Key Facts

• The Committee is hearing evidence from Douglas Young of the British Armed Forces Federation and Michael Sutcliff of the Armed Forces Support Group.
• Proceedings are scheduled until 10:30 am.
• Witnesses will introduce themselves for the record.
• The five-year rule is being debated as too short or too long.
• Some MPs suggest a cut-off period of 10 years to ensure proper investigation and recording.
• There are concerns about the fading of memories over longer periods, affecting case outcomes.
• Six-year time limit for civil cases against the MOD.
• Concerns that the absolute longstop may disadvantage armed forces personnel compared with civilians.
• Douglas Young suggests a robust administrative payment system operating during conflict or post-conflict periods.
• The Bill aims to address industrial levels of claims against service personnel.
• There are concerns about potential negative impacts on genuine claimants seeking compensation for legitimate grievances.
• Mental health issues among service personnel and veterans, including those related to combat operations, are highlighted.
• Investigations under IHAT have been criticized for excessive actions by non-police investigators.
• Some individuals barricaded themselves due to fear of investigations.
• The Bill does not directly affect how investigators approach potential witnesses or suspects.
• There is concern that the exemption for torture from time limits may be politically motivated.
• The session is scheduled until 11 am.
• Emma Lewell-Buck and Carol Monaghan are set to question Hilary Meredith.
• Stuart Anderson expressed a desire to participate in every question.
• Criminal and civil proceedings against service personnel are raised as concerns.
• Many criminal allegations arose out of civil compensation claims, indicating potential issues with the process.
• Hilary Meredith is critical of investigations being shambolic over a period of up to 17 years for the same incident.
• Robert Campbell faced 11 repeated investigations over 17 years for one incident.
• There were 4,000 vexatious criminal claims under IHAT with no prosecutions.
• Concerns raised about the six-year longstop in part 2 of the Bill.
• Suggestion to scrap the six-year longstop for criminal allegations.
• Proposal for an independent advocate system during investigations.
• Questioning MOD compensation payments made, amounting up to £145,000 in some cases, when there is no guilt involved.
• Emphasis on the need for a speedy trial under the Human Rights Act.
• The Human Rights Act cases were brought by Iraqi civilians against the Ministry of Defence.
• IHAT team investigated over 4,000 accusations of crime but there was not a single prosecution.
• Of the 4,000 accusations, only around five were worth investigation and insufficient evidence was found to prove any issues.
• Major Bob Campbell is a former Army officer giving evidence remotely.
• The MOD did not provide meaningful support to Major Campbell during eight investigations.
• In 2015, Major Campbell sought to defer his course at staff college due to pending allegations but received unhelpful advice from his colonel.
• Major Campbell faced multiple investigations without proper support from military chain of command.
• An officer at least of colonel rank should be set up to serve as a one-stop shop for soldiers under investigation.
• Major Campbell fully supports the Bill but has minor concerns regarding its legal aspects and the role of previous Attorneys General.
• Major Campbell conducted an unscientific survey among veterans in his orbit regarding the Bill.
• The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is blamed for repeated investigations into allegations against veterans.
• Major Campbell wrote to the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, about surrendering himself and others to avoid prolonged legal battles with the MOD.
• The Committee adjourned without further questions according to Standing Order No. 88.
• The next sitting of the Committee is scheduled for the same day at Two o'clock.