Armed Forces Bill

I support the motion, but I need to seek assurance from the minister. The principle behind the provisions is straightforward—it is that a victim’s protection must not disappear simply because the person who is subject to a service restraining order leaves the armed forces. Clauses 8(4) and 8(5) deal with that problem. They ensure that, when a service restraining order applies and the individual subsequently ceases to be subject to service law, protection can continue through the Scottish civilian justice system. The order will be treated as a non-harassment order made by a sheriff, so a breach will be a criminal offence under Scots law, and our courts will have the power to vary or revoke the order where appropriate. All that is sensible and necessary, but there is an important practical point for Scottish ministers.

The Criminal Justice Committee was assured that there will be no gap in protection when responsibility transfers from the service justice system and that Police Scotland will be able to identify those orders through the police national computer. I therefore ask the minister to ensure that those arrangements will work seamlessly in practice from day 1. Victims must know that their protection continues. Police Scotland must be able to act immediately on an alleged breach, and there must be clear communication between the service justice system, Police Scotland prosecutors and the Scottish courts.

I ask the minister to keep the operation of those arrangements under review once cases begin to transfer into Scottish jurisdiction. A victim should never be left uncertain about whether an order still protects them, simply because the perpetrator has left the armed forces. Leaving service must never become a means of escaping the restrictions of an order designed to protect another person.

These are proportionate and necessary provisions. I support the motion, but I seek assurances from the minister in respect of the items of concern that I have and which many others share.