaps if they were here to-day they might make a different contribution to this exchange.