Official Report 685KB pdf
Item 5 on our agenda is to consider our approach to the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK Parliament legislation. This afternoon, we will consider our first supplementary legislative consent memorandum, LCM-S7-3, which relates to the bill. The LCM was lodged in the Scottish Parliament by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 16 June 2026. Under standing orders, the Scottish Government must notify the Parliament through a legislative consent memorandum when a UK bill affects devolved matters. A lead committee considers the LCM before the Parliament decides whether to grant consent.
The Armed Forces Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 15 January 2026. The purpose of the bill is to introduce a series of measures to update and extend legislation relating to the armed forces, reserve forces, defence bodies and the protection of military remains.
The Scottish Parliament granted legislative consent to the bill during the previous session, following the scrutiny of the original LCM by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. The SLCM relates to amendment 30, which was tabled on 22 May 2026 and agreed to in the House of Commons on 2 June, concerning the enforcement of service restraining orders in cases where an individual leaves the armed forces and enters the civilian justice system. The amendment triggered the need for a supplementary LCM.
The SLCM states that the provisions would align the armed services justice system more closely with civilian justice systems across the UK, and it recommends consent. Given the late stage of the bill’s passage through the UK Parliament and the limited time available to scrutinise the supplementary LCM, the committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice during the summer recess, seeking further information to support its consideration of the memorandum.
Are members content to consider and reach a conclusion on the supplementary LCM today?
Members indicated agreement.
Do any members wish to make comments, for the record, on the supplementary LCM?
I have a question about clause 8(5)—referring to the amendment that was tabled and agreed for England and Wales and the disapplication of section 109 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. I want to be clear that the disapplication of that provision will not affect the operation of SROs in Scotland because of clause 8(4). Would it be appropriate to ask about that?
That is a fair question. Ms Chapman will understand that I do not have the answer to it, but I think that it would be entirely appropriate for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarity on that matter.
I do not want to delay the committee’s recommendation to agree to the LCM. It would be helpful to get clarity on that specific point in writing, however.
My concern is about victims and witnesses who think that they are covered by section 109 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, but because of the amendment that has been made, it turns out that they are not. How will they know that they still have their protections, given that the Westminster amendment has been passed down south?
I understand the question. It would be entirely appropriate for the committee to write to the Scottish Government, noting that we understand that there is a time pressure. I am relaxed if members have questions that they want to be answered, and we can ask the Scottish Government to answer them in quick style.
13:00
I am in a similar place to Maggie Chapman, because, of course, I support the principle behind the bill. However, my questions are really about the legal mechanisms and understanding the intention, because, sometimes, there is a world of difference between what is intended and what will actually happen in practice. That is what I am concerned about, and my questions fall into a number of areas, but I will be brief. I want to be absolutely assured that there will be no gap in protection for victims. If someone who is subject to an SRO leaves the armed forces today, does that protection transfer automatically into the Scottish civilian system? How does that work? We need to be reassured on that. That does not mean that we will stand in the way of the bill, but we need to know about those technical aspects.
How exactly will Police Scotland learn that an SRO has become enforceable in the Scottish jurisdiction? Is there an automatic notification, and is there a mechanism that creates that information sharing? Who has responsibility for ensuring that the victim is informed when the order moves from the services justice system into the Scottish civilian jurisdiction for enforcement, and who becomes the victim’s point of contact? How does the process work? If the order is breached after the individual has left the services jurisdiction, is there complete clarity that Police Scotland will investigate and the Crown Office will prosecute, in exactly the same way as they would a breach of a Scottish non-harassment order?
Finally, can we get an idea of how many current SROs relate to individuals who reside in Scotland, and how many cases the Government reasonably expects to transfer into our jurisdiction each year? Those are the five different areas—which run alongside Maggie Chapman’s concerns—that warrant a response from the Government, but I in no way seek to impede the progress of the LCM and I am fully supportive of it.
I understand that, Mr Kerr, and those questions are on the record. I am sure that our colleagues in the clerking team will have captured them all. My suggestion to the committee is that we delegate to the convener the ability to write to the Scottish Government, reflecting the points made by Ms Chapman and Mr Kerr. We will make clear to the Scottish Government the need for those to be answered very quickly, but, on that basis, we will have to defer the decision on the LCM. I am mindful that we want a decision on it quite quickly, but I absolutely appreciate the points made by Ms Chapman and Mr Kerr, and I undertake to take those away.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Before I conclude the public part of the meeting, I want to say that our convener is disappointed not to be here today, and I am certainly disappointed that he is not here. I do not intend to be in this position again, but I want to say an enormous thank you to everybody for their forbearance with me. It has been a very long meeting, and I do not think that the intention is to have four-hour evidence sessions, but we have got through an awful lot today. The clerking team and I thank you for your forbearance—it is much appreciated.
We will now move into private session to consider agenda items 6 and 7.
13:03
Meeting continued in private until 13:05.
Previous
Remand and Bail