§ 2.40 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy 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 on what grounds, in view of the decision to make the age of majority eighteen years, boys enlisting into the military services from fifteen years upwards do not have the protection of the Infants Relief Act 1874, and are legally bound to serve, with limited opportunities of discharge, until thirty years of age.]
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)My Lords, my noble friend is concerned with two different concepts. The Infants Relief Act 1874 deals with contracts made by persons under the age of majority so as, with certain exceptions, to make them void. A person, of whatever age, who enlists in the Armed Forces in law does not thereby enter into a contract, either with the Crown or with anyone else, as regards the service he agrees to undertake voluntarily.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that 432 Answer, may I ask him whether this is not a legal quibble? Is it not the case that juniors in every sphere of life except the Army can take advantage of this Act? Is it not morally entirely indefensible that a boy of 15 should be expected to serve until he is 30 years of age without any real opportunity to get out of what is, in effect, a contract? And will the Government at least accept the third recommendation of the Latey Committee, which is that within three months after reaching 18 years of age these boys should have an opportunity to leave their Service?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, my noble friend is, I think, a little behind the times. Every enlisted person may have the right to claim his discharge within three months of enlistment.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is making an absolutely unjustifiable accusation against me, and is he further aware that I will prove that? The Latey Committee made two proposals—
§ LORD BROCKWAYIs it not the case that the Government have accepted two of the recommendations made by the Latey Committee, and is my noble friend aware that he has on the Front Bench a member of the Latey Committee who will confirm what I say? Is it not the case that the Government have rejected the third recommendation of the Latey Committee; namely, that these boys should have the opportunity to leave the Army within three months of reaching the age of 18 years?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to answer my noble friend at some length. The Committee on the Age of Majority made three recommendations on the Armed Forces. The first was that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within six months (instead of three months) from the date of entry. The second was that ail boys entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within three months after their eighteenth birthday—and this, I think, I have said. The third was that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required. These recommendations were studied in 433 the context of the Ministry of Defence study on boy entrants, and on February 5, 1968, my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration announced that he was prepared to accept the first recommendation, which was brought into effect from that date; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within six months from the date of entry. That deals with the first recommendation. The second recommendation is still being studied. An early decision is not possible, but a decision will be reached. The third recommendation was that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required. My Lords, it always has been required. I do not know what disturbs my noble friend.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend (and I shall try to speak in a more quiet way) whether he is aware that, while one recognises the fact that this subject is still under review, he appears completely to misunderstand the issues involved? Is he aware that what I am asking is that the third recommendation of the Latey Committee, that at 18 years of age these boys should have permission, within three months, to leave the Service, should be applied? It has not been applied by Her Majesty's Government over the space of one year, and is it not time the Government reached a decision on this matter?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I can only refer my noble friend to the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton on February 5, 1968.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, why will it take some time to consider this point, and why cannot we have a decision fairly soon, in view of the fact that a member of the Government has said that this is not a morally defensible system?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, this is a complicated subject. My own view—I speak as someone in direct contact with this problem—is that no serious hardship is being inflicted on anyone. But it is obviously a matter of concern, and is being studied.
§ LORD BROCKWAYIs my noble friend aware—
§ LORD BROCKWAY—that I have in my hand—
§ LORD BROCKWAY—the details of 52 cases of boys who want to get out of the Army but who are not allowed to because the Government are refusing to apply the Latey Committee recommendation regarding reconsideration within three months of their reaching the age of 18?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, of course I am not aware that my noble friend has the details of these cases in his hand, but if he cares to send them to me I will look at them.