← Back to House of Commons Debates
British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims
16 July 2020
Lead MP
John Healey
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
DefenceMental Health
Other Contributors: 31
At a Glance
John Healey raised concerns about british overseas troops: civil liability claims in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The debate is about the Overseas Operations Bill which aims to reduce civil liability claims against the Ministry of Defence for serving personnel. John Healey questions why the Government are reducing rights of overseas service personnel while still being liable for compensation in cases where PTSD or other conditions are diagnosed later.
Johnny Mercer
10:32:00
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.
John Healey
Lab
Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
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.
Carol Monaghan
10:32:00
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.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Perkins asks about addressing questions raised regarding the limitations proposed by the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Patrick Grady
Lab
Asks for an explanation regarding the six-year timeframe and whether there is a role for independent oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Questions how the Bill will ensure better lives and undisturbed families for service personnel and veterans.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
James Sunderland
Con
Asks for reassurance regarding soldiers' protection from legal pursuit when operating in accordance with rules of engagement.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Questions whether soldiers deployed internationally deserve same civil satisfaction route as Whitehall civil servants without restrictions on claim limitations.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Stuart Anderson
Con
South Shropshire
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Acknowledges abuse by human rights lawyers and elements within MOD that could have done better, offering a formal apology where experiences were unacceptable.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Reiterates that veterans are not being penalised and expresses willingness to discuss amendments based on factual evidence, stressing the importance of getting it right.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
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.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Barnsley South
Questions why British soldiers should have less recourse to compensation than civilians they defend.
Johnny Mercer
Con
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.
Fay Jones
Lab
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.
Neil Grey
SNP
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.
Bob Stewart
Con
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.
Robbie Moore
Con
Keighley and Ilkley
Acknowledged gratitude towards serving armed personnel and agreed it is our duty through the Bill to ensure protections are in place when deployed.
Government Response
Mercer asserts that the Bill enhances fairness for veterans and service personnel, not restricting their rights but rather changing how limitation periods are calculated. He cites examples of Government actions to support veterans and rejects claims that the Bill reduces soldiers' ability to make claims. The Minister assured that quality of life for service personnel will be prioritised. He disagreed with incorrect claims made about the compensation scheme and reiterated his commitment to restoring fairness in the process through legislation expected in September.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.