* A Tory MP who fought to gain compensation for three Grenadier
guardsmen who lost their legs after an explosion during an exercise,
yesterday launched a bid to change the law.
Mr John Browne (Winchester) gained an unopposed formal first reading
in the Commons for his Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) Bill which
would make the Defence Ministry automatically pay up in cases of severe
injury unless it could prove negligence on the part of victims.
The measure would also prevent the ministry withholding key documents
such as accident inquiry reports and give Defence Secretary Tom King
power to grant an ex-gratia payment in cases not covered by the law.
Mr Browne told the House it would reverse the present onus of proof
''whereby injured service personnel must prove negligence by the mighty
Ministry of Defence''.
He added: ''Regardless of political party, the people of our country
feel that the Government should care much more for our injured
servicemen and that the Government should, as regards the armed forces,
be seen to be the very model of a good employer.''
Mr Browne, a former Grenadier Guards officer, said the settlement
reached in the case of Mr Adrian Hicks, Mr John Ray and Mr Sean Povey,
who were injured by an unexploded shell while training in Canada, was
''sadly still a very rare exception''.
He protested that the MoD had fought ''to the last trench''.
The three were eventually paid #105,000 in compensation each, plus a
full service pension.
Mr Browne told the House: ''There are many, many more ex-servicemen in
similar states of severe disablement. They have not yet received
anywhere near their compensation.
The Bill has cross-party support but stands little chance of becoming
law.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article