Ministers have rejected calls to write a new service stalking protection notice into the Armed Forces Bill, telling peers during the first day of committee stage in the House of Lords on 2 September that the legislation already contains an interim order capable of protecting victims while a full application is decided.

Baroness Brinton, the Liberal Democrat peer, tabled three amendments dealing with stalking in the armed forces. The first would have created a service stalking protection notice by mirroring the framework already provided in the Bill for service domestic abuse protection notices, allowing an authorised service police officer of or above the rank of naval lieutenant, military or marine captain, or flight lieutenant to impose immediate restrictions on a suspected stalker pending a court hearing.

A second amendment would have required specialist stalking training to be in place before the new service stalking protection order regime came into force, and a third dealt with continuity of protection where a victim or perpetrator moves between military and civilian jurisdictions.

Speaking to the amendments, Baroness Brinton drew on more than a decade of parliamentary work on stalking law reform, as well as her own experience as a victim. “Every single time we have not put the detail in the Bill it has gone wrong further down the process and has had to come back to Parliament to be corrected because, unfortunately, stalking, which is itself a very unpleasant crime, can quite often lead to murder,” she said. She told the Committee that ministerial assurances were insufficient, adding that “phrases such as ‘The Government are committed’ and ‘We fully recognise’ are, frankly, not quite enough.”

On the substance of the gap she had identified, she said: “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 SSPO application is being pursued, despite the increased risk of serious violence and homicide associated with stalking.” She credited the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Aurora New Dawn for briefings ahead of the debate.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, who has worked with Baroness Brinton on stalking legislation for many years, said she regretted not having signed the amendments and indicated she would support a return to the issue at a later stage. “I look forward to hearing the response from my noble friend the Minister, but if the noble Baroness does not think that the response is adequate and wishes to take this forward again on Report, I will certainly be there to support her,” she told the Chamber.

For the Opposition, Baroness Goldie said she had considerable sympathy with the intent while questioning whether an additional tier of civil order was the right instrument. She pointed to survey evidence on the treatment of women in the forces, telling peers that “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.” Her concern, she said, was one of enforcement rather than intent: “There is a risk that we spend time creating new civil orders while the more fundamental question of 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.”

Responding, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, Lord Coaker, set out the Government’s position on the offence itself before turning to the drafting. “The Government are 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,” he said. He directed peers to new Section 236Q of the Bill, which provides for interim service stalking protection orders, explaining that “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.”

Lord Coaker acknowledged the distinction between an order and a notice, saying he was informed that an order carries more significant protection measures in the event of a breach. Baroness Brinton returned to that point when winding up, telling the Committee that the notices she was seeking “are different from the interim stalking orders, not least because they would be a tool that can be used by a police officer without having to go to a court. It is like the first step on the ladder.”

On training, the Minister said all branches of the service police engage with the College of Policing and continue to align broadly with national standards under its professionalising investigations programme. He committed to refreshed and repeated training for commanding officers, service police and front-line personnel once the new protection orders are introduced, supported by statutory guidance drawing on Home Office material but tailored to the service justice system. On continuity, he pointed to government amendments made in the Commons that address a legislative gap identified by the Director of Service Prosecutions, now set out in Part 7 of Schedule 3, providing for the conversion of a service protection order into a civilian protection order once a person leaves the armed forces.

Lord Coaker also told peers that the whistleblowing in defence review, which followed the passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, has been completed and that the expectation is to publish it within a fortnight alongside a Written Ministerial Statement.

Amendment 21 was withdrawn and Amendments 22 and 23 were not moved, with Baroness Brinton indicating she may return to the subject on Report depending on the outcome of a meeting offered by the Minister with the charities she has been working with. Later in the same sitting the Committee also considered, and did not press, an amendment that would have removed a commanding officer’s power to hear summarily a charge of assault or actual bodily harm where domestic abuse is alleged, an area the Government has said will be dealt with by secondary legislation following a review of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 offences after Royal Assent.