Key Facts

• The proposed clause applies to any investigation into alleged conduct during overseas operations.
• Police must place their preliminary findings before an allocated judge advocate within six months of the alleged offence being brought to their attention.
• Judge advocates can determine if there is merit in the complaint and order further investigations or cease them based on specific criteria.
• New clause 2 proposes a time limit similar to that which exists in relation to summary only matters in Magistrates’ Courts.
• New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation comparing access to justice for service personnel with that of asylum seekers and prisoners within 12 months of the Act coming into force.
• Amendment 64 would remove Clause 2 from the Bill, while NC4 replaces it by requiring a prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
• Jones has been a supporter of the armed forces for nearly 19 years.
• The Labour Front-Bench team aims to improve the Bill.
• Witnesses in Committee disagreed with the Government's account of the Bill.
• Hilary Meredith, solicitor, suggested reviewing UK procedures and investigations rather than imposing time limits on prosecutions.
• Part 2 of the Bill is seen as taking away rights from members of the armed forces.
• Major Campbell’s case took 17 years to resolve.
• The number of investigations far exceeds prosecutions, highlighting inefficiencies.
• New clause 1 would provide judicial oversight after six months if no clear evidence emerges.
• Judge Blackett advised on speeding up minor cases through magistrates courts.
• The Bill is criticized for not stopping reinvestigations or providing real protection.
• Kevan Jones tabled amendments in Committee which were pushed aside by the Minister.
• Part 2 of the Bill strips away rights from veterans under section 33 of the Limitation Act after a six-year longstop.
• The Royal British Legion opposes part 2 and believes it breaches the armed forces covenant.
• New clause 3 relates to the stripping away of rights from veterans, which is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench.
• The case Jones mentioned involved an aircraft engineer who developed a serious nerve condition from paint exposure.
• The Bill's provisions mean that prisoners will have more rights than armed forces personnel to sue government departments like the MOD or MOJ.
• There is derogation in the Bill which can be used by the MOD to deny claims under the Human Rights Act.
• Kevan Jones intervenes to disagree with Thomas Tugendhat's argument about the Human Rights Act undermining military effectiveness.
• The Smith case reiterates combat immunity under the Human Rights Act.
• Richard Ekins co-authored a paper on this issue with Thomas Tugendhat in 2013.
• Dan Jarvis declares an interest as a veteran.
• The MOD excluded sexual offences from the Bill stating they are never acceptable under any circumstances.
• The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended excluding torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
• There is no statute of limitations in the Bill for investigations within or after the five-year period.
• The Judge Advocate General states that the Bill does not address the issue.
• Witnesses testified that the principal failing is the exclusion of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture from schedule 1.
• Since 2000, there have been only 27 prosecutions for military personnel involved in operations, despite thousands being deployed under challenging conditions.
• The case of Major Campbell underwent eight investigations.
• Baha Mousa was beaten to death in custody by British soldiers in 2003 with no convictions for murder or manslaughter.
• Nicholas Mercer advised closing a case without merit, indicating the Service Prosecuting Authority already dismisses vexatious claims.
• The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Law Society argue that the Bill's provisions create a 'quasi-statute of limitation'.
• Judge Advocate General states the Bill increases risk of service personnel appearing before International Criminal Court.
• 1,000 civil claims against Ministry of Defence, not individual soldiers, have been made according to MOD.
• Belhaj torture case took 10 years to get to court and resulted in an apology from Prime Minister.
• The speaker supports the Bill but believes it could have been improved in Committee.
• The speaker calls for torture to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill and for issues involving torture to not be precluded by lack of investigation.
• There is a commitment from the Government regarding Northern Ireland provisions, though progress on this has stalled.
• The statutory presumption against prosecution after five years does not constitute a pardon, amnesty, or statute of limitations.
• Prosecutors retain discretion in considering evidence and public interest for prosecutions.
• 93.8% of claims by personnel from Afghanistan or Iraq would be eligible under the Bill's provisions.
• The MOD estimates that these provisions apply after knowledge or diagnosis points.
• The Bill has remained unchanged since Second Reading despite evidence sessions indicating opposition to parts of it.
• Over 75% of claims made against the MOD between 2014 and 2019 were for negligence or breaches of duty of care towards soldiers.
• At least 19 injured or bereaved members of the forces community would have been blocked from making claims under the proposed legislation.
• The Bill aims to provide protections against civil claims being brought against the Ministry of Defence.
• Kevan Jones proposes new clause 1 which suggests judicial oversight for investigatory processes in challenging evidence scenarios.
• The speaker acknowledges that today's proceedings are insufficient for detailed scrutiny and debate on proposed amendments.
• Sarah Owen expresses serious misgivings about the Bill's effectiveness.
• The Royal British Legion director general stated the Bill protects the MOD rather than service personnel.
• There have been 25,000 civil cases against the MOD by British troops injured or their families over the past 16 years.
• The Bill is specifically designed for overseas operations and not all claims raised are relevant.
• The exclusion of sexual crimes but not torture from the Bill is highlighted as problematic.
• The Bill aims to protect service personnel and veterans from vexatious prosecutions.
• Amendments 1 to 10 seek to address deficiencies related to torture.
• Veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland require assurances that previous commitments will be fulfilled.
• The Bill is criticized for potentially disadvantaging veterans in employment and liability law.
• New clause 1 proposes a system to limit unnecessary investigations.
• Lloyd Russell-Moyle argues against the inclusion of specific prohibitions on war crimes, torture, and genocide.
• The Bill aims to protect service personnel from vexatious claims.
• It includes a five-year threshold for prosecutions but exceptions exist for cases like post-traumatic stress disorder and sexual offences.
• Critics argue it risks undermining the justice system and violates international laws.
• Major Robert Campbell faced eight separate investigations over 17 years.
• The al-Sweady inquiry cost £25 million and took five years, concluding allegations were without foundation.
• 70% of cases reviewed by the Iraq historic allegations team had no case to answer or would be disproportionate to investigate.
• Operation Northmoor cost £10 million and resulted in no charges.
• Ian Paisley Jnr explains his support for the Bill while expressing concerns about its exclusion of Operation Banner soldiers.
• Johnny Mercer reiterates the Conservative Party's commitment to those who served in Northern Ireland.
• The MP mentions a case involving four UDR soldiers wrongly convicted and highlights the struggle to quash wrongful convictions.
• The triple lock and five-year limit on prosecutions in the Bill are criticized as undermining human rights.
• Only 0.8% of civil prosecutions against the MOD over the past five years related to Iraq.
• Sexual violence is exempt from time limitations, but not murder or torture.
• The Bill introduces additional prosecutorial tests and hurdles not present in other criminal offences.
• It raises concerns about decriminalising torture through indirect means.
• Support from military personnel is cited to bolster the argument for the Bill's necessity.
• The Bill is criticized by senior military, legal, and political figures.
• Former Conservative Defence Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind opposes the provisions in the Bill.
• The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported numerous flaws in the Bill.
• Labour wants to build consensus to make the Bill fit for purpose.
• Investigations have been criticized as lacking in speed, soundness, openness, and duty of care.
• Only 27 prosecutions arose from 3,400 allegations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The Bill restricts prosecutions after five years but excludes sexual crimes.
• New clause 5 would amend part 2 to provide better access to compensation for service personnel.
• A new duty of care standard is proposed to offer support during investigations.
• The Bill aims to balance victims' rights with access to justice while ensuring service personnel can still face accountability.
• No amnesty or statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans will be proposed in these measures.
• A judge-led review of how allegations of wrongdoing on overseas operations are raised and investigated is announced.
• The Bill is seen as flawed and fails to address the main issue of investigations.
• Jones criticizes the Minister for not listening to concerns raised in Committee and during debates.
• Part 2 of the Bill means veterans will have fewer rights than prisoners, which Jones deems unacceptable.
• Kevan Jones rises on a point of order regarding false accusations made by Ben Wallace.
• The Minister accused Kevan Jones without giving him an opportunity to respond.
• It was the Conservative Government in 2010 who established IHAT and Northmoor.
• The Bill is described as fatally flawed and will take rights away from veterans.
• Jones argues it will damage Britain’s international reputation.
• The Minister's leadership style during the passage of the bill is criticized for lacking collaboration.
• Jones mentions that a good opportunity to address issues for veterans was missed due to the Minister's arrogance.