Armed Forces Bill - After Clause 12 - Duty of care to service personnel (Lords amendments 1R, 1S, 1T and 1U)

She introduces government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments, highlighting the need to address concerns while ensuring protections for service personnel. She acknowledges interventions from colleagues about future implications and mental health support.

Questions whether any country would prosecute soldiers 50 years after an event, expressing doubt over the practicality of such legal measures.

Congratulates the Minister on his appointment and inquires about the timeframe for future implications mentioned by the Minister, seeking clarity on when proposed changes will affect service personnel.

Asks for assurance that legal, pastoral and mental health support is fully covered in the Bill. He highlights the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder on service personnel and their families.

Mr. John Healey argues that Lord Dannatt's proposed duty of care amendment, supported by cross-party backing in the House of Lords, is practical and flexible. He challenges the government’s argument against this amendment, stating that veterans are often abandoned by their chain of command despite assurances of comprehensive support. Mr. Healey further asserts that the Minister's arguments for opposing the duty of care become increasingly flimsy as the debate progresses. Additionally, he dismisses concerns about an increase in litigation and potential interference with operations during conflict, citing Lord Dannatt’s approval of the amendment.

Mr. Kevan Jones intervenes to support Mr. Healey's stance on the duty of care amendment. He expresses disappointment that more amendments were not accepted in Committee, which would have reduced the need for redrafting by the Lords. Additionally, he criticises the lack of provisions to address vexatious claims and investigations within the Bill.

Welcomes the Government's concessions on Lords amendment 1R, which corrects egregious errors in the Bill. Supports the exclusion of war crimes from the presumption against prosecution to protect UK troops from charges before the International Criminal Court.

Congratulates the Minister on their new position and acknowledges the significant concessions made by the Government due to peer pressure. Concerned that flawed investigations remain an issue despite amendments, highlighting the need for independent investigators.

Supports the inclusion of war crimes alongside other serious crimes in the presumption against prosecution. Expresses concern about the scope of crimes that may evade provisions and highlights the need for equal protection for veterans from Northern Ireland.

Sunderland disagrees with the need for a duty of care amendment, stating that the Ministry of Defence already has robust service justice systems in place. He supports the exclusion of serious crimes such as sexual offences and genocide from the Bill's scope, arguing it is not necessary to undermine the UK’s standing as a force for good.

Stone supports the war crimes exclusion amendment but remains cautious about the duty of care proposal. He expresses concern over service personnel's mental health and fears that they may feel abandoned during investigations or litigation processes.

Jones criticises the Bill for failing to address investigations of service members, which he believes is a central issue. He argues that Part 2 of the Bill removes necessary protections from armed forces personnel and should be scrapped.

Welcomes the Government's concession in excluding all offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. Questions why it took so long for the Government to realise the severity of their proposals, and calls on the Minister to shed light on what led to this change. Supports the duty of care amendment proposed by John Healey.

Supports the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in overseas operations. Cites a study showing over 36% of military veterans in Northern Ireland are likely suffering from PTSD. Advocates for legislative action by the Government to protect service personnel morally and legally.

Acknowledges contributions but does not explicitly commit to bringing forward legislation on Northern Ireland veterans as requested. Confirms ongoing legal matters cannot be commented upon, yet reiterates commitment to delivering on Government's commitments. Commends Bill team for their work and highlights protection of armed forces personnel from vexatious claims.