| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1271
that. I can understand that if there was an accident on board a nuclear submarine, there would be a real security risk- -but not on a live firing range in Canada, an assault course in some Aldershot depot, or a convoy in Cyprus, or wherever. Why does such a great load of secrecy have to swamp every request for information by the injured men, their legal representatives and their families?Why cannot the Ministry of Defence understand that by not being open, it increases the anguish for the injured men, their parents and their mates? Over time, that anguish turns into trauma. It also lessens the men's chances of bringing a successful suit against the MOD. That, by itself, must be grossly unfair. It makes the MOD appear so very callous and uncaring, and not at all the good employer that we want it to be. That is to the detriment of the Government in general and to morale in the armed forces in particular.
I have spoken about the flexibility that was eroded in the 1987 Act. It did away with the Secretary of State's ability to make ex-gratia payments to those deserving cases that occurred before the Act came into force. I agree that Acts should not be retrospective ; I have always voted against retrospective legislation. However, I wish to cite two cases. Martin Ketterick, a Royal Marine, was on an exercise when a rope on which he was hanging while climbing a cliff face was cut by mistake. I accept that it was a genuine accident. The non-commissioned officer responsible was disciplined, so there must be some element of negligence by the MOD as the employer. Why has not that man been given compensation? He is almost a walking vegetable, yet he lies there without compensation simply because his accident occurred before the 1987 Act came into force. Why are not the Government generous enough to make an ex-gratia payment? Why could not such a system, by amending legislation, be built into the Act? The second case is that of Andy Konalyk, a parachutist who was training on an assault course. It was pouring with rain and he had mud all over his boots. He was 30 ft in the air, he jumped across a 6 ft gap and one of his feet missed the girder on the other side. He slipped and smashed 30 ft to the ground. Six other people were injured on the very same day on the same assault course, so there must be an element of negligence. That man is severely disabled, so why is he not compensated as he would be in civilian life ? There is a clear, moral obligation to give compensation. Where is the heart in the Ministry of Defence--the same heart that it asks for and inspires in its employees, the members of the armed forces ? Why are the Government so laggardly in calling for an urgent amendment to the 1987 Act to make good the gaps ?
There is a need for the flexibility to award ex-gratia payments to be given back to the Secretary of State. There should be an obligation on the MOD to provide all relevant documents, especially the board of inquiry report, to the people bringing suit or their legal representatives.
If secrecy is involved, could not the MOD think of some way in which the information could be provided just to the lawyers under the Official Secrets Act ? Why is no one pressing for that ? While the provision of information is denied, there is an obvious and grotesque injustice.
I have highlighted delay, the lack of information and the lack of flexibility in the giving of ex-gratia payments. I want now to talk about resettlement--the vital transition of a badly injured member of the armed forces from their care.
Column 1272
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but time is moving on. I am sure that he wishes to be fair to the Minister and give him an opportunity to reply.
Mr. Browne : I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
At this vital time of transition, the badly injured person moves from the care of the armed forces into local authority care. Such people are often severely injured and they should be prepared early for that transition, not in the last two weeks before they are finally invalided out of the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Minister was an officer in the Coldstream Guards. He knows that officers in the Foot Guards must visit people in hospital every week. That is not universal practice, however. Surely it should be insisted on that men are visited in hospital, even if they are in a civilian hospital. Sometimes the Ministry does not know where a man is, because he is still in a civilian hospital.
Will the Minister also consider the possibility of ensuring that the Ministry liaises with the local authority concerned, the local office of the Department of Social Security, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association and the Royal British Legion, especially the latter. Peter Godley is outstanding when it comes to helping people with claims, but surely the MOD should be obliged to ensure that such liaison takes place.
The MOD suggested today that men take out insurance. The package is advantageous, although I do not think that it has many advantages over normal holiday packages.
On the whole, insurance is sold rather than bought. I am amazed that the MOD should imagine that 18-year-olds--physically fit and full of idealism-- will start thinking at a depot, "I am going to insure myself against accidents." It is unreasonable to expect that. I believe that it should be a condition of employment for every member of the armed forces to take out insurance. The payments should be deducted from their pay. If the MOD considers that too severe, it could--like an ordinary employer--subscribe to the cost. The insurance should be organised on a bulk basis ; if it were arranged for the armed forces as a whole, the rate would probably be considerably reduced.
If the Government do not want that, why do they not insure themselves? They would then be more able to give generously in the event of accidents.
The United States has a veterans' department, which does an excellent job. I sometimes feel ashamed when I see how American veterans are treated-- especially the injured--compared to the way in which ours are treated. Will the Minister consider introducing a similar organisation here?
I have left my right hon. Friend very little time, and I do not expect him to give detailed answers now, but I hope that he will be prepared to put his replies in the Library. Will he consider amending the 1987 Act to allow ex-gratia payments and to require the MOD to produce relevant documents?
Will he also agree to lay down enhanced regulations for resettlement on this vital matter of transition, requiring in particular liaison between the MOD and the organisations that I have mentioned? Will he require the MOD to publish status reports, on a three-monthly basis on cases that have not been settled?
Column 1273
Finally, will he examine in depth the whole question of compulsory insurance and the establishment of a veterans' department? I thank my right hon. Friend for coming here today, and I apologise for leaving him so little time to answer.3.3 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has raised an important subject concerning the position of Ministry of Defence personnel- -both service and civilian--who are killed or injured in the course of their duties. I am grateful for being given the opportunity to explain the position on some of the issues arising out of this matter. It is, however, a complex subject and, as it concerns the whole question of legal liability and the relationship between employers and employees as it is dealt with under the law, I am sure that the House will readily understand some of the background to the subject. However, it may be helpful if I give a short account of the way in which the present legal position on injured personnel has developed.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which enabled servants of the Crown to take proceedings against the Crown in the same way that any other employee could proceed against his employer. However, section 10 of the Act prevented the Crown or a member of the armed forces from being sued for damages for injury or death of an on-duty service man due to some negligent act or omission by the service. The House will recall that the law was changed in a Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and section 10 was repealed in 1987. While this removed the prohibition on members of the armed forces suing other members, or the Crown, it did not alter the law of evidence or the substantive law of tortious liability.
The Ministry therefore has a legal liability to pay compensation to service personnel where negligence can be established by the Ministry or someone acting on its behalf. The effect of the repeal of section 10 was to put service personnel in the same position as the Ministry's civilian employees --or, indeed, any other civilian worker--as regards the right to seek compensation for injuries received in the course of their work.
There has been much debate and a number of proposals have been made on proposals to change the basis of legal liability. They seek to remove some of the perceived disadvantages, particularly for service personnel, in claiming compensation from a Department of State such as the Ministry of Defence. One proposal was to extend the legal rights and remedies of service men to place them in a far more favourable position than Ministry of Defence civilians or any other group of civilian employees, by
Column 1274
imposing an absolute liability on the Ministry in removing the requirement for service personnel to prove negligence when taking civil actions for damages against the Crown.Although no one is more aware than I am of the worth and value to this country of our service personnel, and the risks to which they are exposed, the proposal to change the law in this way cannot be right. It is a fundamental principle of our system of civil law that for one person to seek compensation from another, that person must show that a wrong, causing him damage, has been done to him by the other party. In the sphere of employer's liability, it is not a principle of the law that an employee may claim compensation from his employer whenever he suffers an injury at work, regardless of whether the injury was attributable to an act of negligence and however much he has contributed to his own misfortune. That applies whether claims are settled in or out of court directly between the parties involved. The proposal would be contrary to current legal principles on personal injury and employer's liability under the law of tort and it would have ramifications far beyond the narrow scope of the proposal itself.
That does not mean that Ministry of Defence personnel, service or civilian, are left without any financial benefits if they are injured in the course of their duties. Indeed, the arrangements under service and civilian pension schemes compare very well with best employer practice. Any service man who is obliged to leave the service because of an attributable injury is eligible for pension and disability awards from the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security, which administers the war pension scheme. Those awards are either lump-sum payments or pension payments with an additional lump sum. They are tax free, index linked to cover inflation, related to the degree of disability and reassessed if there is a deterioration in the individual's condition.
Those awards are made automatically, on a no-fault basis, if a service man is invalided as a result of his injuries. He is not required to prove negligence or make any legal claim for damages, with all the risks attendant on that process. Similarly, in the event that a married service man dies as a result of injuries attributable to service, enhanced benefits are paid under the Ministry's pension scheme to his widow and any eligible children. They are also able to benefit under the Department of Social Security war pension scheme. Civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence are eligible for benefits under the civil service pension scheme where injury or illness results in premature retirement, and may receive an enhanced pension for loss of earnings capacity where this is attributable to their employment.
The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker -- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Three o'clock.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |