Key Facts

• Amendments introduce discretion for courts to allow civil claims to proceed despite delays.
• The amendments cover jurisdictions including England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and UK-wide HRA claims.
• Reasons for delays include the nature of injuries and logistical difficulties.
• The Armed Forces Act 2006 pardoned soldiers who were shot at dawn during World War One.
• It took approximately 60 to 70 years for shell shock to be recognized and accepted.
• The MP suggests backdating justice for current issues like PTSD, alcohol, and drug abuse.
• Discussion centres around the impact of schedule 2 part 1 of the Bill which amends section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
• 94% of cases are brought within time limits as per data mentioned, leaving 6% out of time.
• The Snatch Land Rover case is cited as an example where section 33 allowed for exceptional circumstances to extend the time limit.
• The MP argues that veterans should have more rights than prisoners regarding suing the MOD under this Bill.
• The six-year longstop applies to personal injury and death claims, as well as Human Rights Act claims.
• Statistics show that 94% of cases are brought within the current time limit.
• Current limitations for bringing claims are three years for personal injury or death and one year for HRA claims.
• Amendments 89, 90, 91, and 88 are proposed.
• The amendments aim to ensure that claimants' rights are not subordinated in civil claims due to limitation periods.
• The standard limitation period for three years is mentioned for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
• A one-year HRA limitation period is referenced for the UK as a whole.
• Rights and Security International submitted evidence highlighting concerns about the Bill's discriminatory impact on claimants.
• Centre for Military Justice outlined the need for the Bill to consider mental health of claimants, not just witnesses.
• Mark Bradshaw's case is cited as an example of a veteran who developed PTSD years after friendly fire and faced significant challenges in seeking diagnosis and legal advice.
• The Bill references Scotland's separate legal system.
• Schedule 4 pertains to Northern Ireland veterans.
• The Minister claimed a similar Bill would cover Northern Ireland veterans.
• The MOD compensated individuals for various claims during operations in Iraq.
• Phil Shiner is criticized for false accusations and encouragement of cases.
• IHAT investigation was set up by a Conservative Government in 2010.
• Judge Blackett's suggestions about investigating controls are mentioned as potential amendments.
• Kevan Jones suggests ways to manage investigations more effectively.
• He criticizes the time limit process, arguing it will not reduce claims significantly.
• Johnny Mercer defends the Bill as good, fair, and proportionate.
• Amendment 57 seeks to require parliamentary approval before derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights are made.
• The amendment addresses concerns over exceptional circumstances outlined in Article 15 of the convention, emphasizing the need for limited and supervised derogation.
• Chris Evans underscores the importance of parliamentary scrutiny to check potential misuse of legislative power.
• Chris Evans highlights the importance of not undermining human rights in court.
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission recommends amendment 57 requiring parliamentary approval for significant derogations from the ECHR.
• Redress warns that the Bill risks undermining UK's influence on global human rights issues.
• The Bill proposes unusual derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights not seen before by any member state of the Council of Europe.
• Justice has raised concerns about the Bill's potential damage to the UK's standing as a champion of human rights.
• Amendment 57 aims to clarify that the Government will not derogate without real and significant cause.
• The statement highlights concerns about potential derogations from treaties such as the Geneva convention.
• Chris Evans argues that frequent derogation undermines treaties.
• Parliamentary scrutiny is proposed to ensure democratic decision-making and high-level oversight for any derogations.