HL Deb 09 June 1992 vol 537 cc1193-204

3.2 p.m.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I beg to move that this Rill be now read a second time.

My intention with the Bill is to provide that the Crown, whether or not negligent, shall be liable to compensate a member of the Armed Forces if such member suffers an obvious and serious personal injury in the circumstances outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill.

Under Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 servicemen were prevented from seeking damages at law for serious personal injury received in the course of their duties or if injured while not on duty on Crown land. That was changed by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

Today, servicemen who are seriously injured are able to sue the Ministry of Defence for proper compensation provided they can prove negligence. For the most part it is an extremely difficult process. The Ministry of Defence is not helpful. It is not prepared to provide either the servicemen or their solicitors with the information they need to pursue a successful case, often hiding behind national security as the reason for not producing the requisite information. As a general rule it is not willing to provide full reports for boards of inquiry, usually only producing summaries which are rarely worth the paper they are written on.

The senior officers who order boards of inquiry are attempting to find out what happened in order that steps may be taken to prevent similar accidents occurring in the future. That is right and proper. I understand that boards of inquiry are not always required to look at the question of negligence. They are certainly not looking at the accident from the point of view of the serviceman, who may wish and indeed may need to seek compensation at a later date.

Probably the best known case is that of three members of the Grenadier Guards who were seriously injured while training in Canada. Another example is that of a Royal Marine seriously injured in training. At the time he was on a cliff climbing exercise and out of sight of his instructor when the instructor loosened, or possibly even cut, the rope by which he was suspended while learning to abseil. Consequently, when he next pushed back he fell to the bottom of the cliff. He is now a paraplegic and will never walk again. He still awaits proper compensation. I understand that there are considerable numbers of claims still waiting to be dealt with by the Ministry.

I now turn to the Bill in detail. Clause 1 is the core. Clause 1(1) seeks, as I said, to provide that the Crown, whether or not negligent, shall be liable to compensate a member of the Armed Forces if that member suffers an obvious and serious personal injury. Clause 1(2) states when and where the Bill is to apply. Clause 2 provides for the Bill not to apply in certain circumstances certified by the Secretary of State. In that respect most people who join the Armed Forces expect to undergo certain risks if they are in a warlike situation. That is the risk they accept. Clause 3 is an interpretation clause and Clause 4 is the usual clause providing for the citation and extent of the Bill and when it shall come into effect.

The Bill could well he the first step towards a charter for members of the Armed Forces. It is a much needed move towards justice for seriously injured servicemen, removing the David and Goliath aspect of so many cases. It simplifies the administration of the situation for the Crown. It will enable officials to reach conclusions and make settlements on the basis of speed and economy—cheapness to the Crown—rather than becoming bogged down with detailed work and waiting to see how far the other side is prepared to go in pursuit of its case.

Above all the Bill will restore the good employer relationship which the repeal of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 failed fully to do. The Ministry of Defence will he seen as dispensing justice to its servants rather than as an adversary forcing them to risk their all on expensive legal processes.

The Bill may well have defects in drafting and need amendment during later stages. That I am quite happy to entertain; your Lordships are renowned for the way in which you improve Bills passing through this House.

Finally, the Bill, and the principle behind it, is supported by many organisations, among them SSAFA, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, RADAR, the Royal British Legion, both the Army and the Royal Air Force Benevolent Funds, the Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Society, the National Association for Limbless Disabled and others. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Swinfen.)

3.10 p.m.

Lord Carver

My Lords, there is no doubt that the case which has provoked the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to move this Bill was a sorry story which showed up the Ministry of Defence at its bureaucratic worst; and that it is important to ensure that similar cases do not occur again.

I fully appreciate the need for the Ministry of Defence to be cautious in such matters, not so much just to protect the public purse as to avoid setting precedents which could result in anomalies and unfairness between the treatment of one member of the Armed Forces and another. It causes justified resentment when that occurs. It already has done so as the result of differences in financial compensation between casualties in Northern Ireland and those incurred elsewhere.

The Ministry of Defence is right to set its face against encouraging litigation every time a serviceman or woman is injured on duty. One must bear in mind that duty encompasses a great deal of what is called "recognised sport" in which injuries are more frequent than they are on training. It would be intolerable if casualties on active service were to be the subject of such a process. I deplore the current tendency to seek someone to blame and to demand financial compensation for every misfortune of life.

However, the Bill is very limited and is carefully worded to allay those justified anxieties of the Ministry of Defence. It would apply only to "obvious and serious injury" which is limited to that defined in Clause 3; and it specifically excludes active service, aid to the civil power and UN peacekeeping.

It seems to me intolerable that a private soldier should have to carry the burden of proof that the Ministry of Defence had been negligent before he can obtain the compensation which his civilian counterpart could expect in similar circumstances from any responsible employer. The Ministry surely does not expect a recruit on joining to take out an insurance policy to cover himself against such an event. If it does, it should make it clear to potential recruits, few of whom would then sign on.

I strongly support the Bill and urge the Government to accept it as doing something which they themselves should have done already.

3.12 p.m.

The Earl of Cork and Orrery

My Lords, I believe that there lingers in the air a faint echo from the bad old days in which it was said by Kipling: For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot". I do not believe that that represents the attitude of the British public towards their armed servicemen. It probably never did, but the impression has grown up that that was so. The responsibility for that rests firmly nowadays with the Ministry of Defence. There are perfectly good reasons why litigation on the part of servicemen should be resisted, as the noble and gallant Lord has just stated. But it is a principle of all operations guided by or directed from the Treasury that claims of any kind should be resisted or at least kept to the minimum.

Why is the emphasis on negligence? The Bill does not refer to malice or any plot against the Crown. That particular fault on the part of the authority has been singled out as a factor that the soldier has had to prove in the past. One might argue that there is no question of negligence in any case or that there is negligence in every case. Both arguments are valid. In my opinion they are both irrelevant.

When those three guardsmen had their legs blown off on the battery range in Canada, had someone been negligent or not? It is not an ordinary procedure for the army to leave anti-tank shells unburied and then to ask soldiers to dig and be blown up by them. Someone must have been negligent, must they not? Why should it be proved? It should be taken for granted that there was negligence. Negligence is in fact irrelevant. An offence had been committed by someone and any inquiry would be directed at finding out who it was. In my submission it was the responsibility of the Army, or whatever service was involved, to accept the blame for that event. It was a service-generated event. It resulted in a service casualty who ought to be compensated, in principle automatically. I say, "in principle automatically" because the blame should be accepted in principle but of course subject to the rigours of an inquiry.

With those provisos, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, unfortunately, I begin with an apology which I owe to the House for being late in my place. It was entirely due to the late arrival of a train.

I am very much in favour of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord for having introduced it. I very much hope that it will proceed to a Committee stage. There are one or two aspects which clearly need the examination of the House.

I have always been interested in this subject since I experienced two incidents in a war: a wound in action, which undoubtedly resulted in a pension; and another injury in a battle school, not in a theatre of war. I had no idea then of a pension. One did not think of such matters. However, now that one has grown up and has children it matters a great deal. In those days it did not matter. Since then I have always wondered whether or not a battle school not in a theatre of war would have qualified for a pension.

However, for those of us who are in the service of the Crown, and who for one reason or another through some exclusion clause do not qualify, a great injustice can be done. For that reason I support the Bill which hopes to put right an injustice—an injustice which most of us would not care to see perpetuated.

I have a doubt about the reference in Section 2 to "in the theatre". I should like that clarified either in reply today or at Committee stage. I am also unhappy about the word "obvious" in Section 3. I wonder whether it is necessary. I have yet to be convinced. I do not know whether "obvious" includes, for instance, mental illness. Those of us who have had experience in the services and under fire all know that there are non-obvious but serious injuries.

With those two qualifications, I give my firm support to the Bill and hope that it will proceed to the Committee stage.

3.18 p.m

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swinfen in this most necessary, welcome and compassionate little Bill.

First, as is shown in Clause 2, the Bill is strictly limited in its application. It applies only to accidents and injuries incurred during peace time. Whatever may occur in wartime is totally outside the scope of the Bill, and most precisely excluded. It is therefore a Bill of limitation. However, the area that it covers and the good that it will do in future is out of all proportion to its size. It must be welcomed by the leaders of the Armed Forces and by the Ministry of Defence because it will remove from them the necessity to prove that they were not negligent.

No one likes losing face and no one likes being attacked for possible negligence. Immediately the person becomes like a limpet: rock-like and unable to shift from his position. Anyone who as a child has tried to dislodge limpets from rocks knows that it is almost impossible to do so. But every limpet has a soft centre. Therefore this Bill may allow the Ministry to display its own soft centre without being forcibly dislodged from its rock.

The Bill must also be welcomed by members of the Armed Forces themselves. Anyone who has been injured or hurt physically in any way knows that the only way to recover is to curl up like a hedgehog and concentrate all one's mental and spiritual forces on getting oneself well—or as well as one can ever be. To dissipate ones efforts by having at the same time to fight for compensation may well impede and will certainly delay the process of healing. And if there is no compensation bitterness may also set in. That is an acrid emotion and may permanently prevent the mental and spiritual healing which also needs to occur after any profound shock.

I urge your Lordships, who are renowned for your compassion, to support my noble friend's Bill.

3.20 p.m.

Lord Milverton

My Lords, I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Swinfen on specifically ethical and moral grounds, besides any other grounds of practical and common decency that would come to be in one's mind and heart.

It would appear that a military person is on service duty when on exercise as much as when in a conflict or war. In fact, when on exercise military personnel are enabling themselves to be alert through their training so that in the event of the real occurrence they are fully capable of performing as they would wish.

Therefore it is rather strange for a serviceman or woman to have to take the action of suing Her Majesty's Government. That is even more so when the person can be given the necessary information only by taking that action. Negligence surely has not to be found in that way, nor is it to be presumed on those injured.

Of course, the families are also involved with the situation. Surely the authorities—the Army—have a large responsibility in ensuring the clearest safeguard against negligence. In fact, that is the authorities' responsibility, not just that of the military personnel. For instance, if personnel are being sent on exercise the military authorities ought to know that there is no unnecessary presence in the area which could cause injury or harm.

Something would appear to be wrong if a military person and the family has to go through such turmoils in addition to any injury. I strongly support the Bill introduced by my noble friend. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept it so that any improvement can be made in Committee. It is not right that the three Grenadier Guards should have had to go through hell, and perhaps are still doing so mentally and spiritually. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that the Government will accept the Bill and that any necessary improvements can be made in Committee.

3.24 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, we too on these Benches support the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it forward. It was introduced recently in the other place but only as a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. Such a Bill always sees a death and I am afraid that this Bill was no exception. We hope that the Government will take a generous view.

The Bill requires important changes to be made in Committee. For instance, Clause 1 does not apply to Scotland. That is a technical matter but one which must be looked at. I do not understand why only the United Nations and not the WEU or NATO is mentioned in Clause 2. Who decides the figure of 50 per cent. mentioned in Clause 3? Such issues must be looked at and can be changed or improved in Committee.

We support the Bill and believe that it could well have been introduced a long time ago. We are not careless about taxpayers' money and will listen carefully to the case which the Minister will make. How many claims are at present before the MOD? What financial difference will the Bill make in the handling of such claims? How many additional claims will succeed, and what will they cost the taxpayer?

Those are the only issues that I wish to raise. I assure the noble Lord that Members on these Benches will support his Bill and will try to improve it in Committee.

3.26 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, all noble Lords are aware that the Bill responds to a serious injustice and that the Guardsmen in question had to fight hard against the Ministry of Defence in order to secure proper compensation. It is a Private Member's Bill and therefore I do not speak for my party. The issue is personal and in consequence I shall speak personally.

In general I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his Bill. Your Lordships would be right to give it a Second Reading, but I have several questions which perhaps can be cleared up in Committee. First, the Bill places members of the Armed Forces in a privileged class. If the Bill is passed as drafted they will be entitled to compensation without proof of negligence. However, civilian public servants—for instance, firemen, the police, ambulance men and others—who may be involved in situations equally as dangerous as a state of war must prove negligence in order to obtain compensation. That is the first point which I shall wish to flag to the Minister in Committee. There was in another place considerable support for a no-fault provision in medical accidents. If that is accepted it is difficult to see how it will march with a fault provision, if I may put it like that, in Armed Forces accidents in training.

The second major issue that I hope will be resolved in Committee is that, as drafted, the Bill appears to imply that, even if the member of the Armed Forces in question is negligent, he still is not required to show negligence on the part of the Crown but can claim compensation. Furthermore, if he is in breach of a regulation or is subject to disciplinary procedure in circumstances specified in the Bill he can still claim as a plaintiff compensation without having to show anything other than that he is in the clear and that the Crown de facto is negligent.

My third point takes up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton; namely, the matter of "obvious and serious injury". The noble Lord pointed out that mental injury was not at least specified in the Bill. I am not entirely certain and no doubt the noble Viscount will be able to enlighten me about what, loss of any of the five senses", means. I hope that he will be able to explain it. If not, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will be able to do so when he winds up the debate. It seems to me that under these circumstances there may be mental injuries sustained which either are not obvious or do not appear to be serious but which nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, are extremely serious when it comes to the event.

I wonder whether the noble Viscount, when he replies, will comment on the proposed European Community service directive which is under discussion at the moment. If adopted, that directive would reverse the burden of proof. In other words, it would be up to the Crown to show non-negligence, as it were, rather than for the plaintiff to prove negligence. If that directive is adopted—it is a big "if" as we know—that may be the way in which matters of this kind could and should be treated.

I am sorry that I enter certain somewhat discordant notes to what noble Lords have said. I treat this matter seriously as a legislative proposition from the Dispatch Box from which I have the honour to speak. I have every sympathy with the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and with the purpose of the Bill. But I am slightly unhappy with some of the details and I hope that your Lordships will be able to correct those details when we come to Committee.

3.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, I am very grateful, as all noble Lords must be, to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for introducing a Bill which once again brings to the attention of your Lordships' House the importance of making sure that we treat all our servicemen in a way that they deserve. Indeed, during the brief time that I have been fortunate enough to be attached to the Ministry of Defence, I have been struck by the extraordinary and justifiable lengths that serving senior officers, retired senior officers, ex-officers and men of all ranks go to ensure that proper consideration is given by the authorities to looking after servicemen present and past. I regard this Bill as another example of that concern.

To that extent I should welcome the Bill. However, I suspect that many noble Lords will not be altogether surprised to hear me say, with the greatest reluctance, that I believe there are good and sufficient reasons for Her Majesty's Government not finding themselves in agreement with what the Bill proposes. A number of the reasons that we adduce for that were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, during the course of his remarks. I shall return to some of them in a moment.

As has already been mentioned, the Bill is identical in intent and similar in content, though not completely identical, with the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by the former Member for Winchester. The same considerations that applied in January when the subject was debated still apply now in the Government's view. The reasons are not, as my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery suggested, Treasury driven, although any government department is sometimes tempted to blame Her Majesty's Treasury as a useful butt for all blame.

The attitude is much more a legal one. The position of service personnel who are killed or injured while on duty, as noble Lords more versed in the law than I am will know, is inextricably bound up with the general question of the nature of legal liability and the relationship of employees to employers under civil law. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, until May 1987 when the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act became law, servicemen could not sue the Crown for injuries received on duty. I well remember in another place signing many Early Day Motions suggesting that that provision should be repealed. In those days I was fortunate enough to represent a constituency in which many servicemen, actual and retired, lived.

Since May 1987 the legal position of servicemen injured on duty so far as the MoD as employer was concerned has been exactly the same as that of any employee and his or her employer. That legislative change to bring service personnel in line with their civilian counterparts did not alter legal principles of evidence or the law of tortious liability. Those apply equally to all service and civilian cases. Nevertheless, the change that I mentioned has been an important advance which I certainly welcome and which I am sure is welcomed in all parts of the House.

As a result, the MoD now has a legal liability to pay compensation to service personnel where negligence by the Ministry of Defence or those acting on its behalf can be established. The Ministry of Defence accepts that obligation with no sense of regret. However, I suggest that to impose absolute liability on the Ministry of Defence to pay compensation whenever service personnel are injured would place servicemen in a far more advantageous position than other civilian employees—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—including other Ministry of Defence civilians with whom increasingly servicemen work. That is an important aspect.

It is also worth noting that the Bill contains a clause which was not in the previous Bill to the effect that the no-fault principle should not apply in time of war or when the military are aiding civil power or the UN. So far as concerns the technicalities of the Bill, that is, as has been said, a sensible advance and one which so far as it goes we certainly welcome.

To take away the requirement to establish negligence would undermine the fundamental principle of civil law that one person can claim damages from another only if a wrong has been done to him by that person. Otherwise, employers such as the Ministry of Defence would have to pay compensation even if they are in no way responsible for the accident. That again was a point made the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I suggest that in principle and in practical terms of legislation that cannot be right.

I also suggest that, if we were to listen to all that the admirable—I say that with no sense of irony—lobbyists for the servicemen imply, we would sometimes feel perhaps that the injured serviceman is without any financial support whatsoever. I have tried to look at this matter with care and service pension schemes compare very favourably with best practice outside. For example, servicemen discharged with attributable injury receive index linked tax free pension and disability awards from both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security, which are also reassessed if the condition of the serviceman deteriorates. For a soldier who is seriously disabled in an in-service accident, payments can amount to several hundreds of pounds per week. I shall give two concrete examples of that because the bald assurance of the principle of the thing is sometimes helped by examples. Of course, the examples are not necessarily typical but are examples based on reality.

A private paralysed after an accident on duty and invalided in early 1991 was assessed 100 per cent. disabled. He received a lump sum of £6,061.92 and at the rates applicable up to the end of March this year —your Lordships will remember that payments are index linked and rise every year—he was paid a DSS war pension, which included supplements, of £216 per week and a MoD armed forces pension of £3,317 per annum, giving him a tax free, index linked income of over £11,000 per year.

A person does not have to be 100 per cent. disabled to receive a pension and other payments. For example, a petty officer with 10 years' service who is invalided out of the service now (this year) with a 60 per cent. degree of disability—for example, if he lost one leg immediately below the knee—would receive a terminal grant of £10,323, an attributable gratuity of £5,162 and a combined Ministry of Defence armed forces pension and DSS war pension of £7,323 per annum, not counting other supplements such as a mobility supplement or invalidity allowance which may be payable.

I know that we can always say that those payments, particularly for people in the services who are serving their country, are never enough. However, I suggest that they are a great deal better than they were years ago, largely because of the pressures exerted by institutions like your Lordships' House.

I point out also that servicemen receive support from a wide range of service bodies. The Ministry of Defence does its best to support those bodies which help people to adjust to civilian life and to find employment. It has been suggested, particularly by my noble friend who introduced the Bill, that, although the Ministry of Defence says that it will deal with claims as expeditiously as possible, it is very difficult for a young soldier to pursue a claim against such a great monolithic body. It is difficult particularly if he has been injured. For that reason I should point out that the Royal British Legion and, indeed, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers stand ready as independent bodies —particularly the Royal British Legion, with its strong defence connections—to do their best to pursue claims on behalf of soldiers or other servicemen should that be desired.

I should say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that between December 1986, when the Ministry of Defence began to admit claims from personnel in the services, to January 1992 —this year —2,037 claims have been received, of which 366 were accepted and settled at a cost of £5,652,330, while 545 claims were not accepted or were not pursued. There were 1,126 claims under consideration when I last saw the figures at the end of April this year. In some of those cases the amount of the claim outstanding only has not been settled. That very often depends, as the noble Lord will know, on medical reports, which are sometimes relevant some time after the accident because it can be difficult to assess the full extent of the permanent disability of the ex-serviceman involved.

The number of claims is rising each year. Last year we received something over 900 claims and during this course of this financial year we expect to pay something over £6 million in compensation. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a small political point. I say this with due trepidation in your Lordships' House, with all its traditions, but one of the benefits of what have been known in certain quarters of the gutter press, like the Sunday Times, as the Thatcher years has been that what one might call the "deferential society" has begun to evaporate. Not surprisingly that is as a result of Conservative rather than Labour governments. One of the results of that evaporation is that people are far more willing to pursue their rights and are far less inhibited by authority from doing so. I suspect that the statistics of rising claims rather lend a form of verisimilitude to my contention.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the noble Viscount has made a political point, but I hope that he will recognise that I was speaking from this Dispatch Box in my own personal capacity and that there is no party view on this Bill. I hope that I can lay that before the noble Viscount.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord were to extract the party political element of what I say, he will accept that there is a less deferential attitude towards authority now in this country than perhaps there was —I shall not pick invidious dates—20 years ago. I suggest that as a result it is more likely that a young serviceman will feel able to attack the Ministry of Defence for negligence than he might have done hitherto.

As I say, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. It is further evidence of the remarkable way in which the interests of servicemen are pursued in this House. As a general point, I welcome that, as I am sure your Lordships do. I am sorry that I cannot endorse the Bill either in principle or in detail for the reasons I have given. Your Lordships will be satisfied that the present system in which service personnel have exactly the same legal rights as any other employee is surely right, particularly in the circumstances of the modern world.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Second Reading debate particularly as, with the exception of the Minister, everyone has supported it and I am most grateful for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, drew attention to Clause 2 and the question of the theatre of operations. I admit that I drafted that clause trying to doctor the Bill introduced, as has already been said, by the Member for Winchester in the last Parliament. I had considerable difficulty in finding suitable words. I am told in fact that our forces are not under the command of the United Nations but are working with the United Nations. Therefore, amendments will have to be brought to that clause to make certain that it is workable. People have asked me also what would be the position of our forces going to Yugoslavia at the request of the EC. Again, that will need to be looked at but I am sure that, with the expertise in this House, that matter can be dealt with.

The question of what is obvious and serious will also need to be looked at. In addition, the question of mental disability will also need to be examined. It is an extremely important point. That illness may take some years to make itself obvious. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that he understands that the Bill as drafted does not apply to Scotland. That was not my intention. My intention was that the Bill should apply to Scotland and an amendment to that effect will have to be brought forward to Clause 1. I understand that that clause needs considerable amendment to bring it into line with modern legal drafting. If noble Lords read my introductory speech they will see that I suggested words that might be suitable.

The noble Lord also asked: What is a 50 per cent. disability? That is a medical qualification. One goes before a medical board which decides what percentage of disability one has. I am not quite sure how it is done or how it is justified, but the medical world has worked that out to its satisfaction. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that the Bill would place the Armed Forces in a privileged class in some respects. I believe that to be quite right. They are people who are so often asked to do the nation's dirty work when many other people are not prepared to do it. They have to be trained for it. There may also be a case for doing something similar for the police and the fire service who also have to undertake at times what are extremely dangerous tasks. They are tasks which I personally would not want to do. All credit to them.

There is the question of a breach of discipline or orders, or negligence on the part of a servicemen. I also agree that we may have to bring in an amendment at Committee stage to deal with those matters. As far as lawyers are concerned, I am thoroughly naïve. I should have thought that that was a defence which the Ministry of Defence could use in any event. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, muttering "not under the Bill". I know that he is well versed in the law and I am not. I shall be happy to take his advice on that. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned the European service directive. That is also a matter of interest.

My noble friend the Minister said that the Royal British Legion and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers were willing to come to the aid of servicemen who were severely injured. He also said that since 1987 servicemen were in the same position as civilians. I do not entirely agree with him. Legally they may be, but in practice they are not. So often the Ministry of Defence is able to hide behind national security and not give the information which is required by the serviceman or his legal advisers to pursue his case. That puts him in a very difficult situation. I understand that in a civilian situation the defence lawyers would have to disclose any relevant information. As I have said, by hiding behind security the Ministry of Defence would not have to do so.

Once again I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.