Al Carns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Commanding officers should always report an issue if they see one. With this change, they will have to and will be held to account. Question put and agreed to . Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 18 Summary hearings: punishments available to commanding officers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 17 will strengthen the duty of commanding officers to report allegations of serious offences to the service police. It removes an existing limitation where a commanding officer is obliged to report only a suspected schedule 2 offence committed by someone under their command. Under clause 17, where a commanding officer becomes aware that a serious offence may have been committed by any “person subject to service law” they must promptly refer the matter to the service police. However, the duty does not apply if the commanding officer reasonably believes that the service police or Defence Serious Crime Unit is aware of the matter. This is not a new process but an improvement to the existing duty, which will ensure that all serious allegations, including of sexual offences, are reported to the service police as promptly as possible. I commend clause 17 to the Committee.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 5 to 7 and schedules 2 and 3 relate to protection orders. The Government are committed to providing safety, justice and real support for all in the defence community, both now and in future, which is why a particular focus of the Bill is on protecting victims of serious sexual and violent crimes. Currently, the service justice system cannot impose the full suite of protection orders that are available in the civilian criminal justice system. That can create inconsistencies and critical gaps in victim safeguarding, particularly where cases are based overseas and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the service justice system. It means that there are key vulnerabilities, insufficient protection powers in the SJS in comparison with the civilian system and, as existing orders do not convert into civilian equivalents, gaps in protection when a subject leaves service. Those gaps place victims, both in defence and in the wider public, at risk of continued harm. They mean that victims in the service justice system do not always receive the level of protection to which they would be entitled in the criminal justice system. Clauses 5 to 7 will address those inconsistencies and will be central to providing enduring protection for victims by enabling service courts to make interim and full protection orders and notices that are enforceable even after someone leaves the service. Those service orders include sexual harm prevention orders, sexual risk orders, domestic abuse protection notices and orders, stalking protection orders and restraining orders. The clauses will align the justice systems to ensure that no member of the defence community is left with lesser protections than their civilian counterparts. They will empower the service police to apply for interim and full orders and will empower the service courts to impose them, ensuring that victims receive enduring protection from further harm. The powers apply to service personnel and civilians subject to service law both in the UK and overseas, ensuring their worldwide application. The service police are members of the armed forces who perform broadly the same role for the armed forces, wherever they are in the world, that their civilian counterparts perform in police forces across the UK. Although the service police currently operate in line with the principles of the guidance issued by the Home Office on disclosure of police information, the fact that they have no statutory duty to do so is a disparity with the civilian system. Clause 8 will therefore impose a requirement on the service police to have regard to existing statutory guidance about the disclosure of police information for the purposes of preventing domestic abuse, sexual offending and stalking. It will also amend section 77 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to include the Ministry of Defence police in the list of police forces that need to have regard to the domestic violence disclosure system. This will better protect potential victims from the risks associated with domestic violence, sexual offending and stalking. Clause 9 will ensure that offenders who have, for example, been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment by a court martial for controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship are automatically supervised under multi-agency public protection agreements. Once those offenders are released from prison, they will be managed in the community in the same way as if they had been sentenced by the Crown court. If offenders under the scope of clause 9 are not managed under MAPPA when released on licence into the community, it may be harder for police, prisons and probation services to work together to protect the public and manage the risk that the offenders pose. I will speak to new clause 12 in my closing remarks.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 10 and 11, in reality, thicken out the service justice system and align it with the civilian justice system, providing greater freedoms and protections for anybody who is a victim within this system. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to . Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Service policing protocol

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Depriving rights to certain property makes absolute sense for commanding officers. Aligning the ability to administer justice across the single services and across ranks makes life far easier.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for his views on the Bill, but before providing comment on amendment 6, I will first speak to clause 12. Currently, under section 115 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, there is a duty on individual provost marshals to seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the service police are free from improper interference. Clause 12 provides a power to create a protocol that will support the provost marshal in complying with that duty, but it also goes further than that. It will set out how all members of defence can support such investigations and improve the working relationship between key stakeholders in support of service policing. That power is loosely based on the equivalent power under which the civilian Policing Protocol Order 2023 was created in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The civilian protocol sets out the operational independence and governance structure in civilian policing in England and Wales. There is currently no equivalent to that in defence and no clear articulation of investigative independence for service police to enable personnel in defence to ensure the support of investigations. The effect of clause 12 is that, through the protocol that it provides for, it will be formally articulated to the whole of defence how people in defence should exercise, or refrain from exercising, functions in order to improve working relationships and ensure that investigations carried out by the service police are absolutely free from improper interference. Amendment 6 seeks to amend clause 12 to override the victim’s preference. That is the key issue: to override the victim’s preference by making sure that all investigations and prosecutions take place in a relevant criminal justice system of the UK. That cannot be the right way forward. By overriding the victim’s preference, the amendment risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate. Noting the procedural differences between the two systems, 2024 administrative data on adult rape-flagged cases shows that the withdrawal rate from civilian police investigations is 59% compared with 24% from the Defence Serious Crime Command. We heard that from various witnesses in evidence sessions. The amendment potentially risks making the victim withdrawal rate even higher in the civilian criminal justice system.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. The definition of “defence area” and “defence property” includes those areas and properties used by the armed forces of a foreign country, including the United States.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clauses will enhance the ability of our military police forces and our provost marshals to enact service justice. These measures will make the forces safer, enable them to look after the victims, and support their freedom to operate within the military system. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 17 Duty of commanding officers to report serious offences Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to evidence and acting on it is critical. Understanding the context in which it sits is equally important. Did that individual know that there are 200 one-stars within defence? Did they have the authority and responsibility to allocate individuals in a short, timely and effective manner to a court martial board? Probably not. The problem is not capacity. It is perhaps that the Defence Serious Crime Command needs greater authorities and programming to pool individuals in a timely and effective manner to sit on a court martial board and deliver justice.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling new clause 12, which seeks to ensure that service courts can impose protective orders on individuals who leave service before trial and preventing the avoidance of such orders simply by leaving the service. I recognise the good will and the sentiment behind new clause 12. However, it is not needed. I want to be clear that individuals should not be able to evade accountability for their conduct and that safeguarding measures must not fall away simply by reason of service or leaving the armed forces. Protecting victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm is a clear priority of this Government. The reality is that individuals cannot simply leave the armed forces to avoid proceedings—they just cannot. It is actually relatively complicated to leave the armed forces. A serviceperson will not be discharged or given a final leaving date until disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been properly concluded. Importantly, if for some reason an individual were to slip through the net and leave the service, sections 57, 58 and 61(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 allow them to be charged with an offence committed while they were subject to service law. Such a charge may be brought within six months of their leaving service, or after six months with the consent of the Attorney General, ensuring that service courts can still exercise that jurisdiction when necessary. The Government have engaged with experts, including the Home Office, the Defence Serious Crime Command and safeguarding teams in the design and creation of service protection orders to ensure that they are robust and effective. That includes ensuring that service protection orders will be recognised and enforceable within civilian courts. That means that where a protection order is made, the Bill provides for those orders to transition to the civilian justice system once an individual leaves service and provides enduring protection for victim-survivors. The reality is that people cannot just leave the military, especially if they are under investigation. Secondly, if they do, they are still subject and can be pulled back for a minimum of six months. Taken together, that approach provides continuity, confidence and protection beyond service.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The purpose of clause 13 is to extend the powers of judge advocates to enable them to issue search warrants, which can include other premises that are occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but are not necessarily occupied as a residence. Examples include vehicles, boats or storage containers. Clause 13 also aligns the definition of premises in the Armed Forces Act 2006 with that in section 23 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—also known as PACE. Turning to clause 14, under existing powers in section 314 of the 2006 Act, the UK civilian police can arrest a serviceperson reasonably suspected of committing the offences of desertion or absence without leave, commonly known as AWOL. Clause 14 extends those powers to include servicepersons reasonably suspected of committing the service offence, under section 12 of the 2006 Act, of disobedience to lawful commands. A lawful command may be given by a commanding officer or the service police to protect victims from further harm, or indeed to prevent the risk of further offending by the suspect. Those may include restrictions on places that the suspect can visit, such as specific buildings or addresses, or people with whom they can have contact. By enabling the civilian police to arrest someone suspected of breaching such orders, their enforceability will be enhanced. Turning to clause 15, the 2006 Act allows only the commanding officer of a suspect to authorise their pre-charge custody after arrest. This can sometimes create delays in the investigation process or risk further harm to victims or witnesses. Since the establishment of the Defence Serious Crime Command, the increased volume and complexity of its caseload have rendered the issue progressively more challenging. Clause 15 creates a power for all the provost marshals to authorise pre-charge custody for service offences. This will apply to arrests for schedule 2 offences and offences that would attract a sentence of over two years’ imprisonment in the civilian criminal justice system. It will also apply to schedule 1, part 2 offences where permission has been refused for a commanding officer to deal with the matter summarily, and to attempted versions of the offences. Clause 15 will also apply where prescribed circumstances exist, such as repeated assaults on two or more occasions, or where a senior rank has inflicted serious injury on a service person. Clause 15 also extends the existing powers for commanding officers, and the associated safeguards, to the four provost marshals. These safeguards include the 12-hour review period and the 48-hour time limit beyond which an extension must be approved by a judge advocate. Commanding officers must still be notified if a suspect is taken into custody, and that must take place within six hours of the arrest. In exceptional cases, commanding officers have the power to authorise custody, but they must notify the provost marshal for serious crime and the provost marshal of the service police force for the service of which the suspect is a member. Clause 16 inserts new section 58A into the 2006 Act, imposing a time limit for charging summary offences under section 42. This clause reflects recommendation 35 of Sir Richard Henriques’s 2021 review: that the service justice system should follow the principle of the civilian justice system that minor matters, triable only in a magistrates court, have a six-month time limit imposed on them from the date the offence was committed. The clause therefore imposes a six-month time limit on summary-only offences in the service justice system. However, the clause will enable the Director of Service Prosecutions to determine whether such matters may be heard outside the six-month time limit. Such a pragmatic approach reflects the realities of service life, operational demands and the nature of deployments and operations, which may make a hard six-month time limit unworkable. I commend clauses 13 to 16 to the Committee.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 10 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to issue an updated code for victims in the service justice system. The existing armed forces code of practice, which identifies the services and support to be provided to victims in the service justice system itself, is set out in regulation and has not been substantively modified since it was introduced in 2015. Clause 10 revokes the 2015 regulations. Since 2015, we have continued to make improvements to the service justice system to provide a better service to victims and witnesses, such as with the creation of the Victim Witness Care Unit, which I think the Committee saw when they went down to Portsmouth. This clause will introduce important legislative changes to the service justice system that were made to the civilian criminal justice system through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The legislation will require those responsible for providing a service to victims of service offences in accordance with the code to do so unless there are good reasons not to; and the flexibility afforded by guidance will allow future modifications and improvements to the service justice system to be easily reflected in the contents of the new code. Clause 10 also places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles, improving clarity and encouraging greater consistency, so that service providers will be held to similar standards as their equivalents in the civilian criminal justice system.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling amendment 9, which seeks to add retired officers to those who are qualified for court martial membership. However, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and most likely counterproductive. The first argument made was about capacity and the lack of senior officers to sit on courts martial and hold people to account. As the Committee knows, we keep those things under constant review. The right hon. Member mentioned a case from several years ago that highlighted a lack of capacity to charge senior members. We pushed through secondary legislation in 2024 to amend two of the armed forces court martial rules so that if a defendant was at one star or above, the president of the board would be at one-star level; they did not need to be of higher rank. That was a significant change. As for lack of capacity, I will throw out a question to the Committee: how many one-stars do we have in the military? We actually have 200 one-stars—let that sink in—and that does not include the reserves. There is no capacity issue here. Secondly, the amendment could be counterproductive, because it is vital that the board members have up-to-date knowledge and real-time experience of the latest single-service policies. I say that from experience, because sentencing at court martial fulfils a number of purposes, including punishment, maintenance, discipline and deterrence.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As someone goes across the single services and joint staff colleges, there will be different sections where they are trained on administering justice and the rights of a commanding officer. Importantly, there will be joint standing procedures produced around the clause, which everyone who becomes a commanding officer will have to read and ensure that they adhere to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Qualification for membership of the Court Martial

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I respect the hon. Member’s insight into this issue, especially given his constituency. Atlantic Bastion is moving forward fast; we are using some of the requirements and the needs in the middle east to see what we can test and trial. We are pushing forward as fast as we can. Taking the lessons from Ukraine and ensuring that they are inculcated into what we are doing in the slightly rougher and bigger seas in the north Atlantic is an exceptional challenge, but we are moving forward as fast as we can to do it. When combined with our Type 26 fleet, between us, Norway and hopefully others we will have one of the most effective counter-submarine fleets in the world.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. A more effective and better understood communication and education plan about what those threats really mean to the population is essential. If I were to turn around to the population and say that there was a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover, people in and around Jaguar Land Rover would be affected and would take notice. If I were to say that the cost of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover was half that of lifting the two-child benefit cap, that would resonate far more widely across the nation. If I were to say that cyber-attacks cost more than £10 billion last year alone, and that the MOD has seen a 50% increase in hostile state attacks, that would start to resonate. We need to ensure that we continue to communicate that narrative in the easiest way, but also that it resonates with every section of society. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  We regularly make clear to our Russian counterparts what they are up to and what is happening, and ensure that the severity of their activities is explained to them. The idea that Russia poses no threat to our critical national infrastructure is fundamentally wrong. The reason for Russia’s mapping it and trying to understand it is to find a gap, develop capabilities and, at a time of its choosing, perhaps use them. We acknowledge that we are watching. We have clear indicators and warnings, and I have complete assurance in our armed forces’ ability to deter it.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen billions of pounds-worth of cyber-attacks in the UK and a 30% increase in Russian surface and subsurface capability in the High North. We have seen tactics and training cross-pollinated between Russia and Ukraine, and now Iran, across 10 different countries, with low and slow-flying drones and high-end ballistic missiles mixed into a very effective strike programme. On the other side, we have also seen the capabilities from Ukraine deploying into the middle east to defend against those very same tactics. It is clear for everyone to see that there are countries working together to undermine the west, not just in the physical domain, but in the cyber and influence domains. The quicker we push back against that, the better.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  A country without a navy has destroyed, or rendered irrelevant, one of the biggest fleets in the world, the Black sea fleet. The lessons that we can learn from the hybrid activity in Ukraine are some of the most important ones for our island nation, and we will ensure that they are inculcated and integrated into our major capability platforms to ensure that we have a high-low mix of hardware and sophisticated software combined into fantastic high-end systems such as the Type 26 frigate.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fantastic question. The Nimrod capability was taken out of service many years ago. The P-8 programme is a huge success. Many other allies and partners use those same aircraft. When we combine that with some of the best frigates and the best Navy personnel, and with our subsurface capability, that multi-domain spectrum of finding submarines and tracking them is second to none. A £100 million investment has gone into the P-8 programme. Of course we will ensure that that money is spent wisely on maintenance, and other gaps if required, and we will spend more if there are issues with the P-8 programme in the future. It is the frontline of our deterrence and indicator network.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, there is a physical threat from Russian submarines, Russian surface ships, bombers and the war in Ukraine, but there is actually a more subversive threat—one that is based on the influence on the hearts and minds of our nation and on the political divide of our nation. That is why we have seen members of some parties do over 10 years in prison because of their connections to the Russian regime. In some of those areas, I and my ministerial colleagues are now working exceptionally hard to quantify what that threat looks like from a cyber and influence perspective, and then to put measures in place to neutralise it, so that democracy can thrive.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a delight to see a Member from the hon. Member’s party sat in the Chamber during a statement on a defence subject—it is a first. I remind him of the capability that we have seen as this Russian operation takes place. The UK has deployed assets to map and track it, and then expose it. That, in fact, is one of the best deterrents, because no longer can Russia or indeed Putin claim that an operation or sabotage that took place was not them. That was the whole purpose of that operation, which has been fantastically conducted by the best Royal Navy in the world. Remember, it is not just the ship or the aircraft; a whole plethora of individuals—in fact, 500 people—sat behind this operation, conducting it, and it was successfully prosecuted.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend will know, we have the carrier group deploying up there. That will be a NATO exercise with a multitude of different assets attached, running through all sorts of mission rehearsals and deterrent operations. On top of that, we have had international engagement with our joint expeditionary force partners, and that will increase over time—and of course we have 1,500 exceptionally effective Marines deployed in the High North, protecting our NATO flank and our allies and partners.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Depending on the situation, we could put frigates to sea at any point in time. That comes down to the balance of risk around health and safety and operational readiness, depending on the threat.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for a really focused question. Part of this problem set is about looking at early warning when systems appear, either in our waters or close to our waters, or indeed close to any critical national infrastructure. That is a multi-domain operation, ranging from space all the way down to other intelligence assets, which gives us very early warning of what is happening, where, when and why, and allows us to pre-position capabilities to meet them, or to ensure that we can understand exactly what they are up to and therefore put in an operation to deter that if required.