The boss of the Royal British Legion became embroiled in a public standoff with a junior defence minister this week after warning that the overseas operations bill breached a commitment to treat veterans fairly.
Charles Byrne, the director general of the poppy appeal charity, was speaking out against one aspect of the bill, which proposes a six-year deadline for civil claims to be brought against the Ministry of Defence.
“We have raised concerns that the six-year long-stop could be a breach of the armed forces covenant, because it restricts the ability of armed forces personnel to bring a civil claim against their employer,” Byrne said as he gave evidence during the bill’s committee stage in the Commons on Thursday.
The covenant is a promise, made repeatedly by ministers, that serving personnel and veterans are treated fairly and do not suffer any disadvantages compared with civilians in equivalent situations.
Soon after his statement, Byrne was challenged by Johnny Mercer, the veterans minister, who peppered him with a series of questions, arguing that military personnel suffered other disadvantages, such as in battle where “they may get killed or lose limbs”.
A tense series of exchanges followed in which Byrne ignored Mercer’s argument and repeated his original point several times, before concluding of the six-year limit: “I think it is protecting the MoD, rather than the service personnel – that is the debate that we have had.”
Labour said the charity’s intervention should make the government think again. Stephen Morgan, the shadow armed forces minister, said: “Labour wants to see a bill that protects troops and veterans, not the Ministry of Defence.”
Veterans regularly bring negligence claims against the MoD for failing to protect personnel in combat or during training, some of which are brought after more than six years. Lawyers say it can take people years to understand they may be able to make a claim at all.
Earlier in the week, Ahmed al-Nahhas, a personal injury lawyer, told the same committee he had acted for the wife of a soldier killed in Iraq in a Snatch Land Rover. The soldier had been killed by an explosive device placed next to a poorly armed vehicle in 2005.
“She had no idea whatsoever that the Ministry of Defence was culpable in any way. It was not until more than a decade later, when the Chilcot report came out, that fingers started to be pointed towards the Ministry of Defence.
“That report stated that the provision of Snatch Land Rovers was woeful and put service personnel’s lives at risk,” the lawyer said, and added: “If this bill had been in place, that claim could not have proceeded”. The widow received a six-figure settlement, the lawyer added.
Claims are routinely brought by veterans for loss of hearing, or the impact of training unnecessarily in the cold or post-traumatic stress disorder, although ministers have said in the case of PTSD the six-year limit would only apply from the point of diagnosis.
Although there are time limits for all sorts of civil claims, section 33 of the 1980 Limitation Act allows courts to let claims proceed in exceptional circumstances – a discretion that would be eliminated by the overseas operations bill for claims brought against the MoD.
The bill is intended by the government to end what it says are vexatious claims brought against services personnel. It also proposes introducing a five-year presumption against criminal prosecutions towards soldiers who served abroad in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We have a strong commitment to the armed forces covenant, and believe the best way to honour our personnel is to legislate to help tackle vexatious claims and the cycle of reinvestigations against them.”
