Memorandum submitted by Child Soldiers International

Summary

This submission raises three issues of concern with regard to the physical and mental wellbeing of army trainees under the age of 18:

1. Discharge due to training injury;
2. Trainees who self-harm;
3. Mortality rates.

1. Injury during training

An army document dated 2013 states that ‘recent data have demonstrated that both male and female JE Recruits [Junior Entry – aged 16-17½] are twice as likely to be medically discharged with training-induced injuries compared to SE Recruits [Standard Entry – all other ages]’.  The document continues:
 

‘Whilst this may be partly related to their skeletal and muscular immaturity…, it may also be related to their physical fitness and capacity for physical performance, which is still developing.’[1]

Child Soldiers International believes that military training puts the adolescent body, which is still developing, at undue risk of harm.  We ask the Committee to consider this in the course of the inquiry, supported by up-to-date data from the army.

2. Self-harm during training

The army has stated that a number of Junior Soldiers at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate are identified as self-harming.  In the training year 2013/14, 10 recruits were so identified.[2]  The army’s rules state that such individuals should not be enlisted.[3]  Commenting on self-harm and suicide, the Deepcut Review noted that ‘being young, under or about 18, and living 24/7 within the disciplined regime of an institution such as the Army is, itself, a significant factor indicative of risk.’[4]  The long-term suicide rate among male 16-19 year olds in the army is 65 per cent higher than among civilians of the same age.[5]  It is more than three times higher than the equivalent rate in the navy and more than twice as high as in the RAF.[6]  We invite the Committee to request from the army:

• Up-to-date data on the number of Junior Soldiers identified as self-harming;
• Clarification of the policy of enlisting minors who have a history of self-harm;
• Clarification of whether such individuals, if enlisted and identified, are discharged.

3. Deaths during training

In recent correspondence with Child Soldiers International, a former member of staff at the Army Foundation College told us that two Junior Soldiers died during their training period while he worked there (over two years).  We ask the Committee to request from the MoD statistics department:

• Long-term standardised mortality ratios of a) Junior Soldiers and b) Standard Entry soldiers in training, which compare the mortality rate among trainees with that of the civilian population over a ten- or twenty-year period.

Education

It is sometimes suggested that the benefits of enlistment outweigh the risks that it brings, and in particular that the armed forces’ education and training provide a constructive opportunity for young people who struggled in school.  The evidence again points the other way.  The armed forces are exempt from the minimum standards of education participation specified in the Education and Skills Act (2008).  This means that all civilians aged 16 and 17 have to meet a higher standard of participation than do their counterparts in the armed forces.  The army’s education provision for Junior Soldiers is in any case extremely limited.  It is based on low-grade, poorly recognised Functional Skills qualifications in just three subjects, and an apprenticeship in ‘Public Services’, which consists of infantry training and is not designed for use outside the army.

Age of recruitment

In addition to the points made above, Child Soldiers International and others have now compiled a substantial body of evidence showing that the youngest army recruits face elevated risks to their physical and mental health, as well as to their long-term social mobility, as a result of enlisting from age 16.  Much of this evidence is summarised in our report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which we would be pleased to make available to Committee members.[7]

At various points, the policy of recruiting from age 16 has been challenged by the Defence Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioners for all four jurisdictions of the UK, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Unicef UK and other major child rights organisations, Amnesty International, the National Union of Teachers, the Church of Scotland, the Bishops of the Church in Wales, former recruits themselves and their families, and many others.

We have limited the scope of the present submission to that of the inquiry under way, namely welfare during training.  We nonetheless invite the Committee to consider the points made here in the wider context of a policy that is detrimental to the best interests of the child, and to call for a full and independent review of the recruitment age.

November 2015