British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims

Mercer defends the Bill as necessary to protect troops from endless legal claims and stresses that it does not prevent service personnel, veterans, or their relatives from bringing claims. He clarifies that the six-year limit starts from the point of diagnosis rather than the date of incident.

Healey criticises the Bill for potentially blocking compensation for veterans with PTSD or hearing loss diagnosed years after incidents. He highlights discrepancies in previous statements made by Ministers regarding the impact of the legislation.

Longhi supports the Minister, asserting that these changes will ensure troops and veterans are protected from unfair pursuit.

Monaghan questions protections for personnel told they cannot pursue claims during service and requests evidence of how the limit benefits personnel. She also criticises the lack of formal consultation response and impact assessment published alongside the Bill.

Perkins asks about addressing questions raised regarding the limitations proposed by the Bill.

Supports the Minister's intention but raises concerns about potential unforeseen consequences if the Bill is not properly detailed. Questions whether individuals should be penalised for delays in bringing claims due to valid reasons.

Thanked Andrew Gwynne and acknowledged that amendments are open for constructive debate, emphasising the need to base changes on fact. Notes existing limits on time for compensation claims and suggests willingness to adjust if valid reasons exist.

Welcomes the Bill's spirit but raises concerns about potential amendments, particularly in part 2, which could undermine the military covenant. Offers his book as a reference on the topic.

Reaffirms commitment to protect service personnel and veterans without disadvantaging them. Indicates willingness to look at any part of the Bill for potential amendments, but stresses no intention to reduce protection for those who served.

Asks for an explanation regarding the six-year timeframe and whether there is a role for independent oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Responds that the Bill aligns with other Human Rights Act claims. Refers to exceptional circumstances at three years for special provisions, emphasising no arbitrary decision-making.

Questions how the Bill will ensure better lives and undisturbed families for service personnel and veterans.

Explains that ending uncertainty is crucial, ensuring those who have not committed offences are not hounded by spurious claims. Highlights the need to restore fairness and clarity in accountability processes.

Raises concerns about significant departures from existing practices, such as limiting actions regarding torture, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, questioning whether a consensus can be built around these provisions.

Acknowledges willingness to review any aspect of the Bill but emphasises that retrospective application of Human Rights Act to battlefield is inappropriate. Stresses commitment to uphold law of armed conflict and prevent misuse of legislation.

Asks for reassurance regarding soldiers' protection from legal pursuit when operating in accordance with rules of engagement.

Reiterates adherence to law by service personnel, stating that those who follow the law have nothing to worry about and will be protected. Promises protection from misuse by lawyers seeking profit.

Questions whether soldiers deployed internationally deserve same civil satisfaction route as Whitehall civil servants without restrictions on claim limitations.

Asserts that military personnel are entitled to protection, emphasising the Bill's aim to protect them from unfair processes and ensuring they are not penalised by it.

Expresses gratitude for the Minister's efforts but calls for an apology on behalf of MOD for decades of harassment faced by troops and veterans during troubles.

Acknowledges abuse by human rights lawyers and elements within MOD that could have done better, offering a formal apology where experiences were unacceptable.

Encourages the Minister to listen to concerns about unintended consequences of current Bill structure, urging him to prevent veterans from being penalised while supporting overall goal.

Reiterates that veterans are not being penalised and expresses willingness to discuss amendments based on factual evidence, stressing the importance of getting it right.

Highlights support for changes from local veterans who want balance between adherence to law and protection from vexatious claims. Seeks assurance on preserving this balance.

Reaffirms commitment to a better system of accountability, ensuring those breaking the law are held accountable while protecting those who have done nothing wrong from lifelong legal issues.

Questions why British soldiers should have less recourse to compensation than civilians they defend.

Defended the armed forces compensation scheme, stating it is a good and constantly reviewed programme. He disagreed with claims made by other members and assured that quality of life for service personnel is prioritised.

Expressed concern about the closure of Brecon barracks, a garrison town with many infantry veterans. Asked if the Minister agreed that closing such sites would be a wrong to veterans and their history.

Asked for clarification on how the government will ensure no disadvantage to veterans, particularly regarding concerns about the 60-year rule affecting injured veterans' claims.

Endorsed a previous question and thanked the Minister for addressing issues faced by veterans. Highlighted ongoing problems in Northern Ireland but emphasised that everyone wants to improve circumstances for service personnel.

Acknowledged gratitude towards serving armed personnel and agreed it is our duty through the Bill to ensure protections are in place when deployed.