Armed Forces Bill - Lords amendment 1 and Government motion to disagree, Lords amendments 2-50

Supports the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments and discusses several related amendments, highlighting concerns about jurisdictional safeguards for witnesses and defendants.

Questions why the Government did not adopt the recommendation to do away with concurrent jurisdiction as part of Judge Lyons' report, raising concerns about inconsistencies in policy adoption.

Inquires whether the legislation will address past cases and prevent future incidents of sexual abuse and harassment in the military.

Requests assurances that if concurrent jurisdiction is implemented, witnesses and defendants will receive the same level of protection as under civilian procedure rules.

Highlights that the number of incidents investigated by the serious crimes unit is small compared to those handled by civilian police forces, questioning its effectiveness.

References comments from Sarah Atherton, Chair of the sub-Committee, who suggests that military courts are not well-suited to handle serious sexual offences.

Questions circumstances where a military court would be better suited for rape cases compared to civilian courts, particularly in cases of soldier-on-soldier or man-versus-woman incidents.

Asks who would choose the jurisdiction for hearing such cases and on what grounds these choices would be based.

Calls for a legal commitment to the armed forces covenant, suggesting that this could address concerns about inconsistencies in policy adoption regarding the service justice system.

He supports ensuring that if cases are heard in a court martial setting, they should automatically be available with the same protection, support, and procedural devices as those available in civilian settings.

She suggests a compromise might be to revisit the issue in a year's time if the Bill passes, to assess whether cases are being properly prosecuted and women are receiving justice.

He agrees that there is a missed opportunity in the Bill to deal with issues facing foreign and Commonwealth veterans. He urges the Government to support upcoming opportunities to resolve these issues.

Supports Lords amendment 1 which moves serious crimes out of military courts. Cites lower conviction rates for rape in military versus civilian courts (16% vs 34%). Criticises the MOD and the Secretary of State for going against advice from officials, suggesting a lack of integrity.

[INTERVENTION] Emphasises the courage required for victims to report rape or child abuse. Highlights the silencing effect on victims, preventing them from seeking justice.

[INTERVENTION] Criticises Johnny Mercer for not acting as a Minister to address issues he now highlights. Accuses Mercer of rewriting history and lacking integrity.

[INTERVENTION] Supports moving serious crimes out of military courts but questions the power invested in the Attorney General, suggesting it should not be wielded by a Law Officer.

Supports Lords amendment 1. Cites evidence from the Defence Committee report which found that over 64% of servicewomen experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. Criticises current laddish culture and poor victim care in military courts.

Neill supports the overall bill but criticises specific amendments for undermining its effectiveness. He argues that the prosecution service lacks expertise to handle certain serious cases, such as rape and sexual offences. Neill also suggests a compromise involving beefing up the protocol and giving more authority to the Director of Public Prosecutions instead of introducing new jurisdictional complexities.

Rodda highlights the welfare issues faced by Gurkha soldiers who retired before 1997, particularly their modest pensions. He urges the Minister to expedite discussions with Nepal and provide more support for these veterans.

Ferrier supports Lords amendments 2 to 13, which aim to strengthen the legal basis for the armed forces covenant. She argues that including the Secretary of State in due regard duties will ensure consistency and national oversight for issues reserved at a UK level.

Mr Jones supports the military justice system but argues for putting victims at its heart. He cites evidence from Professor Sir Jon Murphy, the Victims Commissioner, and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen to highlight issues with the current complaints system and chain of command. He welcomes the serious crime unit but questions its effectiveness due to potential lack of volume for expertise development. Mr Jones also references his work on a report by Sarah Atherton that highlights people not coming forward with complaints due to perceived unfairness in the system. Additionally, he supports amendment 2 regarding Departmental involvement in welfare and criticises local government's lack of resources to carry out functions related to the Armed Forces Bill.