Key Facts

• The new clause amends Part 2 of the Bill to exclude actions brought against the Crown by service personnel from limitations imposed in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.
• Kevan Jones argues that Clause 8 removes court discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and potentially limits Human Rights Act claims.
• Hilary Meredith testified about difficulties with putting a time limit on Human Rights Act claims constitutionally.
• The Bill was brought forward as an election commitment.
• Part 2 of the Bill changes the status of veterans and armed forces personnel.
• An independent evaluation is proposed within 12 months after the Act's implementation.
• The Bill was introduced due to litigation cases ranging from 900 to 1,000.
• 6% of people will lose the ability to take claims against the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
• Prisoners and asylum seekers have rights under section 33 of the Limitation Act to argue their case out of time.
• Part 2 of the Bill introduces a six-year time limit on civil claims by veterans, serving personnel, and their families.
• The Royal British Legion expressed concerns about part 2 of the Bill.
• Between 19 and 50 veterans and families would be prevented from taking forward their claim due to the proposed new limit.
• Between 19 and 50 veterans could be prevented from seeking justice due to part 2 of the Bill.
• The MOD is the defendant in over 75% of claims made between 2014 and 2019.
• Part 2 of the Bill protects the Ministry of Defence but not service personnel or veterans.
• Organisations such as the Royal British Legion, Centre for Military Justice, and Liberty oppose the longstop.
• The Royal British Legion submitted supplementary written evidence in document OOB10 expressing concerns about part 2 of the Bill.
• Professor James Sweeney's evidence challenges the Minister’s assertions regarding the provisions of the Bill.
• There were 552 employer liability claims from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2017.
• The six-year time limit applies to serviceperson but not civilian.
• European human rights law could disadvantage or discriminate against people based on claimant status.
• BATUS in Canada is a training unit mission, not an operational environment covered by the bill.
• Deployments in Cyprus and Estonia would be covered under overseas operations defined in the Bill.
• Clause 8 introduces new factors for courts to consider when deciding claims relating to overseas military operations.
• The maximum time limit for such claims is set at six years.
• Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides discretion for courts to allow claims beyond the usual time limits if it considers it fair.
• Clause 8 introduces a six-year absolute limit for personal injury or death claims arising from overseas military operations.
• The Bill amends the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 to prevent claimants from benefiting from more generous time limits under foreign law.
• According to evidence, 94% of service personnel claims are already brought within six years.
• Amendments 29 through 54 propose changing time limits from six years to ten years across multiple parts and schedules.
• The Royal British Legion has concerns that part 2 of the bill may breach the armed forces covenant.
• The Bill introduces a six-year time limit for bringing civil claims against the Ministry of Defence.
• Mark Bradshaw developed PTSD in 2010 but was not diagnosed until 2016.
• Human Rights Act cases can be brought by armed forces personnel against the MOD.
• The amendment aims to prevent section 2 restrictions from applying to serving and ex-serving personnel.
• Part 2 of the Bill protects the MOD rather than service personnel.
• Campaign group concerns highlight potential issues with the Bill's current form.
• The debate is focused on amendments 30 to 54 with amendment 29.
• The Minister has committed to cross-party work to improve the Bill.
• Limitation periods under ECHR regulation are considered compatible with article 6 if there is compatibility with the right to a fair trial.
• The public consultation in 2019 sought views on a ten-year limitation period.
• Around 94% of relevant claims from service personnel and veterans already fall within the six-year time limit.
• Of Phil Shiner’s claims through Public Interest Lawyers, 62% were brought more than six years after the date of the incident.
• Amendment 76 proposes changing the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts in England and Wales.
• The amendment aims to account for legitimate delays experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
• Amendments aim to adjust the six-year longstop start dates for civil claims.
• Changes are applicable across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
• 'Date of knowledge' is defined as when a person first knew or should have known about an act and its consequences.
• The amendments aim to allow legitimate delays in bringing civil claims.
• The Minister stated that 94% of claims are already brought within six years.
• Evans raises concern about the impact on nuclear test veterans who may suffer from delayed radiation injuries.
• A report by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers notes that service personnel can be misinformed about their right to make a claim.
• Nuclear tests were not classified as operations under the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
• Nuclear test veterans are covered by a war pension scheme instead, which has no time limit for claims.
• Chris Evans raises concerns about clause 11 of the Bill.
• Simon Ellis argues that PTSD sufferers may take a long time to accept their condition and link it to an overseas operation.
• An employee from Simpson Millar Solicitors expects MOD lawyers could use the new Bill to argue claims are out of time.
• The amendment aims to remove 'or first ought to have known' from clause 11.
• Conditions arising from service are often complex and take time to diagnose.
• Examples include hearing loss, Snatch Land Rovers case, non-freeze injuries affecting Commonwealth personnel.
• Kevan Jones raises concerns about non-freezing cold injuries and their impact on service personnel's careers.
• Jones mentions hearing loss as a condition notoriously difficult to determine the date of onset due to varied military careers.
• He cites an example involving Phil Shiner’s cases, noting 62.7% were deemed to have special circumstances under the Limitation Act 1980.
• The Snatch Land Rover case involved a serviceman killed in Iraq; his widow's claim was successful after a limitations hearing but would have been barred under the proposed Bill.
• Cases involving vibration white finger required limitation hearings to proceed due to delayed diagnosis.
• Nuclear test veterans' claims were argued as time-limited by the MOD in 2009, despite being considered overseas operations.
• The amendments propose changing technical parts of the Bill related to personal injury and Human Rights Act claims.
• The current definition of 'date of knowledge' in section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 is considered satisfactory by the minister.
• A series of annual tests will be given to service personnel as part of a significant education effort.
• Amendments introduce discretion for UK courts to allow Human Rights Act (HRA) claims arising from overseas operations despite delays.
• Amendments account for legitimate and explicable delays in bringing civil claims for personal injury or wrongful death resulting from logistical difficulties or the nature of injuries experienced by service personnel and veterans.
• The amendments cover courts in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the UK as a whole.
• Reprieve's evidence highlights issues with schedules 2, 3, and 4 of the Bill.
• Reprieve states that the Bill creates an absolute bar by removing UK courts' discretion to extend time limits for survivors of abuse or UK soldiers to bring claims relating to personal injury and death.
• The Intelligence and Security Committee report did not find direct involvement in torture but noted cases where rendition was conducted on behalf of the United States.
• Mark Bradshaw was awarded £230,000 as a settlement but fears the proposed legislation could discriminate against those who develop PTSD later.
• A marine with hearing loss had his claim accepted by MOD without argument about timing, but the Bill's time limit would have eliminated aspects of his extensive overseas service.
• The speaker questions whether the Minister is willing to pass a Bill that builds barriers to justice for victims and injured service personnel.