Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and associated regret motion in the name of Lord Frost (dinner break business)

Lords, before we begin, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just want to set out in today's list remind noble Lords. Speeches in. The debate should be limited to in. The debate should be limited to two minutes, with exception of the mover and the Minister. I'm sure I speak on behalf of all noble Lords speak on behalf of all noble Lords across the House when I say that if everyone can stick to this advice speaking time, we will ensure the Minister has adequate time to Minister has adequate time to respond to all the points that are raised in the debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raised in the debate. My Lords, I rise to speak as quickly as I can to my regret, motion on the Windsor Framework

19:15

Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)

- -

19:23

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

This motion, be agreed to. >> This motion, be agreed to. >> My Lords, it's cursed. It's entirely unacceptable that we have only two minutes to discuss this piece of legislation. Second, it's an outrage that the democratically elected chamber is giving no opportunity at all to discuss it. Third, it sets a dangerous precedent, or rather perpetuates a dangerous habit of using the Windsor framework to extend the undemocratic subjugation of Northern Ireland to laws they have had no say in making to the rest of the UK.

Fourth, can the noble Lord the Minister, confirm that despite this measure aligning legislation in Great Britain with that of Northern Ireland, plants moving within the UK internal market between Northern Ireland and Great Britain will still face border controls and paperwork that they will not face when moving between England and Wales or Scotland and England. Fifth, can the Minister confirm that there is no need for this measure, still less dynamic alignment with all EU SPS legislation, because we already have an SPS agreement covering ourselves in the EU? It's called the WTO SPS agreement, and it spells out in terms that I quote.

Members shall accept the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of other members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own. If those measures achieve the importing members appropriate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection, which in our case is the case. Is the Minister even aware of that legislation, that agreement? Six Does the government believe the EU is exempt from any obligation to comply with international law, not just the WTO agreement? Isn't the EU's insistence on maintaining a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Contrary to the UN Declaration of Principles of International Law, friendly relations and cooperation between States, which lays down, and I quote, every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state or country, end quote.

I await the minister's noble minister's reply.

19:26

Lord Bew (Crossbench)

- -

My Lord. of this sea will be slight, to say the least. I do accept that the Windsor framework has been oversold. It was oversold by the Sunak government and it's been oversold by this government. But then again, the Good Friday Agreement was oversold by Tony Blair. The fact is there is no possible better way forward for Northern Ireland in either case, and the agreement exists in both cases. These agreements were because of the conflict of a historic compromise between profound forces, both inside and outside Ireland.

So the Windsor framework is still a model of a way forward. And, of course, one of the most important things about the Windsor framework is the way in which it declares itself on page four as restoring the balance to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 in its three parts. And this is very important because the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose work, by the way, on grace periods, was at the time something of tremendous importance for ensuring stability of Northern Ireland. And I recall it with admiration.

But that said, I disagree with what he has just said about the growing separation between Northern Ireland and Britain, the Windsor framework, and I quote, page five, says inherent in the way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. And, it adds, building on the existing differences in every area of economic life, such as services, migration, currency and taxation, and might have added now defence and Harland and Wolff now it. Working on contract for the Royal Navy.

There is not a growing separation between. And what we have had to return to, in a way, is what the noble Lord, Lord MP was engaged with in negotiating in the last week of the Good Friday Agreement, a model, a practical model of North-South relations rather than one dominated by nationalist solutions of one sort or another. National solutions, which Lord Frost is quite right, are to be found. And in the 2017 EU UK agreement, and indeed in the Withdrawal Agreement, this is a significant modification.

It's imperfect and I would argue by saying Lord Privy Seal in the last debate talked about the Prime Minister's trip to Northern Ireland, a successful trip, and said that how it was clear that the Prime Minister saw Northern Ireland as part of the success he wanted for the UK as a whole. That is the spirit.

19:28

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

My Lords, perfectly. Obviously this is dynamic alignment in practice, but turning to the actual minutiae, I'm looking forward to the minister's pronunciation of the various microorganisms that are dealt with in this particular thing, and I'm sure she'll be rising to the occasion. But there is a serious point. I have asked her on a number of occasions. There is a review due 2026 on the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and what have we done with regard to that? Because the whole apparatus that we have that has been created as a result of the Windsor framework, given that the amount of potential risk to the single market is so infinitesimal, it's barely measurable in terms of the volume of goods that are potentially could cross the border.

And people on the island, if there were properly organised under our own legislation, you could spot a mile away anybody who was attempting to, to, to, to damage this European single market. And that has never been the objective of the United Kingdom. We can prevent that. In fact, we can make it an offence for anybody in the United Kingdom to go out of their way to to breach the rules of the European Union. And they have a right to protect their single market.

But we have a right to protect the United Kingdom. So I would just ask the Minister, what has the government done and put on the table with regard to the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was due in the current year?

19:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Can I urge my noble friend, the >> Can I urge my noble friend, the Minister, to put pragmatism before some of the concerns that we have heard already this evening? There have been some rather purist ideas, I would say, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which he holds very dearly and consistently, and I respect him for that. But I think we do have to remind ourselves that we're talking about tomatoes, ginger and peppers here, some diseases and pests, and avoiding their importation into the United Kingdom.

Yes, the EU are the originators of these measures. That does not mean in and of itself that they are wrong or unnecessary. The benefit of passing these regulations is that we do maintain the integrity of the UK single market. That is something that I would have thought would be of great concern to those who are interested in affairs in Northern Ireland, and I note that the issues that were raised to the legislative Committee were around the border within the UK and the desire which I share to maintain as frictionless trade as possible between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If we were not to pass these regulations, we would be making those concerns more sharply. It would be worse. There is, of course, an alternative which would be dynamic alignment. It would be a full SPS agreement. It would be perhaps being a member of the customs union and the single market. Some of those things are easier to deliver than others because they all have consequences. And some of them, I'm sure would be opposed deeply by the noble Lords and others in this House.

For now, this is an imperfect solution. It is a pragmatic solution. It is a fudge, but it is the. It is. It's where we've arrived. Having gone through the trade agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol, all of those debates. This is the solution that we have for today. I would favor closer alignment, but this and these regulations, they are needed. And it's important that they are passed in order to allow for as frictionless trade as possible. And I do expect and hope my noble friend will put pragmatism and the needs of producers first.

19:32

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

Regulations were imposed without any discussion in Northern Ireland with parliamentarians, and I think this is totally unacceptable. And of course, what the government is now saying, that this is better for the internal market. And that's just not true because it's based on a deceit that if imports are moving from GB to Northern Ireland, they must comply with customs paperwork. This is not a UK internal market system, but a GB, EU, Northern Ireland, international trade border and the government really is misleading on this.

Why can they not be honest? Why can they not say that? Yes, the customs form may be shorter, but an internal market for goods is not created by demands for shorter customs forms, but by there being no requirement for such forms in the first place, and the shorter forms are offered in return for businesses having to admit separate additional border frictions, including the costs of needing to acquire and maintain trusted trade status to demonstrate that goods do not reach the EU and cannot carry not for EU labels.

And none of these border frictions apply in an internal market. So will the noble Lady, the Minister, be honest and admit that if GB submits to EU law regarding imports under these regulations, what is on offer is not a movement from GB to Northern Ireland in the UK internal market, but movement through an alternative GB. As I said, EU NI trade border system. This arrangement is unsustainable and it is unjust because it's been said over and over again in this House.

It involves accommodating the desire of 27 other states to disrespect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in violation, as has been said by the noble Lord, of violation of international law and undermining our democracy, our democracy. It is not sustainable. And I just wish His Majesty's Government and the noble Lady, the Minister, would be honest about what this regulation actually does in dividing more and more Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

19:34

Lord Redwood (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We need to renegotiate the Windsor Framework Agreement, which is totally unacceptable. This Parliament needs to govern and establish the laws for Northern Ireland, and we need to integrate Ireland, and we need to integrate our internal market across from the mainland of Great Britain to mainland of Great Britain to Northern Ireland itself. There is every opportunity in the reset, because we read in the press that because we read in the press that the government has already made massive and unreasonable concessions to the EU, who seem to be getting their every item on their wish list.

We're giving away billions of pounds of fish for no good purpose. We are substituting our rather good Turing student scheme for a much dearer one, which helps them more and our students less. We're probably going to concede on mobility of labour for people under 30, so that they will have much more benefit from that, with many more of them coming to us to take advantage of our jobs, markets and facilities, we are probably going to extend their lawmaking rights over many more areas, and the government undoubtedly will end up paying the EU a lot more money.

So government wake up, they are taking you for fools. It needs to be the case that Britain demands other things, and we could certainly put in a much better system to free the borders between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, without putting new barriers on the border to the Republic of Ireland. Under the mutual enforcement system that I and others have promoted in the past to previous governments, and we can certainly do much more to reduce the costs of Europe by going through, in the negotiations how the residual financial liabilities are to excessive.

But above all, we should wish to reinstate the unity of the United Kingdom by regaining the right to make the laws in this Parliament and in Northern Ireland that apply to the people of Northern Ireland, and to reinstate our internal market throughout the whole of the UK.

19:36

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

My Lords, the people of Northern >> My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland had. The legislation we are debating today simply imposed upon them. They were not consulted in any way. Northern Ireland parliamentarians first became aware that we were subject to these laws only when regulations were published, proposing to extend them to GB. This is wholly undemocratic, profoundly humiliating and completely unsustainable. More importantly, these regulations rest on the misleading premise that if GB submits to these laws, goods imported into GB can then move freely throughout the United Kingdom.

Internal market for goods including Northern Ireland via the UK internal Market system, the term internal market has an established meaning the free movement of goods without encountering a customs or international border. The clear implication of the term UK internal market system is therefore, that goods imported into GB should move freely to Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, without encountering such borders. But goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland encounter a customs and International border requiring customs paperwork under EU regulation 2023 at bar 1128 and international paperwork under EU regulation 2023, bar 1231.

This is not a UK internal market system. It is a GB, EU, any international trade border system. To describe it otherwise is to deliberate mislead the people of the United Kingdom. Some may point out that the customs in international forms required under these regulations are shorter than otherwise would be the case. That is true, but an internal market is not created by a border requiring shorter customs or SPS forms. It is indeed created by there being no border and no requirement for any such forms.

Moreover, these shorter forms come at the cost of additional border frictions, including the need for business businesses. Now, my Lords, is time the government just faced up to reality. It's all very well multiplying words and fine statements, but that doesn't correct things, and I trust that this government will find the courage to do what has to be done.

19:39

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

OK. >> OK. >> We have had several debates over the last couple of years in relation to the Windsor framework, and all of them have originated from those who are basically opposed to the Windsor framework, which is a direct consequence of Brexit, for which they voted for. And that has caused economic and political instability in Northern Ireland. Instead, not only as my noble friend Baroness Chapman said, we should, we need a pragmatic approach, but also we need a collaborative approach to be able to avail of the opportunities presented by access to both markets, the UK internal market and the EU single market that bring benefit and economic opportunity to all producers in Northern Ireland and cast our minds back.

What is the purpose of the Windsor Framework is to fix trade and political problems caused by post-Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol, by making it easier to move goods between Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, there are challenges, but Lord Murphy's report, which was accepted by the previous Secretary of State, Ben and indicated that a one stop shop would be established. So could my noble friend the Minister, provide an update on the one stop shop and also on the SPS agreement and the UK? EU reset, because those are vital vehicles to bring us to a better place.

OK.

19:40

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

My Lords, firstly, an apology to this House and to Lord Frost. I missed the first minute of his introduction, so apologies for that. But since the introduction of the protocol in the Windsor framework, we have witnessed. But I have to say, most of us, certainly many of us, have not agreed with a significant divergence of trade and goods movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But now what appears to be witnessing is that Great Britain are now being required to accept those EU regulations.

And I notice a number of the people speaking here this evening in this Lordships House are from Northern Ireland, but this is a significant impact on people of Great Britain as well. So is this a situation of back to the future? Well, as Lord MP has indicated, the detail of this particular legislation may be relatively minor. But today, today at the Northern Ireland Lords Scrutiny Committee, we had a number of regulations for consideration. These range from electric goods or electric vehicles, animal feed, safety cereal products, vegetables, nuts, fruits, honey, jellies.

Veterinary products are now the EU Dr. which is the European Deforestation Regulations. How many more of these are we going to have to contemplate over the forthcoming years? Dozens. But in all of this, it's the public and the businesses that are suffering administratively, financially. And we know and certainly in Northern Ireland over the last number of years, the significant negative impact this has had, particularly on business, trying to bring goods in from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, particularly for small businesses.

Larger businesses have some flexibility and that they may be able to employ administrators to do that. But small businesses are suffering greatly, and they're the people most impacted.

19:43

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

This regulation banning the import of certain fresh food products into this country imposes EU laws on on GB by negative Statutory Instrument. It anticipates the dynamic alignment for the whole agri food sector proposed by the EU reset. As has already been pointed out here and in the other place, it. It does so under cover of the 2018 Withdrawal Agreement Act, which was understood at the time to be for Northern Ireland and not for the whole of the UK, but this right, this set of regulations imposes EU law on the UK dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy, and I.

I take issue with the noble Lady, Baroness Chapman, because it may be peppers or tomatoes, but perhaps it would be helpful to the House to know that more than half a. Fresh fruits which come to supermarket shelves come from rest of the world countries, so it will have an impact on the cost of living. And perhaps we'll see about the competitive market on how this works. And this dynamic alignment raises serious constitutional questions about an executive diktat to which noble Lords on both sides have referred.

It's a matter of importance to which the on which the whole country has voted. This is a matter. It was voted on twice in the referendum and in 2019 to take back control of our lawmaking from the EU. And now the House of Commons Select Committee. And on the Rural Affairs, the environment, the Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs in February 2026, raised these concerns and said an. There were concerns about Parliament's role in scrutinising European legislation and the capacity within EU institutions to check that.

And my Lords, I leave this with you. It's a constitutional issue of the first importance, and it does this lawmaking by the back door.

19:45

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Yeah, my Lords, time. Time does not permit me to reiterate or examine the constitutional issues which this s I raises. They have been dealt with by a number of other speakers. Nor indeed can I comment on whether those constitutional concerns are in any way ameliorated in practice by the impact on on the plant health trade. I have to confess that plant health is not something I know a great deal about. I suspect I may not be alone in this chamber on that particular issue.

But then again, in the expanded memorandum for this s I, the government itself indicates that there was no consultation on this s I because one was felt not necessary. So it's hard to see how the government can also make a claim that there is that they can say with confidence that this is a practical benefit. What is clear is that while this s, I would align the whole of the UK with the EU, it does not create any compensating removal of the internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It leaves in place a. For retail movements that there will be an export license. Customs checks, SPS sorry customs declarations, SPS checks and identity checks. The government may be able to claim that this is at a reduced level than what would otherwise have been, but the one thing it cannot do is claim that this creates an unfettered or frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and Great Britain, and that creates, I think, a major problem for the future.

As has been indicated, we are moving into further reset discussions. We wait to see what direction the new Prime Minister takes. But I would simply say that if we reach a point at which at the end of those resets arrangements, we have full alignment on SPS with EU while leaving in place an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not the much vaunted best of both worlds. We are leaving ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds.

19:47

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Another day, another s I on the Windsor framework. Only just a few products. The excuse being that if we don't do it will drag Northern Ireland further away from the rest of the United Kingdom. But the fault, my Lords, is in the Windsor framework, which was designed as it carefully was originally in Chequers, then in the Northern Ireland Protocol, to drag the UK back into the EU. Eventually. And next stop the reset. Whole categories of products, whole sectors of the economy.

But the only places the UK economy is growing right now, my Lords, is in those parts of the economy that are specifically not under EU law and diverge from EU law. The flat white tech economy, the city, precision breeding, genetic, genetic gene editing all of these, my Lords, are precisely because we are growing precisely because we are not in the EU. How are we going to give up those sectors to eventually, my Lords and with that, any hope of growing the economy and worse, are we going to continue to deny Northern Ireland the ability to participate fully in those sectors which they cannot fully right now? No, my Lords, enough of these Statutory Instruments.

The Windsor framework must go in the fullness of time. It will. We must all hope that happy eventuality, as we actually properly finally leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EU. My Lords. The Windsor framework was not an inevitable product of Brexit, as Lady Ritchie claimed and as has been endlessly claimed. If anything, it was a product of the Benn Act. it was a product of the Benn Act. Or, I should say, to spare the familial honour of that good and worthy man, Viscount Stansgate. It worthy man, Viscount Stansgate. It was a product of the 2017 election which brought into another place a majority of people who made it

19:49

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-affiliated)

- -

majority of people who made it clear and passed legislation to the effect that we would not leave other than on terms that were agreeable to the EU. They didn't put it in exactly that terms. They said we won't allow a no deal Brexit. If you think about it, my Lords, that is exactly the same thing. And I can tell you, having been a member of the European Parliament at the time, that nobody in Brussels, nobody suggested a different status for Northern Ireland until the second half of 2017 in response to this extraordinary weakness that they saw on our side.

It's extraordinary that we have still allowed the Windsor framework to remain in place unless we are deliberately wanting that the chafing and uncomfortable aspects of it are driving us towards some kind of reintegration. But let's let's focus on what we can do to solve where we are. How about this? And I hope this might appeal even to some of the. The noble Lords present who hanker after reunion. One way of solving all of the issues that are supposed to be tackled by the Windsor framework would be to allow EU regulations as an alternative system throughout the UK, allow British companies to choose whether they want British or EU regulations.

Be great. You have some regulatory competition, you might have some pressure on deregulation and this is not unprecedented. The coalition government in New Zealand, for example, has recently changed the rules so that any pharmaceutical product approved by any kind of serious country by the European Medicines Agency, by our MHRA, by the FDA in the United States, is automatically legal in New Zealand. They don't need to do their own regulatory system. Now, if we were to do that, the rationale for the Windsor framework would collapse and we would become more competitive.

In fact, the only argument that I can see against it is that it would solve the problem and therefore remove one of the arguments for going back into the European Union, which I suspect is what will motivate some of the people present here today.

19:51

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

In my two minutes, I would like to make three brief points. First, to make three brief points. First, I would like to deal with the regulations themselves. From these benches. We support these short benches. We support these short technical regulations which provide protection against external plant pests, particularly in tomatoes, peppers and ginger. We support greater alignment with the EU in general in these matters, which we believe will reduce friction to trade. Indeed, we would like to see the UK eventually rejoining the single market.

But as this debate has illustrated once again this evening, the issue is not so much about the substance of the regulations before us, but more about genuine concerns about democratic accountability in parliamentary oversight. Since we left the EU, we no longer have a voice in the European Parliament's committees or other EU institutions when this type of highly technical but important regulations were discussed. We therefore have virtually no say or input into them as we face an ever greater number of these regulations stemming from dynamic alignment.

It would be very helpful if the noble Lady, the Minister, can say whether the government is intending to publish a strategy for how Parliament will carry out its scrutiny role in future, more effectively relying on regret motions from Lord Frost, Baroness Hoey and others does not amount to an acceptable strategy for parliamentary oversight. Whereas I personally welcome the introduction of a time limit on these s, I regret motions. I do think it is important to allow an adequate amount of time to ask the Minister questions, or to seek clarification to two minutes.

My Lords, I believe is very brief indeed. In order to do this adequately. And finally, my Lords, can the Minister give us an indication for when she expects to update the House on progress being made, on negotiations on a wider SPS agreement?

19:53

Lord Roborough (Conservative)

- -

Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for being in her place to listen to the concerns of noble Lords. These regulations relate to the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, which was established under the Windsor framework to allow goods to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland more easily. My Lords, it is central that we protect the integrity of our Union. These regulations, however, seek to align our import requirements with those in the EU for goods originating from non-EU countries, specifically pest measures.

When it comes to our import requirements, these should of course protect from plant pests, but it is not clear why requirements must mirror future EU requirements. And I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for his motion. My Lords, a formal consultation and full impact assessments were deemed unnecessary. But can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain the evidence base behind this decision regarding gnomes more widely, there is concern that businesses may not be able to meet the 19th of October deadline for not for EU labelling for bottles moving from GB to Northern Ireland.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify whether she believes the sector has capacity and guarantee that this will not result in sudden commercial waste or widespread product delistings our regulations should be evidence based, practical and pro-business, not ideological. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the minister's response.

19:55

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

20:08

Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)

- -

20:08

House Adjourned During Pleasure

The The House The House to be again in Committee on the Armed

20:12

Legislation: Armed Forces Bill – committee stage (part two)

Forces Bill, Lord Coaker. >> My Lord, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. The question is that the House do now resolve itself into a do now resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill, as many of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. In schedule three. Amendment 21. Baroness Brinton.

20:13

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I have all three amendments in >> I have all three amendments in this group which aim to improve on the arrangements for cases of service stalking. Amendment 21, which starts. The group wants to create a service stalking protection notice SPN by mirroring the existing framework for the service Domestic Abuse Protection Notices, giving Service Police an equivalent power to provide immediate protection orders pending the determination or withdrawal of an application for a service Stalking Protection Order. I am very grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Aurora new Dawn for their briefings and for correspondence in recent weeks.

My Lords, before going into the detail of these three amendments, I also want to thank the Minister for his letter about last evening of last week. A few days ago, following the Second Reading. And he does say very clearly in that letter that the changes I seek to want to strengthen the protections against stalking are not necessary because you fully we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that service, police and other relevant personnel have the skills and knowledge necessary to identify stalking behaviour, assess risk and make effective use of new protective measures.

My Lords, I'm. I'm having a sort of motion and memory of discussions with Ministers in 2012, 2016, 2019, 2022 when we tried to do the same for non service stalking arrangements every single time. We have not put the detail in the face of the bill, it has gone wrong further down the process and it has had to come back to Parliament to be corrected because unfortunately, in my Lords with stalking, which is itself a very unpleasant crime, it can quite often lead to murder.

And therefore, some of these things that I'm proposing are very much to protect the victim. And my Lords, in 2012, the Justice Union's parliamentary group had an independent parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which published its report in February 2012. And many Ministers in many governments have recognised that laws and practice into managing stalking need to improve and as a member of that inquiry, as well as a victim of sustained campaign of stalking for three years. Some years before that, I followed the impact of the laws and updated laws over the last years.

And of that one thing I am certain we must have that detail in both the criminal justice system and the service justice system. My Lords, I'm just trying to. Excuse me. My paper has gone out of order. So that's why these amendments are important. And phrases like the government is committed and we fully recognise, frankly, my Lords are not quite enough. I will return to amendment 21 later, but I want to start with amendment 22 for a very important reason.

That is, the provision for specialist stalking, training and my amendment. Requires specialist stalking training to be in place before the service stalking Protection order regime comes into force to support the effective implementation of the new measures. One of the things that the Minister says in the letter is that, of course, all the service personnel dealing with stalking will be trained properly and effectively. But one of the most important things that needs to happen is that the culture inside the service police force about stalking needs to change completely, and the only way to do that is to make sure that everybody has training, absolutely everybody, because often the victim of stalking is first contact, is not with a specialist stalking, trained police officer.

And I'm sure the same is true inside the service police as well. And that's why I laid that particular amendment. And. The effectiveness of the SSP will depend entirely on military personnel being able to recognise stalking, assess risk and respond appropriately, and given the amendments in the following group. That might also be people who aren't police. It could be the commanding officer on a unit who is actually supposed to be actually acting on a hearing of behaviour, who may not recognise stalking when they see it.

Without it, there remains a significant risk that the new powers will not be implemented effectively in practice. And as I've said before, that definitely happens within civilian policing. We are still hearing cases of victims being told that they should be grateful for the admiration of their stalker. And that means that victims don't return to see the police again. They are too frightened to do so. So moving back to amendment 21, I've already read out the details of exactly what it aims to do.

The bill provides for domestic abuse protection notices. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent mechanism for stalking, and this leaves no means of providing immediate protection. While an SPR application is being pursued. Despite the increased risk of serious violence and homicide associated with stalking. And that's why we feel that it's really important that that is on the face of the bill. Finally, my Lords, amendment 23 asks for a continuity of protection orders, and I refer back to the minister's letter, where the Minister says the bill includes provisions which will ensure protection continues where a person leaves the armed forces, and we will continue to work closely with the civilian police to support effective information sharing and enforcement arrangements.

My Lords, part of the problem that we're hearing from victims of of whether it's domestic abuse or stalkers, which aren't covered separately at the moment, is that quite often that isn't that liaison isn't happening. And again, the reason for this amendment is to have it so clearly on the page that it must be followed through at every level. And it can be quite confusing, particularly where service personnel and their the person they have abused are moving into different areas.

And it may be that only one police force is notified, not another. All of those things can cause fairly major problems. And unfortunately, at the moment, the bill just doesn't provide clarity on how victims will be protected should they or their perpetrators move between military and civilian jurisdictions. And that's why it's really, really important, we think, to have all three of these amendments. My Lords, the centre for Military Justice has on its website a number of case studies which relate to cases that started as stalking and ended up as murder.

It is, I'm afraid, very present in the service culture. And as we know, there have been many other cases which haven't necessarily related to stalking, but could have may not have been identified. And it's really important that these rules are sorted out very, very clearly. These three amendments provide cover for three different areas, and that's why, my Lords, returning to amendment 21 in my name, which wants to create a service stalking protection, notice that mirrors that in the civilian world. My Lords, I beg to move.

20:21

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)

- -

Amendment proposed in schedule three, page 98. Line 40 at end. Insert the words as printed on the Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I regret that I did not sign the amendments which were not sign the amendments which were tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton. They have my full support. We have worked together for many years on the issue of stalking, together with the noble Lord, who sits in the chair, and I believe that many of the areas in which we've worked on stalking in civilian life are pertinent to this bill, because they translate into what is happening in the armed forces.

I think that amendment 21 is particularly important. I look forward to hearing the response from my noble friend the Minister. But if the noble Lady does not think that the response is adequate and wishes to take this forward again at Report stage, I will again at Report stage, I will certainly be there to support her.

20:22

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, simply to endorse >> My Lords, simply to endorse everything. My noble friend Baroness Brinton has said. I don't think there's anything I need to add here.

20:22

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has offered us, I think, a very thoughtful exposition of why further action is required to further action is required to strengthen the service justice system and the noble Baroness. Lady Royal, made an important contribution in support of that. I wholeheartedly concur with the rationale behind the noble Lady Brinton's amendments, and I myself last year brought this issue to the attention of the House. During our debates in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, as I'm sure noble Lords will recall, and during the progress of that Bill, I was particularly keen to give the new Commissioner the power to investigate whistleblowing concerns, particularly relating to sexual misconduct.

Now, although my specific proposal did not materialise, we did get a government commitment to a whistleblowing in defence review, for which I am very grateful to both the Department and to the noble Lord, the Minister personally, and I think that is a really important piece of work that has now been concluded, and I must thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for sharing with me. Prior to finalisation the draft report, which greatly encouraged me. I certainly look forward to its publication in due course.

The noble Lord, the Minister might be able to share with the chamber if we have a date for publication of that report. So I say at the outset that the noble Baroness and I are on the same page when it comes to ensuring that cases such as Outrageously Beck never happen again. The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey found that 13% of women in our forces had been subject to sexual harassment in the previous 12 months alone. That is profoundly disappointing and deeply discouraging and worrying.

The MoD's own Sexualised Behaviour survey, published only recently, found that a third of servicewomen reported unwanted physical touching and 1 in 10 reporting sexual assault. And that is not the environment in which we want our service women to be serving. So against that backdrop, I understand entirely. While the why the noble Baroness has brought forward this framework and I have considerable sympathy with what she is trying to achieve a service stalking protection notice mirroring the existing domestic abuse framework has a certain logic to it, and the training and continuity amendments address real and identifiable gaps.

Now, that said, I would pose the question whether a new tier of civil order is in itself the most effective mechanism available to us. My concern is that protection notices and protection orders, however carefully drafted, are only as good as the mechanisms available to monitor and enforce, and there is a risk that we spend time creating new civil orders. While the more fundamental question whether service police have the resources, the trained investigators and the forensic support to catch these individuals secure convictions and, where appropriate, see them imprisoned goes unanswered.

Now, let me make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I do not say this to dismiss the amendment. She raises a very, very important issue. I say it because I think the Minister owes the House a clear account of where the government's priorities lie. So in conclusion, can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to outline what the government is doing against that backdrop of evidence from surveys to better protect women in the armed forces from stalking and similar abuse? And I look forward to his substantive response to very important amendments.

20:26

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

First of all, can I thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, for bringing forward these crucial and really important amendments and the support from my noble friend Baroness Royall, for what she had to say. If I could just deal with the point about the whistle blower review that the noble Baroness, Baroness Goldie, raised, and I know Baroness Smith has also been involved, as her colleague Baroness Kramer has as well, with looking at that and sharing that.

We hope to publish it and the expectation will do that in the next two weeks. So I hope that's of some reassurance. The idea is to have that published with the written ministerial statement on our when. As soon as I've got absolute certainty about that, I'll let both noble Baroness know, and in answer to the question about specifically the government are doing to try to tackle some of the culture with respect to women and girls, and protection of. In those circumstances, whistle blower review is one part of that, and the contributions that both Baroness has made have substantially improved what the government was proposing.

So I'm grateful for for that. Can I just make a couple of general remarks before coming to the specifics of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, the government is clear that stalking is a serious and often escalating crime that can have a devastating impact on victims and their families, and we are committed to ensuring that victims are protected, perpetrators are held to account, and agencies have the powers that they need to intervene at the earliest opportunity. As has been said, stalking behaviour can cause significant physical and psychological harm and must never, never be dismissed as trivial or harmless.

The government's approach is therefore focused on prevention, protection and prosecution, supported by robust safeguarding arrangements and effective multi-agency working. Stalking protection orders provide an important tool to protect victims before harm escalates, enabling restrictions and positive requirements to be imposed where necessary, to manage risk and prevent further offending. The reason I said in my letter to the noble Baroness that amendment 21 wasn't necessary, is not because interim stalking orders are not something which is important, but I would draw the attention of the committee to.

Is on page 110 of the bill before us two, three, six Q there are interim service stalking protection orders on the face of the bill. Now I can I just without being pedantic, I know they're not interim stalking protection notices, and I suspect that may be the point that the noble Baroness would want to raise. But I just point out that the government recognises the need for interim measures in order to have the protection that is needed by a full application is still pending.

I am informed by people who understand these processes better than me that being an order rather than a notice, means that there are more significant protection measures available to us to deal with any possible breach of an interim, an interim order. And so I just raise that point with the the noble Baroness. And no doubt we can discuss that further in committee or another time, but I do I think it's important to for the Committee to understand that there are interim.

My noble friend, there are. There is an interim measure there, and we can debate whether that's sufficient. And, in fact, just to repeat, it is in. Called an interim Service stalking Protection order. So, as I say, the. This order allows the court to impose temporary protective measures on the defendant before the main application is determined by the service court and can be made on application by the same Provost Marshal who submitted the main application, either at the same time or subsequently.

This ensures that urgent protection can be granted without waiting for the final decision on the substantive order. It also maintains parity with the civilian criminal justice system. Appoint the noble Baroness, maid and my noble friend Baroness Royal maid as well. It shows parity with the civil civilian criminal justice system, ensuring that victims of stalking in the service justice system are afforded the same protections as those available to stalking victims in England. In Wales. Turning to amendment 22, I'd like to reassure the committee that the government recognises the importance of the service police having the appropriate skills and training.

Again, a point that I made in the letter to the noble Baroness. All branches of the. And I've come to some of the doubts that the noble Baroness expressed. All branches of the service police engage with the College of Police and Training. They continue to broadly align with the national standards under the College of Policing Professionalising Investigations Programme. This helps to ensure that service police receive training comparable to that received to that provided to their civilian counterparts adapted where necessary, to reflect the unique demands of service, life and the CJRs.

As a result, victims in the defence community can have the confidence that the service police are able to effectively respond to incidents of stalking and provide appropriate support and safety for the introduction, and I think this is really important point for the introduction of the new protection orders. We will work with stakeholders to ensure that commanding officers, service, police and front line personnel will receive refreshed and repeat training, reinforced by clear leadership expectations. So what we don't want to do is just pass the legislation and then think, tick the box.

Job done. We understand exactly as the noble Baroness pointed out, that there are often this training promise training passed in legislation, and yet the reality is that it's not followed through, and our desire is to make sure that that isn't the case. So we will keep delivery under review and update training as practice and learning develops. This approach, I just point out, is supported by the Armed Forces charity soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Families Association, which has emphasised that clear protective measures backed by confidence and understanding of how they operate, are key to safer reporting and effective safeguarding.

The orders will be supported by statutory guidance, which will draw on relevant Home Office guidance while being tailored to the CJRs context, and it will set out necessary processes and assist the Service Police on the effective use of protection orders, existing training materials and guidance will be updated to reflect the changes that will be made by the Bill. Turning to amendment 23, I should like to be clear that the continuity of protection for victims is a vital component of all the protection orders that can be made in the CJRs.

Under the provisions in the bill, not only the service stalking protection orders and. Can I just say to the noble Baroness, that is why government amendments were made to this Bill in the other place, to address the legislative gap identified by the Director of Service Service Prosecutions, ensuring that Service Protection Orders can be made by a service Court in relation to a service offence, even if the person has left the Armed forces and that is now set out in part seven of the schedule three to the Armed Forces Bill.

So, as I say again, that's the part seven, page 117 Amendment of Stalking Protection Act 2019, and the list of ways in which we've tried to reflect the very points that the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, quite rightly made, importantly made. About the need for scheduled for automatic conversion of a service protection order to a civilian protection order. Once a person leaves the services. And I think that's a really important step forward. And that amendment was made in the Commons before your Lordships House to support transition and effective operation on order.

Once a person leaves the military, we work closely with civilian policing to ensure that information sharing. A really important point the noble Baroness made. That's. Too often data isn't shared, information isn't shared, and so on. But. And so we have to do better with respect to that. We have to ensure it's accurate, timely and transparent. I hope with what I've said, that I've reassured to an extent the noble Baroness about some of the the steps forward the government have tried to take and some of the improvements and changes that have been made to the Bill, particularly the inclusion of that conversion.

When somebody leaves, moves from from military service into the civil service, into civilian life, but also the inclusion of of interim service stalking, protection orders.

20:36

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister and to the the other speakers and Lady Royal in particular, who I have worked with now for many years on this. I'm very grateful for her, for her support, and to Lady Goldie, I'm grateful also that, you know, you, you've shown have shown some interest in this. And I do think the point that was raised about whistleblowing and making sure that that's part of this package as well becomes absolutely vital, as we discussed yesterday in the Public Office Accountability Bill, it's absolutely key to changing the culture, which is what one wants in this sort of situation.

I'm also very grateful to the honourable Minister for the detail he's gone into, and I want to start by saying I should have made it clearer that the service stalking protection notices that my amendment seeks to create are different to the interim stalking orders, not least because it is a tool that can be used by a police officer without having to go to a court. So it's like the first step on the ladder, because going to court takes some time, and you have to assemble a case for it to be heard, whether it's by magistrate or other.

And therefore it is a much more serious document with more serious implications. Applications. The point about these notices is that they are a quick tool to make the stalker aware very quickly that there are now certain rules that they must follow, and if they disobey them, things will escalate quickly. And I'm looking at Lady Royle, but I can't remember which year those were added, but they were added because there was this lacuna between identifying a stalker and actually them being able to get some protection for the victim.

On the other points, I think it would be, he very kindly offered in his letter, to meet with myself and anyone else interested, including the charities that I've been working with. And I think the best thing to do is to have them with us at that meeting, because they have some very specific concerns about the detail that I couldn't possibly go into in the chamber at this, at this particular time, at this particular time of night. So I think we will accept. Thank you.

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for that. And on that basis, my Lords, depending on the meeting, I may bring something back at report, but I withdraw. Amendment 21.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 22 not moved. Baroness Brinton, amendment 23 not moved. Brinton, amendment 23 not moved. The question is that schedule three be the third schedule to the Bill, as many of that opinion will say content. Content contrary. Not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 8 to 10

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that clauses 8 to 10 stand part of the bill en bloc, as content. Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. We now come to Group seven after clause ten.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 24. Baroness Brinton. Have three amendments in this group, and whilst they're not group, and whilst they're not related to stalking, the principles behind laying them are not dissimilar. They're specifying more dissimilar. They're specifying more detail than I think the Minister is comfortable with. But also each states very clearly where the boundaries are on a number of issues. Amendment 24 seeks to remove the power of a commanding remove the power of a commanding officer to hear an allegation of assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where when there is a domestic abuse element in the allegation, the amendment says that in those circumstances, the case must be referred to a service police force for investigation or to the Director of Service Prosecutions for consideration.

Prosecution before that court martial or other such court has jurisdiction now, my Lords, this whole area is a sensitive one around the role of the commanding officer who will have a very difficult knowledge of individuals, not just those who report to them, but also perhaps their families and who are involved in this case. Now, we have to compare this with the position that with service, police or prosecutors would have, where they don't have that personal knowledge of all the individuals.

And it's obvious that any more serious crime committed would not be permitted to be heard by the commanding officer. And yet and yet, something involving assault or domestic or ABH and domestic abuse can at present be heard summarily by the commanding officer. The reasons for the concerns are that the domestic abuse guidance for those involved in investigating D, A and associated crimes are that all those involved should have specialist training to understand how domestic abuse, assault and ABH need to be identified when.

Often, victims say that those in authority in the past have diminished the seriousness because it was domestic or the perpetrator has managed to hide it very well. But my Lords, assault and ABH are not minor. Crimes and committed on a domestic partner are very serious. The role of the commanding officer in hearing cases at this level may be understandable if it's a fight between two servicemen, so I understand why there is some provision there. Although there are many who now question whether this should actually be the responsibility of the commanding officer at all.

But my amendment specifically draws out assault and ABH in a domestic abuse setting, and says that that must be dealt with by the service criminal justice specialists. There is a general principle here the center for Military Justice, and many individual victims and campaigners find it unreasonable. But there is still a role for the commanding officer in these cases at all. Think it was the noble Lord the Minister, who referred to an appalling case. She was sexually assaulted by a warrant officer more than twice her age, and then sexually harassed for months by her line manager, almost ten years her senior.

The inquest found that the Army's failure to deal with her report of sexual assault appropriately, and the pressure of relentless sexual harassment she had endured, contributed to her death by suicide. On the 15th of December 2021 and before and after the inquest. The family, with support from the campaign for Military Justice, campaigned for greater independence in the handling of serious service complaints for service personnel that have suffered serious sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the military. And on the 18th of March last year, 2025, the government announced it was taking responsibility for the handling of serious cases of these away from any single services themselves.

If that is good, however, I'm afraid, my Lords, some anomalies remain, such as the amendment I've raised relating to ABH and domestic abuse. Moving now to amendment 25 that ensures that the Service Victims Code must always apply to victims of sexual offences. It also ensures that service personnel whose cases are being taken forward in the criminal justice system will receive an equivalent right to service provided victim services, as those whose cases are taken forward in the service justice system.

Now this amendment is, I laid it to prevent service personnel and their victims from falling through the cracks between the Criminal Justice System, Victims Code and the Service Victims Code, and also all the other things that might pertain to their case. Amendment 26 relates to production orders. Notice to the subject of material, and it sets out in some detail how an application is made, then handed or served to the individual. And it also sets out that the judge advocate must be satisfied that all the requirements have been complied with, with some exceptions noted, where it would involve risk of harm or exceptional other circumstances.

Now, this is not dissimilar to the requirements for the civil police arrangements under powers of stop search, seizure and retention, and I believe that this amendment would strengthen both the process of a production order and prevent any abuse of such an order. My Lords, all three amendments are highly specific and may seem rather niche, but they do aim to do one thing, and that is to clarify and improve the service justice system for all those who come into contact with it or who administer it, I beg to move.

20:44

Viscount Stansgate (Labour)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause ten. Insert the following new ten. Insert the following new clause as printed in the Marshal list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the noble Baroness and it is obviously a matter of great importance. I just wanted to ask a question to which she might be able to give an answer when she winds up on this debate, and it relates to amendment 24. And the phrase is alleged to amount to. AM I right in thinking that under this amendment, it would be entirely for the alleged victims to make the allegation that it involves domestic abuse, and that would be enough to trigger the provisions outlined in the amendment.

And can I, secondly, ask whether you have. This amendment has been tabled in the light of any specific examples that the noble Baroness knows of, which might assist the Committee in amendment?

20:45

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, just very briefly in particular to support amendments 24 and 25. That is not to say that from these benches were not giving our full support to Baroness Brinton for amendment 26, but I think the point of amendment 24 and taking commanding officers at the chain of command out of anything to do with domestic abuse and ABH, is very important. So I would very strongly want us, if not as a committee, to press the Minister to accept the amendments as phrased, to find a way of amending the legislation such that it can be taken into consideration so that domestic abuse would be not going to be commanding officer.

So if this amendment doesn't work, please can the Minister come back with something that he would feel or the government feels is appropriate? And on amendment 25, simply that I think, Baroness Brinton has with this amendment, as others picked up, the danger of people falling between service, justice and civilian justice. And so if we need to amend the legislation, then that is something we should be doing, because clearly we don't want individuals slipping between the two.

20:47

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

20:51

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

My Lords, first of all, again, can I thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, for bringing forward these amendments and again, of significant importance to us all as we seek to improve the situation as it as it currently is. Can I also thank my friend, noble friend Viscount Stansgate for his contribution, Baroness Smith as well, and Baroness Goldie, and I'll address some of the points that I've made as I go through the remarks that that I'm going to make, starting with amendment 24 set out by the government in the other place, we are already committed to reviewing schedules.

One criminal conduct offences for summary hearings and schedule. Two service serious service offences of the Armed Forces Act, 2006. As part of implementing this Bill. Following Royal Assent. However, and this I think, speaks to Baroness Goldie's point and I hope it does. As part of the review, offences related to domestic abuse such as assault or assault occasioning actual actual bodily harm. The necessary changes will be made by secondary legislation following any review, which would obviously involve consultation with large, with a wide range of of people as schedule one offences.

I would remind the Committee under the Bill are offences that can be are summary offences and therefore the commanding officer has a role where. Obviously when we look at. Schedule two offences, they're much more serious offences. So we are looking at what we do with respect to that and what changes may, may or may not be made. So the proposed changes would be consistent with current defence policy, which is that such cases should always be referred to the relevant police authority so that they can consider investigating them.

Where offences are removed from schedule one, and added to the more serious schedule two, the practical effect would be that they were investigated by the Defence Serious Crime Command and if a charge is directed, tried at the court martial rather than at a summary hearing, turn it. So, as I say, that we'll be subject to a review which again just emphasises to Baroness Goldie, who raised quite, quite considerable concern that if we did move forward, we needed to move forward constructively, carefully and with wide consultation.

That review will take place to do that, but that will be after the. That's part of the implementation of the Bill and therefore, for us, the amendment is not acceptable because we don't want it on the face of the bill, because that would prejudge any review which would which is to take place. Turning to amendment 25, protecting victims as a clear priority. There is no question that we would ever restrict the application of the code of victims in the CJS in respect of victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse.

The code for victims in the CGS is aligned with section two of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which sets out the statutory rights of victims in England and Wales. The code for victims in the CGS and the code for victims in England and Wales will contain the same principles and the same 12 rights. This ensures that victims of service offences and civilian victims receive equivalent standards, protections and entitlements, which I think is goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness was asking for.

If a serving person is engaged with the civilian justice system, they will still be entitled to the civil service welfare support mechanisms, which is which are designed to support, tailored to support individual needs, a range of comprehensive support from both welfare professionals and the chain of command can be employed to support personnel tailored to those individual circumstances and can be provided from unit welfare officers, medical staff and pastoral support where needs are complex or relating to serious, enduring and or multi-agency cases.

A referral to specialist welfare support may be required, which is delivered by specialist trained staff and each of the single services offers this option. In addition to first line welfare support. And I think there's been some improvement over the last year, not we're not where we should be, but there has been some improvement. If I turn to amendment 26 and again, thank the noble Baroness for the amendment relating to protection orders and for highlighting this important issue. A clause is not required as any change to the procedures around protection production.

Rather, orders could be enacted through the relevant secondary legislation. So if there was a change needed, we can change that through secondary legislation. So long as a review of the current procedures has been completed. So we we know what we're doing. If we seek to to make any change, we will consider a point the noble Baroness was asking. We will consider further whether our procedures around production orders, specifically with regards to giving notice to the individual to whom the information relates and the provision that representations can be made should fully reflect the relevant procedures in the civilian courts, and whether it is appropriate and necessary that they do so.

So I'd like to reassure the noble Baroness that while the requirement for further review around production orders is considered, victims of crime are informed about information requests from third parties, and I think that's an important addition there. When a victim information request is submitted to a third party service, police must. Under section 44 B of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, give notice to the person whose information is being sought. However, that requirement does not apply in certain circumstances, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances or importantly, we're doing so might risks causing serious harm to the victim or another person.

And I think, again, that's an important qualification. The code of practice relating to these requests also states that when the victim is informed, their views should be sought and they are able to make representations again unless specific exemptions apply. I hope with some of the explanations and reassurance, particularly with respect to 1 or 2 of the reviews that the Baroness, the noble Baroness, may find, find it appropriate to withdraw the amendments that she can.

20:58

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I'm very grateful to all the >> I'm very grateful to all the speakers, and I want to start by addressing Viscount Stansgate question. I think he's looking at question. I think he's looking at that clause the wrong way round. He asked about the definition between asked about the definition between actual bodily harm where the alleged conduct amounts to, or is alleged to amount to. I think one is an incident that has been witnessed by somebody who isn't the victim, and the other 1st May be where it hasn't and therefore it's a he said, she said, I that's my understanding of why the wording is.

That is exactly explained that way. I hope that helps him. And I'm grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Smith. And Lady Goldie made a very important point about chain of command, and I don't underestimate that at all. And I think this moves me into my response to the noble Lord, the Minister. I'm glad that there is a review, and I'm sure that there are many other issues other than the ones that I've raised as well. But I think the message that I have been picking up from the organisations and individuals I've been talking to is that in 2026, it may not be completely appropriate, appropriate for the old style chain of command in some of these justice issues to remain with the commander.

And if the review is going to be looking at that, then I certainly. Sorry, I'm trying to look at you, Minister. Certainly. I'm I'm content not to do anything at the next stage, and ditto with the secondary legislation. If I'm unhappy with the secondary legislation, I may return to the next Armed Forces Bill after this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure? This amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 25. Baroness Brinton not Amendment 25. Baroness Brinton not moved. The question is that clause 11 stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion will say content. of that opinion will say content. Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 12 to 14 stand part is that clauses 12 to 14 stand part of the bill en bloc, as amended. That opinion will say content content contrary not content.

The content contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 26. Baroness Brinton not moved. The question is that clause 15 stand part of the Bill, as amended. That opinion will say content. Content contrary not content. The contents have it. We now come to the eighth group in clause 16, amendment 27. Lord Bishop of Norwich. Lord Bishop of Norwich.

21:00

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

My Lords. speak to amendments 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 in my name. And I am thankful to Baroness Smith, and for her support. I declare an interest as the father of a soldier, both for this series of amendments and for my contributions at committee earlier today. The amendments I'm proposing are all interlinked and aim to give Service police the same authority to authorise and or request Pre-charge custody as is given to commanding officers in all offences.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his work on this Bill and for the generosity of his time. In speaking to me over the weekend about the amendments in my name, the current bill initiates the change to give service police power to authorise custody in some circumstances. This is a very welcome change and a step in the right direction in making service police investigations truly independent of the chain of command. However, it does not go far enough by failing to give service police power to authorise custody in all circumstances.

In my view, the current wording of the Bill only allows service police to authorise custody for specific offences, whilst allowing the commanding officer to authorise custody in all circumstances. The Bill creates the definition serious offence in section 163, which sets out the offences that the service police can authorise custody for. However, this definition does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To include key offences such as battery harassment and stalking. As battery harassment and stalking. As already has been mentioned, even in the case of domestic abuse. Neither the case of domestic abuse. Neither does it include theft, even in the case of high value. Nor the vast case of high value. Nor the vast majority of military conduct. The definition of serious offence is different to serious service offence, which is defined in the armed forces. Powers of stop and search, Seize Seizure and Retention Order 2009.

This definition is used by service police to authorise searches upon arrest. It gives a far simpler definition of offences to include those offences and specific military conduct offences that are indictable. These differences will create additional complexity and bureaucracy for service. Police acting in very dynamic arrest situations and increasing the risk of authorisations for custody and or searches being made incorrectly. When the definitions are so similar, the provision to allow service police to authorise custody for serious offences is a partial step to give greater parity of the service police to their civilian counterparts.

It's noted that the likely delegation of authority will only be delegated to of two Royal Navy lieutenant, Army captain or flight lieutenant within the service police. The civilian rank to authorise custody is a sergeant for all offences, a rank and a responsibility level significantly lower than that of an OF2. The provision also gives the police Service police authority to authorise custody and reduces the following risks about availability. Sufficient understanding and impartiality which are frequently experienced.

So if I could just briefly go through each of those availability commanding officers or their delegated representative not being contacted by telephone regularly occurs at night and at weekends. This means service police have to physically attend commanding officers houses to gain custody authorisation when some service police shifts only have three personnel covering a huge regional area. There are five regions covering the entirety of the UK. This can delay other vital investigative actions such as victim engagement and contact, recovery of forensic evidence and or the conducting of searches.

Secondly, having sufficient understanding there is an issue at the moment of some commanding officers and their delegated officers not having sufficient training in their powers. This has led to authorisations of custody being delayed as they seek further advice and, on rare occasions, custody not being authorised without significant pressure from our MPs. Senior officers explaining the obstruction that will be caused to an investigation by not authorising custody. The intent of the bill to allow service police officers and higher to authorise custody will mean that custody will be authorised by personnel specifically trained to deal with these circumstances.

Finally, impartiality. An additional issue is the conflict of interest posed by allowing commanding officers or their delegated representative to have sole decision making on authorising custody. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke eloquently and movingly about this area in the previous group. Whilst most officers within the armed forces can be appropriately, entirely impartial, there have been occasions where clear conflicts of interest have arisen. There's a significant reputational risk. I would suggest, my Lords, to the armed Forces in this current arrangement, giving additional powers of authority to service police will negate the risks of conflict of interest by ensuring that an independent service police officer can authorise custody in all circumstances.

Finally, can I assure the noble Lord, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the proposed amendments standing in my name do not remove the ability for a commanding officer to authorise custody. None of these amendments remove their jurisdiction to conduct us to conduct a summary hearing. None of these amendments changed the current situation of the case, eventually being referred to the Co to consider a charge. So with that, my Lords, I beg to move.

21:07

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

That proposed clause 16, page 36. Line 22. Leave out paragraph B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to give my verbal support to the amendments. In the name of the right Reverend In the name of the right Reverend prelate, which I have co-signed. And I did so precisely because I think there are areas that need to be further explored, and in particular, the points that he raised so eloquently, eloquently need to be considered. To what extent are commanding officers or their delegated officers going to be available? Precisely the sort of time when the there might be a need for considering custody might well be the time that commanding officers aren't available, and it would seem to be much more sensible to have a single approach that says, we have the senior.

We have the police who actually have the training, who understand what the requirements are. And I think also the issue of impartiality, which came up in the previous group of amendments. And although I understand the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie's reservations at various points about taking commanding officers out of the equation, there might at times also be a case for a degree of objectivity. So these amendments would seem to be straightforward, and they would seem to be logical and arguably desirable.

So I now expect the noble Lord, the Minister and the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, to explain to us why they don't quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think this is the case. My Lords, I've tabled this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've tabled this clause stamp out notice for clause 16. Not because I oppose the changes the government are making. changes the government are making. I wish to make that clear. Rather, I seek some clarifications on the I seek some clarifications on the intended effects and the operation of the changes being made now. I am particularly grateful to the right

21:09

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

particularly grateful to the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, for his engagement in this matter with my noble friend, the Earl of Minto, and he has offered an insightful explanation of the effects of clause 16 and of the intention behind his amendments, and I will comment on them in due course. I also recognise the pressure that has built since the Atherton Review for Greater Independence in the handling of service. Justice matters, but clause 16 makes a significant change to how Pre-charge detention operates.

Now, as I understand it, clause 16 amends sections 98 and 99 of the 2006 act so that the authorisation and review of custody without charge, currently a function of the commanding officer, is transferred instead to a newly defined appropriate authority. The commanding officer would no longer be the person to whom an arrest and its grounds must be reported, nor the person who orders release once the grounds for detention fall away, and in cases involving serious offences, the bill goes further, requiring matters to be reported beyond the commanding officer altogether.

I want the press and overall the Minister, on what this means in practice, custody decisions sit close to the heart of a commanding officer's responsibility for the people under his or her command, a commanding officer who no longer authorises or is even routinely informed of the custody of a member of the unit, loses a degree of visibility over discipline and welfare that has traditionally gone hand in hand with command. Now, I'm not arguing that visibility must always trump independence.

There may be good reasons, particularly in sensitive cases, for distancing these decisions from the chain of command. But what happens in operations, for example, where a commanding officer's swift decision making may be necessary, and what assessment has been made of the effect on unit cohesion and discipline. Where a commanding officer is no longer the first port of call service justice depends on decisions being made promptly by somebody with a standing and the proximity to make them properly. Now, if the appropriate authority is going to be some distance removed from the unit, either in rank or geography, the government need to explain how that gap will be bridged without compromising either the rights of the individual in custody or the operational chain of command's ability to function.

And I hope the Minister can set out clearly this evening what triggered these changes and why are they necessary? Very importantly, what alternatives were considered? And equally importantly, what consultation took place with commanding officers themselves before this approach was settled upon? Now, having said that, I do understand that there are instances where commanding officers have been too close to the matters at hand and have therefore not appropriately dealt with the accusations. And the right Reverend prelate has argued that the Provost Marshal should have the ability to be an appropriate authority in all service offences, not only in cases where a serious offence has been committed.

Let me say I have considerable sympathy with that view. If we are to make the change the government proposes, which, although I have some reservations, I do not oppose that outright. I certainly think it's sensible to extend the involvement of the Provost Marshal, and I shall await with interest the noble Lord. The Minister's comments on the arguments advanced by the right Reverend prelate, and also to the potentially enhanced role of the Provost Marshal.

21:13

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

My Lords, can I first of all start by thanking the right Reverend, the Bishop of Norwich, for the way in which he moved his important amendments, and the debate and discussion that will take place at committee as a as a consequence of that, and also for his time over the weekend, we had a very interesting conversation about this and some further amendments he's got later in the in the bill. Can I also thank Baroness Goldie and others who've contributed to this? Can I start, rather than addressing the amendments? And I apologize.

I may have to speak for a few minutes here, but there's some important points that I need to put on the record. So let me start, however, by speaking to clause 16 Stan part rather than to the specific amendments we shall deal with later under the current legal framework of the Armed Forces Act, only the commanding officer of a suspect can authorise their pre-charge custody after arrest in routine, routine cases. I think that remains appropriate, which goes back to some of the points the noble Baroness has made about the role of commanding officers, but in serious, in serious and fast moving investigations, the need to obtain that information, that authorisation can create avoidable delay, risk the loss or contamination of evidence and increase the risk of further harm to victims, witnesses or the suspect.

These risks are much more acute following the establishment of the Defence Serious Crime Command. Its crime its caseload is increasingly complex, often involving offences where speed and specialist investigative judgment are essential. Clause 16 responds directly to that operational reality, which is the trigger that the noble Baroness was asking what triggered the government to consider the need for change? And it's the establishment which she was a major part of, of the Defence Serious Crime Command and the serious investigations they undertake has caused us to reflect on the need to change some of the.

The arrangements for Pre-charge custody. Clause 16, therefore creates a focused power for the Provost Marshal's. And they're suitably trained delegated officers, a major or equivalent, an Army major or equivalent in the other services within the service. Police to authorise Pre-charge custody for serious offences without first having to seek authorisation from the suspect's commanding officer. The power is deliberately confined. As I'll explain later, it will apply to arrest for schedule two, which is the serious service offences and offences that would attract a sentence of over two years imprisonment in the civilian criminal justice system and attempted versions of those offences.

It will also apply to schedule one part two offences that are specific listed. Criminal conduct offences that are commanding officer may deal with summary hearing where a higher authority has considered the matter not given permission for the commanding officer to hear the matter summarily, and two attempted versions of those offences during the Second Reading debate, the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, raised a question, quite rightly about the definition of a serious offence in part one of the armed forces powers of stop and Search, Seizure and Retention Order 2009.

The 2009 order includes the following offences and their related inchoate offences such as aiding, abetting and attempt, which are not included within the clause 16 definition. Section 111. One of the Armed Forces Act, 2006. Using violence against a superior officer. Section 18. 3 or 4 offences relating to official documents and records with intent to deceive and section 241. Intentional or reckless damage to loss of public service or service property. In practice, these offences are dealt with by a commanding officers rather than the service police.

Despite the high maximum sentences available for them, clause 16 is not intended to apply to all offences. Rather, it is intentionally limited to offences that fall outside the commanding officer's investigative jurisdiction. It is worth noting that the 2009 order limits the scope in this way. In part one, subparagraph B, any other service offence which may not be dealt with at a summary hearing by a commanding officer. The service Police may start the investigation for the 2009 order offences, and would then need to defer to the commanding officer for authorisation to detain Pre-charge, as is the case now, to mitigate any risk of a provost marshal or a suitably qualified service police officer making an incorrect authorisation for Pre-charge custody.

Clear guidance will be provided on the use of the authorisation process. Clause 16 will further apply only where prescribed circumstances exist, such as repeated assaults on two or more occasions, or where a more senior rank has inflicted serious injury on a service person. This is not an unchecked expansion of detention powers. It applies existing pre-charge custody powers and the associated safeguards to the four Provost Marshal's. These safeguards remain robust. Custody must be reviewed every 12 hours, and any detention beyond 48 hours must be approved by a judge advocate.

Crucially, I think the noble Baroness Goldie may be interested in the point she was making. Crucially, clause 16 preserves the central role of the commanding officer in discipline and operational effectiveness. It does not remove the commanding officer from the process. They must still be notified if a suspect is taken into custody, and that notification must be taken take place within six hours. In exceptional cases, commanding commanding officers also retain the power to authorise custody, preserving operational flexibility.

Where they do so, they must notify the Provost Marshal's for serious crime and the Provost Marshal of the relevant social service police force, ensuring that oversight is maintained. Turning to the amendments in this group, again, I thank the noble, the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, for his views and acknowledge his concerns around clause 16, which, as I have explained in its current form, the government's view is that it makes a targeted and proportionate change to the authorisation process for Pre-charge custody in the most serious, in the most serious service police investigations.

I will look at the particular issue that was raised. I think the noble Baroness Goldie raised. I will look at the particular issue with the availability of commanding officers to make these decisions. Well, I'll have a look at that particular issue. As I've stated throughout this speech, in routine cases, commanding officers authorising Pre-charge custody remains appropriate, however, for investigations a more serious offence, a focused power for Provost Marshal's confined confined to offences outside the commanding officer's summary jurisdiction is created.

Therefore, the amendments seeking to expand the Provost Marshal's custody authorisation powers to investigation of all offences, not just serious offences, undermines the government's views. The preservation of the commanding officer's centrality to custody decisions in appropriate, non-serious contexts. Amendment 34 seeking to allow Provost Marshal's to apply to a judge. Advocate for an extension of custody in all cases is therefore not required. Commanding officers will retain their powers to authorise custody in some cases and therefore continue to apply for an extension under subsection one of section 101.

Provost Marshal's powers applying for an extension to custody without charge for these cases in which they have authorised custody is covered by new subsection one of section 101, amendment 29, on the removal of reporting requirements to the Provost Marshal for Serious Crime and the substitution of Provost Marshal of the Investigation Service. Police force is additionally, therefore not required. This part of the clause is about reporting to the appropriate authorities on arrest and when an arrest is made for a serious offence.

Notifications to both the Provost Marshal for Serious Crime and the other relevant Provost marshals are required for deconfliction purposes. The way the clause is drafted ensures that all provost marshals are covered appropriately. As per section 375 of the Armed Forces Act, which contains the definitions relating to Service Police I, I. I apologise again to the Committee for going through in quite significant detail some of this, but I think as we continue our discussions around this, I think it was important to lay out the government's view and some of the rationale for for some of the changes that we're making with respect to Provost Marshal's and serious cases, and retaining the right of the authority of the commanding officer with respect to summary cases, in particular, trying to resolve the need to move quickly because of some of the serious crimes that the new Defence and Serious Crime Command is dealing with, whilst not undermining the authority and the operational effectiveness of the commanding officer.

And with that, I would ask that the the the right reverend poet, the Bishop of Norwich, would at this time withdraw his amendments.

21:24

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response, for agreeing to look further at the availability of commanding officers. I think we should remember that very often it's their delegated person that is being dealt with, and there frequently have not had the required training in this area, which that it's actually the the military police that are advising the delegated person to then make the decision to tell the military police. So I think there's some things to explore there within the Ministry of Defence, and I'm grateful that the noble Lord has agreed to to look at that further.

The key thing here is around speed and simplicity. Both speed and simplicity are needed in the custody process so that there is justice for all and that the the decisions are made in a timely way so that the due process can happen. I'm also grateful to the other speakers, to Baroness Smith of Newnham for her support, and to Baroness Goldie for her, her very considered reflections and challenge as well. I look forward to seeing how this progresses with the Minister's response, and so I reserve the right to bring this back at report.

But now I beg to leave. I beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Amendment. Amendment. Amendment by leave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Amendments 2834. Lord Bishop not moved. And now the question is that clause 16 stand question is that clause 16 stand part of the bill. As many as our opinion will say content not opinion will say content not content. The contents have it. The question now is that clause 17 to 20 stand part of the bill. As many 20 stand part of the bill. As many as are that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 21.

Amendment 35. Baroness Goldie.

21:26

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

Well, my Lords, we're getting >> Well, my Lords, we're getting into the home straight, so I'll try and accelerate the pace. Now I beg to move amendment 35 table in my name and that of my noble friend, the Earl of Minto, and its effect would be to add retired holders of a qualifying rank to those eligible to sit as members of the court martial. The problem this amendment addresses is a simple one of numbers. Court martial panels must be drawn from officers of sufficient seniority and, crucially, sufficient distance from the defendant to ensure impartiality.

And where the defendant is a relatively junior rank. That pool is large enough that where the defendant is a senior officer, the pool of serving officers, senior enough and unconnected enough to sit in judgment, shrinks dramatically. Indeed, the House will recall that when the service justice system last had to try an officer of very senior rank, the court administration unit struggled to assemble a panel at all, precisely because every available serving officer of sufficient seniority at some prior connection to the defendant, whether through shared courses, shared postings or simply the small world that senior rank inevitably creates.

Now, it was only the defendant's departure from the service by the time of trial that allowed the difficulty to be resolved through the use of civilians, a workaround unavailable had he still been serving, and this is an example that Minister himself used to defend the government's changes to the court martial through the armed forces court martial amendments. Number two rules, 2024. Now, when this amendment was debated in the other place, the Minister responded at some length on a related but distinct point concerning the automatic qualification of former warrant officers who receive a commission.

And that is a fair point as far as it goes, but it does not address the underlying difficulty my hon. Friend identified, which was the shortage of eligible serving officers. When the defendant is senior, I do not believe that concern has yet been answered, and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to address the point. The other matter raised in committee, in the other place by the then Minister, Al Carnes, was that there was no capacity issue for the courts martial, but that was not the experience of my hon.

Friends who undertook a visit to Portsmouth as part of their work on the Committee, nor the recollection of the Liberal Democrat member of the Committee. Whilst capacity in the service justice system might not be the most severe problem in the world at the moment, what is to say? It will not become so and so. Why not safeguard against that possibility by allowing retired officers to also partake in the court martial? I think this is a fairly straightforward and it's it's it's a perfectly well, well intended proposal.

And I hope the Minister might be able to look on it with some favour. I beg to.

21:29

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed clause 21, page 40, line 13 at end. Insert a retired holder of such a rank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retired holder of such a rank. Lord Thomas of Gresford, is unfortunately unable to be in his place tonight, so I'm speaking in his place on his amendment 36 in October 2006, Lord Thomas of Gresford moved an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill with the support of the noble and gallant Lord Air Marshal the Lord garden to confine sentencing in courts martial to the presiding Judge advocate alone. Following consultation with the members of the panel, he said, quote, the area of sentencing for criminal offences is difficult and complex.

Sentencing is an exercise for which the members of the panel have no training whatever. They do not attend sentencing conferences or have the training on sentencing that the most junior assistant recorder in this country receives, let alone any further or higher training for dealing with serious offences. The 2006 act was a major reform of the system, but did not include this particular amendment. It did, however, abolish the pre-existing review system, whereby the Judge Advocate General reviewed the conviction and sentence before they came became final, a process which historically had operated as a check on the sentence passed.

The 2006 act introduced a service supervision and punishment order under section 173, which imposes a quite concrete restrictions on serving soldiers movements. A service serving excuse me, a service community order employs the community order requirements contained in the civilian sentencing legislation adapted for service courts. The court martial can impose one or more requirements on the convicted servicemen as part of such an order. However, the SEO is principally a sentence for someone who is being dismissed from the service and it follows him into civilian life.

The recent Sentencing Act of 2026 brought in the possibility of new restrictions to the SEO, the most important of which is the imposition of a restriction zone to prevent an offender from entering a particular area, for example, with the intention of assaulting or harassing a victim. Other restrictions may prevent him drinking in certain pubs or attending public events, or even impose restrictions on driving. There is therefore a whole army of sentencing disposals for those who are convicted, and professional judges are trained to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of imposing particular restrictions on the individual who stands before them.

This requires experience and judgment. The court martial panel consists of a president and members of Warrant Officer, rank and above, who are drafted in for a particular case. The president is usually an officer for whom the position is a final posting, but the members may never have been in any sort of court before. Compare that with a magistrate, a magistrates court powers of sentencing are still restricted to 12 months imprisonment on a single charge, even though the magistrates will individually have undergone considerable periods of training.

The court martial panel without any training is unrestricted. Further, there is no longer a review of the sentence they choose to pass by a professional judge. Certainly the judge advocate at the hearing can advise the panel and has a casting vote in the event of equality of voting by the members. But he can be outvoted altogether and his advice ignored. In 2014, Lord Thomas of Gresford gave evidence before a departmental review in Washington, and this was part of an inquiry which led to widespread reforms of the military justice system in the United States, the equivalent of our 2006 act.

These reforms were intended to transform military justice from a disciplinary system operating under the chain of command to something increasingly resembling an independent criminal court operating within US armed forces. The 2015 Military Justice Reform Group, in their report, also pointed out, as he had urged that military judges had greater experience and expertise in sentencing than randomly selected panel members. It was concerned about sentencing disparity. The existing system gave the panel very broad discretion and relatively little guidance.

From a constitutional point of view. They were concerned that there was the perception of command influence over sentencing, that military command culture could influence punishment. It's perhaps possible to detect such a culture in the public utterances of a certain Mr. Hegseth in its Military Justice Act of 2016, Congress compromised on the issue. Judge alone. Sentencing became the norm, but as a concession to tradition, a convicted person was entitled to opt for sentencing just by the panel alone. During the four years which followed that act, it was observed that defendants chose judge alone sentencing in 96% of the cases.

As a result, the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the military, established in 2021 in the aftermath of intense congressional debate over sexual assault in the armed forces, were concerned in sexual offences. Cases that a service court martial panel would almost inevitably be male dominated, as in the case of Captain Jacob Wolfson from Lakenheath, that he and I both referred to at Second Reading, the commission recommended judge alone sentencing in all non-capital, general and special Courts martial subject to the establishment of sentencing parameters and mandatory restitution akin to our own Sentencing Council.

We have always led the USA in the reform of military justice, and it galls me that in this instance, they've taken the right and proper lead. That sentencing is a matter for amateurs.

21:36

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Can I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate and for the again, for the thoughtful comments that that I've made. Can I just deal with Baroness Goldie's point? I mean, the information that I have about the court martial board members is there's no shortage. And I just give the figures that that the Ministry have provided to me. In 2025, 447 service personnel were sworn for 283 trials. And there has been there been no difficulty in constituting constituting boards.

The court martial already draws from a sufficiently wide pool of eligible personnel, so as such, the amendment is not required, and if she has more detail that she'd like to share, then obviously that that would be useful. But that's certainly the information that that I've been provided. It's vital that board members are up to date and possess the necessary practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, standards and values. For that reason, individuals have left service even recently, may no longer be as acquainted with changes across the services.

Since their departure, the government acknowledges the valuable, meaningful contribution that veterans continue to make across our society. However, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to seek to draw on their past experience and knowledge for service on a court martial board, particularly, as I say, when there is no shortage of board members on amendment 36. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford Amendment, ably moved by Baroness Brinton. The amendment seeks to remove military lay board members from the court martial sentencing process so that the sentence would be decided by the Judge Advocate alone.

One argument that's often used is that this would mirror the Crown Court in England and Wales. However, I don't agree that the Crown Court model should simply be replicated in all cases within the UK service justice system. The current position is the same as that during the passage of the previous Armed Forces Bill in 2021 that the Judge Advocate and the service members of the board discuss and decide sentence together. This is not an anomaly or weakness. I would argue it's one of the strengths of the court of the court martial to, as I say, have service members and the judge advocate deciding on on sentences together.

It doesn't mean the UK. And this is one of the points that Baroness Brinton made specifically doesn't mean the UK court martial has remain unchanged since the 2021 act was implemented in 2022, a new court martial rule was introduced that ensured each court martial board includes at least one service woman. A step forward. Not sufficient, but it is a step forward. That's the only point I would make. Well, I'm just making it a step forward. Do I think it's enough? No, but it is a step, a step forward.

I can feel my noble friends to my left, sort of slightly. Look, every time they agree with me, I'm not sure they totally agreed with that point, but they. But the the, the all I'm saying is it is a step forward. Not sufficient, not enough, but a step forward in. In 2025, 28% of the service personnel were sworn in as board members for court martial proceedings were women. Again, not. Not what it should be, but a significant improvement. And since December 2024, court martial boards are almost exclusively tri service.

The judge advocate is, of course, the expert on sentencing. And it's true that any sentence passed by the court martial must be determined by a majority vote, meaning that the judge advocates voice could theoretically be outweighed. However, the Judge Advocate will give the board the legal framework, identify the relevant sentencing guidelines and set the proper parameters within which the sentence must be considered, and failure to have regard to those guidelines and parameters opens the way to an appeal. In the Court Martial Appeal Court, the board members do not replace the judicial role.

Their role is different and complementary. They bring current service experience to the assessment of what sentence is appropriate within the lawful framework. Service personnel, subject to rules, standards and operational expectations which go beyond ordinary civilian employment conduct that might appear straightforward in civilian setting can have a markedly different impact in the military context, particularly where it affects discipline, cohesion, readiness, safety or operational effectiveness. Board members, I say, bring up to date knowledge in real time experience of single service policies, procedures, values and standards.

The amendment was reduced the board's role from one of equal participation to one of consultation only, and there is a real difference between being consulted and being part of the decision. Consultation would mean the judge advocate could hear the service perspective, but rejects him. The current system ensures that service perspective is taken into account in the sentencing decision, while remaining subject to the judge advocates firm legal direction. Nor is there any legal issue which this amendment needs to address.

Sentencing in the court martial is already subject to stringent legal controls. The court martial must have regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines, which, for criminal offenses, incorporate the same guidelines used in the Crown and Magistrates courts. The Judge Advocate General also issues detailed sentencing guidance for the service courts. Aggravation and mitigation are fully addressed in open court by the Prosecution and Defence and pre-sentence report. Reports from experienced probation officers are available where required. Sentences are reasoned in open court and may be reviewed subsequently by the Court Martial Appeal Court.

It is also important to remember that while military experience informs sentencing, it does not displace the legal principles govern it. It any mitigation advanced on behalf of an offender, whether arising from a previous operational service, commendation, awards or personal circumstances must be assessed within the sentencing framework directed by the Judge Advocate and in accordance with applicable sentencing guidelines. To be clear, board members are not free to substitute personal views of military merit for the lawful sentencing, exercise and any sentence which failed properly to reflect the relevant legal principles would be liable to appeal as court martial sentencing includes service specific sentences such as dismissal, reduction in rank and service detention.

Military board members are particularly well placed to assess the practical effects of those sanctions on both the individual to be sentenced and the wider service community. Board members are lay decision makers directed to exercise their own independent judgment. They are not representatives, importantly, of the chain of command. Their current military experience assists the court. It does not compromise the court's independence. The amendment would therefore reduce the service character. The government would argue, of the court martial without any adding any significant additional safeguard.

The current balance, we believe, is the right one. The Judge advocate provides the legal expertise and safeguards the lay board members provide current military experience and independent judgment. Together, they produce a sentence that is lawful, reasoned and properly informed by the service context. And for these reasons, I would ask noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.

21:44

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

My Lord, I'm very grateful to the Minister for his his response to to my amendment. Let me say that my concern focused on the specific issue of where a senior officer faces a court martial, the pool of eligible serving officers able to sit without any prior connection to the defendant is small. My question was not one of overall capacity, which was the issue. I suggest an overall of the Minister chose to address, but I do not want to to make a meal of this, could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to go back to his officials, seek an assurance that they are not aware of any specific case of it proving difficult to man a court martial where a senior officer is is charged with an offence and it is important and necessary to secure a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pool of comparably qualified authors. Of course. In that case, I am grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In that case, I am grateful to the Minister and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment. Withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave. Withdrawn. The question is clause 21 part of the bill, as is clause 21 part of the bill, as many as I would say, content, not content with content. So it. The question is that clauses 22 to 27 question is that clauses 22 to 27 stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say content not content. The contents have it after clause 27. Amendment 36. Lord Thomas not moved.

Amendment 37. Baroness Goldie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment 37 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend, the Earl that of my noble friend, the Earl of Minto. This is an issue which has caused deep disquiet in these benches for many months. We have opposed the government's introduction of a presumption for suspended sentence orders for sentences of over 12 months on numerous occasions. We oppose this presumption when it was introduced in the Sentencing Act, and we opposed it again when the government resisted our attempts during the Crime and Policing Bill to carve out exceptions for repeat and dangerous offenders, my noble friend Lord Davis, had warned this House at the time that under this presumption, a stalker could breach a protection order, breach of a suspended sentence order and still never see the inside of a prison cell.

My noble and learned friend, Lord Keen of Ely, pressed similarly and rightly, for sexual offenders and domestic abusers to be excluded from a presumption that treats a 12 month threshold as an almost automatic bar to custody. And the government and the Liberal Democrats resisted both attempts. We believe events will prove these warnings correct, and we do not resile from them. Now, our objection to this presumption has never been confined to any one category of offence. It is a broader objection that Parliament should not instruct judges as a starting proposition, to look away from custody before they have even considered the facts before them.

The evidence on breach itself gives us little comfort. Where a suspended sentence order is actually breached, whether by re-offending or by failing to comply with its requirements. Research from the Sentencing Academy shows that only around half result in a sentence being activated in full or in part. Now, in practice, that means an offender can breach the very order that was meant to hold a custodial sentence hanging over their heads and still avoid serving it. Given that theft offences, including shoplifting and offences of violence, make up a substantial share of those receiving suspended sentences, this presumption risks something close to the effect of decriminalisation of persistent minor theft.

An offender can be convicted, sentenced, breached the terms of that sentence and still walk away. It is our view that the presumption generally is a folly, but it is equally a folly for the presumption to exist in the service justice system. Indeed, I would go further. The case against it is, if anything, stronger in a service context, good order and discipline within the armed Forces depend on offences being met with a proportionate and, where necessary, custodial response determined by the court on the facts of the case not nudged towards suspension by a statutory thumb on the scales and a commanding officer's confidence in the system and the confidence of the wider service, rests on knowing that serious, persistent offenders offending will be met with a sentence that reflects it.

Now, this amendment would simply restore restore to the service courts the same sentencing discretion that existed before this presumption was imported wholesale from the civilian system. Given all we have discussed today regarding sexual abuse, stalking and the general treatment of female members of the armed forces, I personally think it's a dereliction of duty to allow this presumption to stand, and I beg to move.

21:49

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause 27. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshal placed. printed on the Marshal placed. >> My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, for introducing her amendment and clarifying why she believes it's necessary. What I would be grateful from the Minister would be an explanation or clarification about whether a breach of a suspended sentence order would not then trigger the sentence, because it's one thing having a presumption of suspended sentence order in the first instance.

But if there are then cases of people breaching those orders, then the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, is right that that then seems to be decriminalisation. Surely that isn't the intention of the legislation as it stands. And if it is, could the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us whether he feels that is undermining service, justice?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was all going so well. So the. I think on this one there is. I don't think there's unanimity of view on think there's unanimity of view on this one. But can I start, however, by thanking the noble Baroness, by thanking the noble Baroness, Baroness, for for moving the amendment and I think we probably will end up debating this issue again, where I may perhaps be, all again, where I may perhaps be, all of us may be a little bit more excitable in the way that that we deal with it.

Can I just so I don't forget, on the answer to Baroness Smith's point, of course, a breach of the order is is able to be recalled. I mean, that's like any any court order if it's breached, the court has the power and capability and capacity to, to, to, to bring people back and deal with it appropriately. Then amendment 37 would remove the presumption of suspended sentences, orders from the service justice system, in doing so would reverse a reform that was introduced to align the service justice systems sentencing practices with wider government sentencing policy, while preserving the unique requirements of service discipline.

The presumption forms part of the government's response to the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Independent Review of Sentencing 2025, which recommended reducing the use of short custodial sentences and increasing the availability of suspended sentence orders. The policy was based on evidence that short custodial sentences are often less effective at reducing offending, re-offending and community based interventions. It therefore sought to encourage rehabilitative disposals that better support longer term public protection. The reform, and I think this is the really crucial point.

The reform does not remove the ability of service courts to impose immediate custody. Courts retain the discretion to do so, where there are exceptional circumstances, or where immediate custody is necessary to maintain service discipline. I think that's a really fundamental point. In the end, the court makes the judgment as to whether they should apply immediate custody or allow a suspended sentence, so suspended sentence orders remain an effective sanction carrying punitive and rehabilitative requirements, and the prospect that the custodial sentence will be activated.

The point I've just made to Baroness Smith if the offender fails to comply, it's the government's long standing policy that the service justice system should emulate the civil civilian criminal justice system, unless there are compelling service specific reasons to deviate from it. The government is not persuaded. Neither am I personally actually, that such a case has been made. Furthermore, removing the presumption in service justice system alone could lead to different sentencing outcomes for similar offenders across the civilian and service jurisdictions.

It could also complement complicate decisions about the appropriate jurisdiction where there is no service interest justifying divergence. For these reasons, the government considers the current approach strikes the right balance between rehabilitation, judicial discretion, service, discipline and discretion and consistency across the justice system. I therefore invite the noble Earl and Baroness, Baroness Goldie to withdraw the amendment, although my suspicion is we may return to this particular debate and discussion where, as I say, we might do it at a more excitable time when we can all explore what is actually a fundamental point of discussion and debate within our society and needs to be aired.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed to the noble Lord, the indeed to the noble Lord, the Minister for his. His response we are not going to conclude with with are not going to conclude with with consensus between us, but we shall. We shall bear our disagreement with We shall bear our disagreement with a smile upon each other. The Minister argued that the alignment with the civilian system is what with the civilian system is what justifies this change.

But service justice depends on proportionate, case by case judgement and the maintenance of discipline. Now, I have heard nothing today to persuade me that a presumption of suspended service sentence suspended sentence orders is desirable, sensible or right. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But the Minister is correct in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prediction. I reserve the right to return to this on report. Amendment. Withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave. Withdrawn. The question is that clauses 28 to 31 stand part of the bill. As many as are content, not content. The contents have it. The question is at schedule four. The question is at schedule four. Be the fourth schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 32 to 36 part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content.

Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the. House be resumed. So that the House be resumed. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the house. Now adjourn.

14:30

Oral questions: Police and Electoral Commission and investigations in suspected breaches of electoral finance law Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page