ARMED FORCES (PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS) (Hansard, 29 October 1975)

§ Mr. John Loveridge (Upminster)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 so as to permit a member of the armed forces to sue the Crown in respect of certain accidents and to provide for adequate insurance in such cases. The Bill that I seek leave to introduce is designed to stop and prevent a grave injustice, and I am grateful for the support of hon. Members of the three main parties. The injustice is that placed upon members of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy Reserves solely because they wish to train and serve their country in war or emergency. Section 10(2) of the 1947 Act effectively removes from them their right to sue the Crown for injury or death resulting from ordinary accidents while on service. If a civil servant suffered the same accident, he or she could sue the Crown.

The House will remember that at the end of last month 10 men from the engineering section of the 131st Independent Parachute Squadron were swept to their deaths during a river exercise in Nottinghamshire. If Section 10 of the Act was invoked, they would be denied any right to sue. This would not be the case had a civil servant, a civilian or a Member of this House been drowned in the same accident: the next of kin could sue.

Why is it that those who train to defend the rest of us cannot sue and have no right of appeal or remedy of any kind? There is a reason, which at first sight seems a reasonable one but which on second glance is not. The reason is given in a letter dated 14th December 1972 from the Secretary of State for Defence. He wrote: Not only in operations, but also in training, Service men are called upon to risk injury and sometimes death, and it would make discipline impossible if a Service man could bring an action against another Service man, possibly his superior or subordinate in rank, or against the Crown, for alleged negligence during the course of military activities. do not quarrel with that view. Discipline must be maintained. However, the Regular members of the forces receive recogni- 1606 tion of their loss of rights under Section 10 of the 1947 Act. The booklet "War Pensions, MPL 48" and its supplements describe the benefits for regular Service men and their next of kin following death or injury. He or she signs on in this knowledge.

The situation for members of the reserve forces is not the same. When the Secretary of State wrote to me in 1972 he acknowledged that nothing was due as of right for a death from an accident. He further wrote of the period in 1947 when the original Bill was being considered that: There was some anxiety about the position of Service men who were injured or the dependents of Service men who were killed on duty—in precisely those circumstances, in which case they could have had redress in civil life. The then Attorney-General had already written to me on 29th August 1972 about comparisons of the workings of Section 10, He said: I appreciate that these can operate harshly in particular cases especially where one is concerned with civilian-type accidents. It is harsh indeed if a matter of death which might result in compensation of tens of thousands of pounds being awarded by a court could be prevented from ever going to court, however strong the grounds.

I am grateful that since then some improvement in compensation for death on duty has come about and that a small pension has been introduced for a widow.

If an unmarried reservist were killed in an ordinary motoring accident while on service, his next of kin would receive £254.67, which will be adjusted upwards in December. Is that enough in exchange for the loss of right by the next of kin to sue in the case of a motoring accident?

My Bill could not affect Service, discipline, because it will not enable one Service man to sue another; it will not affect members of the Regular forces, because they are covered by Service pension arrangements, and it will not even affect TAVR and other reservists in time of war. It will apply only in normal times to accidents, so that in the case of a reservist soldier in ordinary peace-time training the right will be maintained to sue under common law in the event of his injury or death, assuming always that a case can be made. 1607 I turn to the auxiliary part of the Bill. I recognise that I should have to rely on the Government to legislate for any necessary funds. This part of the Bill asks for adequate life and other insurances to be taken out for members of the reserve forces against accidents while on duty. Time and again I have been told by the Government that it is not the practice of the Crown to insure. However, sometimes it is. Members of this House who go abroad on duty are covered by the State to the sum of £25,000 if they are killed, that sum going to their next of kin. The State now pays 75 per cent. of the premiums for RAF flying crews. Do not the TAVR and other reservists deserve insurance to cover their short periods of training? I believe that they do. The cost of the premiums should not be large. The number killed in the five years 1969 to 1973 inclusive totalled only 27 persons, although the injured would number more. As with Members of this House, the State should provide insurance against accidents for these cases.

This matter was first brought to my attention by the parents of a constituent, 19-year-old Malcolm Cousins who was killed in a motor accident in 1971 while training as a cadet with the officer training corps. He was an undergraduate at Cambridge University. We need fine young men such as he was to volunteer for the reserve forces. It would be a memorial to his life's sacrifice if we could give better hopes for those who volunteer in the future so that they can know that if they die in an accident as a result of their service the right to sue the Crown will not be arbitrarily removed from their next of kin and, secondly, that they are insured against accident while training.

I hope that the House will allow me to bring in the Bill.