Armed Forces Bill - Clause 8 and various new clauses/amendments

Moves new clauses requiring comprehensive reviews on dismissals due to sexual orientation or gender identity, establishment of an Armed Forces Federation for representation, and a review of mental health care standards. Also proposes amendments ensuring serious crimes are tried in civilian courts unless specifically consented otherwise by the Attorney General.

Welcomes the shadow Minister's commitment to rule of law, questioning if perpetrators involved in historical murders should be granted amnesty.

Ms. Monaghan criticises the Bill for lacking punch and failing to make practical differences for service personnel, despite good intentions at its start. She argues that the covenant in law should be strengthened, highlighting issues such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, DWP issues, representation, and accommodation. Ms. Monaghan supports Labour's new clause 2 on dismissal for sexuality and proposes modest amendments to match service accommodation with civilian housing standards.

Mr. Simmonds supports the Bill by commending local authorities such as Hillingdon for their approach to supporting service personnel and veterans. He highlights best practices in providing housing and school places for children of military families, advocating that fulfilling expectations under the military covenant involves relationships at a local level, political will, and effective management.

Supports Labour’s new clauses aimed at addressing past injustices faced by service members due to their sexuality, including criminal records and access to medals. Advocates for an armed forces federation to provide a voice for personnel and highlights the need for better mental health services and transitions for veterans. Also addresses issues of rape and sexual assault in the military, suggesting that external investigations are necessary given the low volume of such cases within the military police.

Supports amendments 1 and 2. Argues that the public does not understand why military personnel should be tried differently from civilians for serious crimes such as murder or rape. States that civil courts are superior to military courts in handling these cases due to resource limitations of military police. Raises concerns about army recruitment issues, emphasising the importance of showcasing career opportunities and peacekeeping efforts to attract young people.

Supports amendments for service justice and access to services. Criticises the two-tier system that enshrines class and social privilege, affecting those from marginalized communities like Travellers. Discusses Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan's case as an example of systemic failures in military management. Emphasises the need for a legislative framework or bill of rights for armed forces personnel to address underlying issues faced by service members.

Jim Shannon supports improvements to recruitment and retention in the regular force, emphasising the need for investment in soft power. He pleads with the Minister to review the reserve forces footprint in Northern Ireland and expand opportunities there. Shannon highlights historical military contributions from Northern Ireland and calls for more support for veterans, including better delivery of the armed forces covenant. He endorses new clause 4 regarding mental health duty of care and supports amendments 1 and 2 aimed at addressing years of neglect.

During an intervention, Kevan Jones expressed doubt about the Government's ability to address issues of compensation and pensions for veterans effectively. He stressed that resistance from within the Department could hinder progress on these matters.

During an intervention, Jim Shannon specifically asked about recruitment in Northern Ireland to fill gaps in reserve forces. He sought assurances that this recruitment is necessary and should proceed.

Argued that the Armed Forces Bill fails to address long-standing issues facing service communities, does not improve access to justice for personnel who commit rape and serious offences in the UK, ignores recommendations from a judge-led review on the service justice system, reduces appeal time limits, and continues high visa fees for non-UK veterans.