COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN IN ARMED CONFLICT
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial report of the United Kingdom on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
Tom Jeffery, Director General for Children and Families in the Department for Children Schools and Families of the United Kingdom, introducing the report, said that the United Kingdom strongly supported the international agenda to address the issues of children affected by armed conflict and, last year, had endorsed the Paris Commitments to protect children from the unlawful recruitment or use by armed forces and armed groups. Conscription into the British Armed Forces had been abolished in 1963 and it remained a force comprised entirely of volunteers. The minimum age for recruitment remained at 16 years. Young people under 18 years of age had to provide written permission from their parents or legal guardian to begin the recruitment process. To ensure they fully understood the implications of their decision to enlist, each of the three Services encouraged the involvement of parents or guardians at all stages, and provided a clear and unambiguous explanation of the terms and conditions of service.
The Armed Forces offered young people a wide variety of challenging, interesting and rewarding careers and provided an excellent opportunity for young people to benefit from nationally recognized training and education, Mr. Jeffrey underscored. It was the policy of the armed forces not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations, and guidelines were in place to ensure that they were withdrawn from their units before deployed to hostilities
In preliminary concluding remarks, Kamel Filali, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of the United Kingdom on the Optional Protocol, noted accomplishments, but said more remained to be done, including in the areas of raising the age of recruitment, the deployment of children in direct hostilities, the treatment of children encountered in conflict areas, protections for asylum-seeking children who had been involved in armed conflicts, and regarding military tribunals.
Questions raised by Committee Experts included among others, active recruitment in schools; complaint mechanism procedures available to children in the armed forces; the synchronization of services with local authorities in terms of the asylum-seeking children that had been used as child soldiers in armed groups abroad; the recruitment of children to armed groups, and in particular the recruitment of minors by private companies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan; recruitment from impoverished communities; and the role of the Service Complaints Commissioner.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of the United Kingdom on the Optional Protocol towards the end of its three-week session which will conclude on Friday, 3 October.
The United Kingdom’s delegation, which presented the report, included representatives from the Ministry of Defence; the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office at Geneva; the Border Agency; and the Child Wellbeing Group.
As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention and the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the United Kingdom is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of those treaties.
When the Committee reconvenes on Monday, 29 September at 10 a.m., it will begin consideration of the initial reports of Tanzania under the Optional Protocols on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPSC/TZA/1 and CRC/C/OPAC/TZA/1).
Report of the United Kingdom
The British Armed Forces are recognized as a major provider of work-based training for the 16-18 age group notes the initial report of the United Kingdom on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/GBR/1). In order to compete in an increasingly competitive employment market, the British Armed Services need to attract young people aged 16 and above into pursuing careers in the armed forces. In doing so, the armed forces provide valuable and constructive training and employment to many young people, giving them a sense of great achievement and worth, as well as benefiting society as a whole. The House of Commons Defence Committee acknowledged that, for many youngsters, particularly those from deprived or disadvantaged backgrounds, the armed forces provide an opportunity that may have been denied them in civilian life. To be unable to recruit from this age group would mean that high-quality school leavers would settle into other careers and thus be lost to the Services. This would create serious manning problems for the armed forces since 30 per cent of all recruits in 2006-2007 were aged under 18.
As a direct result of the measures taken on the exposure to hostilities, the number of personnel under 18 deployed on operations has reduced from approximately 300 between 1999 and 2003 to only 18 since the Optional Protocol was ratified in 2003. None have been deployed since July 2005. The minimum recruitment age into the British Armed Forces remains at 16 and there are no plans to change this. All recruitment into the British Armed Forces is voluntary. Harassment complaint procedures of the Ministry of Defence were updated on 31 January 2007. It is the Ministry of Defences’ policy that all personnel have a right to be treated with dignity at work, and a responsibility to help ensure a working environment in which the dignity of others is respected. The procedures establish how complaints should be made; how they should be responded to; and how they will be investigated and decided upon, as well as providing guidance for those responsible for advising parties to a complaint.
Presentation of Report
TOM JEFFERY, Director General for Children and Families in the Department for Children Schools and Families of the United Kingdom, introducing the report, said that the United Kingdom played a full and active role in the negotiation of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and had ratified it on 24 June 2003. Last year, alongside the periodic report on the Convention, the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Optional Protocol had been implemented.
Recognizing the importance of the devolution issue, it was made clear that, in the main, the Optional Protocol applied to matters which were not devolved. The country reports and answers therefore referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. One exception concerned the children of service families, who might have lived anywhere in the United Kingdom and therefore benefited from the health, social and educational policies of the particular administration in which they lived. However, a recent Command Paper from the Ministry of Defence, agreed with the Devolved Administrations, committed to the greater alignment of services across the United Kingdom to take account of those families’ mobility and better meet the needs of children, Mr. Jeffrey said.
Mr. Jeffery said the Government remained firmly committed to meeting the obligations under the Optional Protocol and had taken steps to bestow special safeguards on young people under the age of 18. Many of those damaged by conflict around the world were children. The United Kingdom therefore strongly supported the international agenda to address the issues of children affected by armed conflict. The United Kingdom was committed to playing an active role in international efforts through the United Nations and European Union. And, last year, the United Kingdom had endorsed the Paris Commitments to protect children from the unlawful recruitment or use by armed forces and armed groups. The United Kingdom had also strongly supported and actively facilitated the work of international courts and tribunals which were trying the alleged perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community including those against children.
Mr. Jeffrey highlighted that Conscription into the British Armed Forces had been abolished in 1963 and it remained a force comprised entirely of volunteers. The minimum age for recruitment remained at 16 years. Young people under the age of 18 years of age had to provide written permission from their parents or legal guardian to begin the recruitment process. To ensure they fully understood the implications of their decision to enlist, each of the three Services encouraged the involvement of parents or guardians at all stages, and provided a clear and unambiguous explanation of the terms and conditions of service.
The Armed Forces offered young people a wide variety of challenging, interesting and rewarding careers and provided an excellent opportunity for young people to benefit from nationally recognized training and education. Continued investment in training and education for service personnel was provided starting at the most basic skills up to the post graduate level. It was the policy of the armed forces not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations, and guidelines were in place to ensure that they were withdrawn from their units before deployed to hostilities, Mr. Jeffrey affirmed.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
AWICH POLLAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the United Kingdom on this Optional Protocol, noted that the United Kingdom had ratified the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict in June 2003 and had remained an active member of the United Nations working group on children and armed conflict. Through the European Union, the United Kingdom had been actively involved in the children and armed conflict agenda. The United Kingdom also supported humanitarian programmes and projects run by the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Refugee Agency and non-governmental organisations that included providing support to child soldiers. Those were really good moves by the United Kingdom Government in the implementation of the Optional Protocol.
Among remaining issues for discussion, Mr. Pollar observed that the United Kingdom recruited children below the age of 18 years into the armed forces. It was instructive to look at other relevant legislation setting legal ages for a person to buy or consume alcohol; to legally smoke tobacco; and to vote. All of those age provisions were intended to protect the child, and as such the United Kingdom should reconsider the age of recruitment in the country.
Another difficulty was that there was no definition in United Kingdom law of “direct hostilities” or any similar phrases relating to the provisions of the Optional Protocol that prohibited children’s involvement. The Army Terms of Service Regulation 2007, which abolished the “six-year trap” for recruits enlisted on and from 1 January 2008, made no provision for amending the terms of personnel under 18 recruited prior to that date, who were still bound by those terms. Mr. Pollar asked the United Kingdom Government to explain the equity of that distinction.
KAMEL FILALI, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of the United Kingdom on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, asked about the dissemination of the Optional Protocol and whether it was easily accessible to the community?
Mr. Filali stressed that the voluntary recruitment age of 16 was not in the spirit of the Optional Protocol and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Optional Protocol should be read alongside the Convention. It was recommended that the age be raised to 18 years.
In terms of vulnerable groups, Mr. Filali felt that those groups were more exposed to the risk of under-18 recruitment in comparison to other groups, and there case needed to be addressed first.
With regard to the criminalization of children involved in armed group conflict, was it possible to criminally try a person for crimes committed outside the United Kingdom, Mr. Filali asked?
Committee Experts then raised a number of concerns and asked questions including on active recruitment in schools; complaint mechanism procedures available to children in the armed forces; unaccompanied asylum-seeking children coming into the United Kingdom as a result of being a child soldiers in armed groups abroad, and whether there was coordination among local services in place to address the needs of such children; . Further concerns were raised by Experts on the recruitment of children for armed groups, and in particular the recruitment of minors by private companies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan; and the fact that the percentage of recruits under the age of 18 from 2004-2007 was 30 per cent, with 50 per cent of recruitment coming from impoverished communities. An Expert also asked what role the Service Complaints Commissioner played in the complaints mechanism procedure?
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
With respect to the dissemination of the Optional Protocol, the delegation said that outside of the armed services, training was not specifically provided to professionals on the Optional Protocol. However, training on human rights was widely available to professionals, and was an area where more needed to be done. In the armed forces people were not trained on the Optional Protocol specifically, however, some personnel received training on issues covered by it, for example in handling detainees.
In terms of concerns raised by the Committee on recruitment issues, the delegation said that the figure of 50 per cent of recruits coming from deprived backgrounds was not recognized, as the forces did not discriminate in the recruitment of personnel. With respect to the recruitment of those under 18 years of age, it was not intention of the Government to change that. The armed forces did not target recruitment in economically deprived areas, and no preference was made to such areas. All engagement with schools was based on information sessions in which the armed forces had been invited. Recruitment was only done outside schools. Recruitment centres were scattered across the country.
With respect to inspections of the military corrective training centre, the delegation said that the personnel who wished to speak with inspectors visiting the military corrective training centre were granted that right to do so. The Service Complaints Commissioner had the right to refer complaints made to her to the chain of command. She was also able to recommend certain changes that would improve the complaint mechanism in her annual report commenting on the fairness, efficiency and timeliness of how complaints were handled.
On recruitment in armed conflict and specifically for private military companies, the delegation said that they did not have information at the time being. However, on the recruitment of paramilitary organizations, in particular in relation with Northern Ireland, the situation was deemed not an armed conflict under international law, and the provisions of the Optional Protocol did not apply there.
A person took part in hostilities if deployed on a mission where hostile forces were present, said the delegation. On specifics of individuals deployed into the Royal Navy and Marines, this was part of the assessment made by the chain of command if there was threat for the ships’ company. If the ship was under threat, personnel under the age of 18 would not be deployed. In terms of the Royal Marines, the personnel was not allowed to leave the ship to engage in land operations where an operational theatre was present. The operational location system was used to record and track personnel location in operation theatre, and was also used to check if under 18’s were deployed to operational theatre. One role it played was as a final check for those entering the theatre.
On children seeking asylum as a result of serving as a child soldier in armed conflict, the delegation said that there was a reform programme aimed to reduce the number of local authority areas in which children were placed so as to develop an increased level of expertise in those areas. Currently guidelines had been drafted to support the code of practice for all United Kingdom border agency staff, which directed staff to make referrals to local authorities where a child was at a particular risk of harm, for instance if a child was conscripted into armed conflict in their home countries. In addition, the existing local authorities’ areas offered particular psychosocial rehabilitation services for these children.
There were no specific provisions within the service justice system for under 18’s who had committed offences, the delegation said. The commanding officer had the responsibility to deal with a number of offences and act accordingly, which did not lead to a court martial, which was only used in serious offences. In addition, a period of detention was only granted as a sentence in extreme circumstances.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
KAMEL FILALI, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the Report of the United Kingdom on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, thanked the delegation for the frank and constructive dialogue. Some points deserved further attention by the Government of the United Kingdom. A lot had been accomplished, however more remained to be done included among others, discussion on raising the age of recruitment, the issue of deployment in direct hostilities, the treatment of children encountered in conflict areas, asylum-seeking children who had been involved in armed conflicts, and regarding military tribunals.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08029E