Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) (Hansard, 17 December 1991)

§ Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the armed forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown.

My Bill would reverse the onus of proof of negligence for compensation for those armed services personnel who have sustained severe injuries in the course of their duties. It would ensure that, where obvious and serious injury was sustained by members of the armed forces in the course of their duties, compensation which would equate to that in civilian life would be paid by the Ministry of Defence as a matter of course unless the MOD could prove negligence on the part of the service people involved. That reverses the present onus of proof whereby injured service personnel must prove negligence on behalf of the mighty MOD, a Ministry which can and all too easily and often does withhold on the grounds of secrecy documents that are vital to proving a case of negligence.

Ours is a warrior nation. Because of that the men and women of our armed forces hold a special place in our hearts, at least in times of war. Sadly, in times of peace we are sometimes apt, as in Kipling's famous poem "Tommy", to take them for granted.

Because we truly are a warrior nation, probably all British people, including all hon. Members, yearly, on the vigil of Remembrance Sunday, echo those time-honoured words, "We will remember them". It is true, Mr. Speaker, we will remember them. But what about those who are not killed, or at least not quite? I speak of those who suffer horrific wounds but are saved from death by the miracles of modern science, good luck and their own outstanding mental fortitude. Many of them live on but are severely disabled. Do we truly remember them? The honest answer is yes; officially we do remember them, but not nearly well enough.

I believe that, regardless of political party, the British people feel that the Government should care more—much more—for our injured service men and, with regard to our armed forces, should be seen to be the very model of a good employer.

In 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) introduced the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill. It was a most progressive and well-intentioned Bill, supported by the MOD. In Committee, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), for whom I have the highest personal regard, set out the Government's three principles for settling these cases. He said: we wish to settle out of court … in the interests of the plaintiffs…we are not seeking to set up legal barriers by employing a raft of lawyers to deter genuine plaintiffs…we shall proceed diligently and quickly to reach settlements. We shall not seek to protract cases.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C. 18 March 1987; c. 21–22.]

The Under-Secretary of State also mentioned another most interesting fact. He said that the civil service estimate of the financial cost of the Bill would be about £13 million per year after 10 years. Mr. Speaker, it is now some five years since that Act came into force and the total cost of claims is put at only £1 million a year. Yet the still-deformed bodies of some of our injured service men 153 are living proof of the injustice of under-compensation. As to under-compensation, those figures speak for themselves and confirm that is so.

I turn now to the case of the three injured Grenadier Guardsmen. I do so because theirs is a well known case, but sadly its settlement was a very rare exception.

In the summer of 1989, those Grenadiers were ordered to prepare a trench on the Batus live firing range in Canada. In digging, one of them struck a buried, unexploded anti-tank shell that had been fired some years before and lay concealed in the ground. The shell exploded, blowing the legs off all three Grenadiers. Their bodies were injured so badly that, despite prompt casevac, it took the best in medical science two years to nurse them back to sufficient health even to be invalided out of the armed forces.

A board of inquiry was convened, but while it concluded that none of the Grenadiers was to blame, the board was not even required to investigate why the blind shell was in the area used for trench digging, or whether or not all safety briefings had been effectively observed. Despite that, the House was told that no blame was attributable to anyone.

Eighteen months later, when the first Grenadier was invalided out of the Army, the Government appeared to dig in their heels at the very thought of paying compensation anywhere near that equating to the levels applicable in civilian life.

Those three men were cut down by devastating injuries in the prime of their youth. After their two-year ordeal, they were mentally drained, and were depressed by their immobility. Furthermore, they had no real personal wealth, yet the mighty Ministry of Defence challenged those mutilated Grenadiers to prove legal negligence. Worse still, the same Ministry withheld the the board of inquiry's full findings, which were vital to the guardsmen's case. The Ministry provided only an abridged version that left out the crucial damning details.

Where was the spirit of the Government's assurances to the Committee on 18 March 1987? They were ignored, and the Government fought those injured men to the last trench. We all know that pressure was brought in part by the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally intervened, and a just settlement was agreed. Those Grenadiers were lucky, but many, many more ex-service men in similar states of severe disablement have yet to receive anything like proper compensation. Something must be done fast to correct that great injustice.

154 My Bill sets out to do something at least for those most badly injured, by reversing the present unjust burden of proof. It would not open the floodgates to minor injury claims, for it would extend only to the most severe and obvious injuries, such as loss of limbs. My Bill is modest, and would come well within the Government's present budget of £13 million a year in respect of the 1987 Act. I commend it to the House—and if right hon. and hon. Members accept my Bill today, I beg the Government not to kill it.