Official Report 406KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of motion S7M-01499, on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament, noting that the Armed Forces Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 15 January 2026 (reintroduced on 14 May 2026), makes provision that falls within the legislative competence of the Parliament, agrees to give consent to such provision as is made by clause 8 (4) and clause 8 (5).—[Jamie Hepburn]
17:36
I support the motion, but I need to seek assurance from the minister. The principle behind the provisions is straightforward—it is that a victim’s protection must not disappear simply because the person who is subject to a service restraining order leaves the armed forces. Clauses 8(4) and 8(5) deal with that problem. They ensure that, when a service restraining order applies and the individual subsequently ceases to be subject to service law, protection can continue through the Scottish civilian justice system. The order will be treated as a non-harassment order made by a sheriff, so a breach will be a criminal offence under Scots law, and our courts will have the power to vary or revoke the order where appropriate. All that is sensible and necessary, but there is an important practical point for Scottish ministers.
The Criminal Justice Committee was assured that there will be no gap in protection when responsibility transfers from the service justice system and that Police Scotland will be able to identify those orders through the police national computer. I therefore ask the minister to ensure that those arrangements will work seamlessly in practice from day 1. Victims must know that their protection continues. Police Scotland must be able to act immediately on an alleged breach, and there must be clear communication between the service justice system, Police Scotland prosecutors and the Scottish courts.
I ask the minister to keep the operation of those arrangements under review once cases begin to transfer into Scottish jurisdiction. A victim should never be left uncertain about whether an order still protects them, simply because the perpetrator has left the armed forces. Leaving service must never become a means of escaping the restrictions of an order designed to protect another person.
These are proportionate and necessary provisions. I support the motion, but I seek assurances from the minister in respect of the items of concern that I have and which many others share.
I call the minister to respond. You have three minutes, minister.
17:39
I am certainly happy to respond, but I probably will not take three minutes.
In recommending that the Parliament gives legislative consent, I assure Mr Kerr that we want to enhance the position of victims. I think that we all share that position.
I will give members the wider context. We are seeking agreement to legislation that would give civilian courts in Scotland the power to enforce service restraining orders when someone moves from military jurisdiction to civilian jurisdiction. That will enhance the rights of victims.
If we were not to agree to give legislative consent, a person in Scotland would have to make a specific application to the civil courts in Scotland for a protective order, when the person who was subject to a service restraining order moved from the armed forces to civilian life, in order to get the level of protection that had been provided by the service restraining order.
For the system to be effective, we want to have a seamless transition, and the Government is committed to providing that. I give Mr Kerr the assurance that we take the matter seriously. I am happy to take away the point about a review to see how the Government could undertake that. I commit to writing to the Criminal Justice Committee with more detail on that.
With that, I recommend to the Parliament that we provide legislative consent for the provisions.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.