Question asked. Not answered: Labour has no plan to shield UK our troops from lawfare in any Ukraine mission

Defence Secretary dismisses calls to suspend ECHR to protect our troops despite serious concerns over vexatious legal claims against military personnel

The Labour Government won’t consider giving our armed forces maximum protection from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if deployed to Ukraine.

Yesterday (25/3/25) in Parliament, James Cartlidge, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, and Conservative MP David Davis asked the Secretary of State John Healey if the government, given its history of hounding veterans for decades, would consider a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights.

In international law, derogation from human rights treaties allows states to temporarily suspend certain rights during national emergencies, protecting troops from vexatious human rights claims.

“If our forces go to Ukraine, it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission…Operation Banner [the operational name for the British Armed Forces’ operation in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007, as part of the Troubles] was also described as peacekeeping, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts. Our soldiers in Iraq were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims,” said Cartlidge.

He then asked: “If our forces go to Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?”

Healey’s petulant response was: “If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace, not a shooting war. Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies and to ensure safe seas. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?”

Cartlidge hit back, saying: “Of course not. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour Government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11, and a country in Europe has derogated from the ECHR since 2015. That country is Ukraine, and that is because there is a war on.

“Surely he recognises that, even if it is a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats, and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. Surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment.”

Healey responded: “Our armed forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the hon. Gentleman, we, alongside France, are putting together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. We are responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give it the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. That is a worthy mission, and it is one that the UK is leading. I hope that it has the support of both sides of the House.”

So, in answer to the question, that would be….ummm…No?

Thus far, it was clear the Labour Government will not consider giving maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment.

Rather than letting the matter drop, Davis weighed in with: “The Defence Secretary should know that the whole House supports the Government’s actions to preserve peace in Ukraine, but that was not the point that the shadow Secretary of State was making.

“He was asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises that it has a duty of care towards soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare and the misuse of the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Ministry do something to protect those soldiers?”

To which Healey replied: “I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to our duty of care and to standing by our forces. We also recognise that the previous Government put in place legislation — the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 — to deal with any concerns in this place.”

So, again, the answer to the specific question is...uhhh...No?

Clearly, the Ministry won’t protect soldiers facing decades of lawfare and misuse of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Tossing out a line about the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 to dismiss the issue does nothing to address any concerns.

The 2021 Act does not preclude legal action under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Admittedly, it imposes limitations that make claims more difficult to pursue — all that means is lawyers rake in more fees doing so.