Armed Forces Bill - Clause 7 and Lords amendment 1B

Expresses concern over the lack of concrete actions if review outcomes do not align with expectations, emphasising the need for more substantial commitments beyond vague promises to keep things under review.

Questions the contradiction between expeditionary military design and the proposed presumption of civilian court jurisdiction for offences committed in the UK, suggesting that the current system already provides flexibility.

Raises a separate concern about resolving issues with free visa applications for non-UK servicemen and women, proposing that the current requirement of 12 years' service is too long.

Asks whether serious cases of murder abroad are affected by the ongoing debate on jurisdiction, seeking clarity on how such incidents should be handled under current and proposed legal frameworks.

Kinnock argues that serious crimes committed by service personnel should be tried in civilian courts due to lower conviction rates under military tribunals. He stresses the importance of fairness, transparency and justice for female recruits and veterans, highlighting how low conviction rates can deter women from joining the armed forces.

Asked Kinnock to clarify what specific actions government could take under his proposed amendment that they cannot do otherwise, questioning the practical implications of broadening accountability for central Government.

Supports upgrading the Armed Forces Act 2006. Argues for the need of scrutiny by military and legal experts. Emphasises that civilian courts are better equipped to deal with crimes like domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault due to an absence of military experience in handling such cases. Mentions low conviction rates as evidence of disconnect.

Expresses disappointment with the current Bill's provisions and states that they will not deliver a significant impact for members of the armed forces. Highlights missed opportunities like improvements in service accommodation, visa fees, and service justice for rape or sexual assault. Acknowledges past failings but stresses need to look at experiences of women serving in the military.

Welcomes concessions made by the Government but expresses concern about the structure of the defence serious crimes unit. Highlights potential sensitivity issues in handling rape cases and suggests involving independent legal expertise. Also calls for bringing forward unfinished business from the Henriques review.

Questions whether a small prosecuting body will have the expertise to handle cases properly and raises concerns over gender parity in military courts.

Supports the Bill and specifically supports Lords amendment 1B, arguing that it is necessary to address systemic issues around sexual assault in the military. Emphasises the need for civilian courts for rape cases due to entrenched laddish culture.

Supports the Government’s progress in supporting armed forces personnel, but highlights issues with housing for service members. Calls for more support to enable home ownership and property near home base.

Questions why it would be acceptable for police officers accused of serious crimes to not face civilian courts while military personnel would.

Welcomes contributions from other MPs and acknowledges support for increasing women's representation on courts martial boards, calls for independent expertise in the defence serious crime unit, highlights gratitude for inquiries that will accelerate institutional change to ensure women can thrive in military careers, confirms housing is a pillar of the covenant provision with significant financial investment into accommodation for service families and personnel through the Forces Help to Buy scheme.