Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I welcome noble Lords who have said that they are relatively new to engaging in military issues, which is something that your Lordships’ House should encourage more of. In this age of geopolitical shocks, unlikely to reduce in intensity or frequency any time soon, and direct if undeclared attacks on the UK, we need far more and broader engagement in security issues than has traditionally been the case. We need a realistic assessment of the level of Armed Forces that the UK population and economy can support, rather than seeking to find a place in the world beyond our capabilities, and a realistic assessment of the unstable diplomatic environment in which we operate. We know who our friends are, and we also need to know that those who have been our friends in the past may not be so in the future. We owe it to the Armed Forces, as the whole of society, to be brutally realistic about the circumstances we now find ourselves in.

I begin by being positive. I welcome the defence housing strategy and the creation of the defence housing service, which, as the letter to noble Lords from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, put it, aims to put first the needs of forces personnel, veterans and their families. That will be a welcome change from the disastrous privatisation—one more disastrous privatisation—of forces housing that, as the Financial Times summarised it,

“sparked multiple court actions and saddled the government with billions of pounds in rent and maintenance costs”.

When I was completing the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme a few years ago with the RAF—I should perhaps declare now that I am completing the RCDS international security and strategy course—forces housing was the issue raised with us perhaps the most often when we spoke to forces personnel, and it is undoubtedly going to take a great deal more in costs and attention to repair. I note the amendment in the other place on ensuring consistent investment and support in the Bill for forces housing, and I think that is certainly worthy of your Lordships’ consideration.

I also welcome the improved attention to the Armed Forces covenant and to victim support, particularly for women and girls, and I was interested in the technical issue raised by the right reverend Prelate, who is not currently in his place, about the treatment of domestic abuse cases; that certainly deserves more examination. I will be probing the Government on how they might act more strongly on rape and sexual assault cases, something the House united in indicating its strong desire for changes to in 2021.

Saying that, I note that I am a veteran of the Armed Forces Bill 2021 and the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2025. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will be hearing from me on some very familiar issues, and I make no apology for that. They are important issues, particularly violence against women and girls in the military and the recruitment of 15, 16 and 17 year-olds into our forces, but I will be adding a couple of new issues to raise.

The Long Title includes

“to make provision about visiting forces”.

I note that in the other place Green MPs supported what was a new Clause 4, which probably comes under that provision, and I will be happy to work on that here, but I want to raise a new issue now and pursue it at later stages, one that I have also raised by way of Written Question. It is that of foreign personnel based or visiting here who commit crimes.

This issue is raised through an excellent job of reporting by the Guardian, which it deserves to be commended for, on the case of Jacob Wulfson, who strangled in his apartment in Cambridge a British woman he met online. This case was allowed to be tried at an US airbase court martial, instead of him facing UK justice. That involved an all-male panel of Wulfson’s fellow US Air Force officers, all stationed at the same base as him. The victim described the hearing as a “distressing and degrading” experience. She said that the system, which was unfamiliar to her,

“picked me up, chewed me out”.

I want to see whether we can use this Bill to prevent any similar cases in future.

I will also be delighted to back up the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, not currently in her place, on the issue she has indicated she intends to lead on, that of inadequate paternity leave in the military. I note, since I was speaking on Friday about transparency in lobbying, that I have been lobbied on this by the NGO called The Dad Shift, and I am backing the campaign that it is leading. I always try in your Lordships’ House to bring the voices of people who cannot be here, so I want to bring some of those voices of men who have indicated their concerns about the current inadequate provision of maternity leave. This is from an Army soldier:

“Being posted 4 hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having 2 weeks to bond before I was back to being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and has definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother too”.


Another said that when his child was born, he was granted two weeks of standard paternity leave, with an additional two weeks of discretionary leave due to his wife requiring an emergency c-section. It is usually said that it takes at least six weeks to recover from a caesarean section. I note that in the joint service publication JSP 760, there is a discretionary element of providing additional compassionate leave, as that second account indicates, but it is, of course, discretionary.

It is difficult to put a full scale on this problem, but nearly eight in 10 service families have children, and 32% have children under five. The level of paternity leave actually taken has dropped, which may be accounted for by a slight fall in headcount, but it is a really significant drop. I would be interested if the Minister, now or in future, can provide any information on what he knows about the level of take-up of paternity leave.

I note that there is a review of parental leave arrangements currently ongoing, due to report in late in 2026 or early 2027, so there is a window of opportunity here for your Lordships’ House to do something really positive. I would argue that it is obviously the right thing to do, but also a great many of the contributions to the debate today have focused on retention of military personnel, and this is obviously an important issue, as well as supporting military families.

I come to the second issue that will not surprise those who were here in 2021, about recruitment of 15, 16 and 17 year-olds into the military and particularly the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where over the past five years an average of 2,380 children have been trained each year. This has been a cause of considerable complaints and campaigning. I note that I am drawing on the work of Child Rights International Network, which obtained the inspectors’ reports from the last Ofsted visit to the site in March 2024. Recorded under a section titled “Ill-treatment of recruits by staff” was the following. In 2021: eight allegations made, six substantiated and military action taken. In 2022: 10 allegations, five substantiated and action taken. In 2023: six allegations, two substantiated and actioned. For 2024, the data was greyed out.

I have seen some very disturbing footage of not just the treatment of recruits by instructors but behaviour within groups of recruits. It cannot be shared very widely because it might identify the child who took it, but it is very disturbing. There are reports of a 16 year-old former recruit who witnessed his friend being so badly beaten by an instructor that they broke his leg. He was then forced to march on it for miles. We are an utter outlier among developed countries in recruiting 15, 16 and 17 year-olds, and this is something that I will be raising further.

I want to mention just two more issues. One is the Wiltshire Police investigation of sexual abuse during military examinations, which has been ongoing for some time and dates from the 1970s up to 2016 at different locations across the UK. I wonder whether the Minister can update us now, or I will understand entirely if he wishes to do it in writing, on how that inquiry is proceeding. There are a great many people with cause for concern who would like to know what is happening with that.

I also note a very specific issue, but one that is clearly of great concern to some people, with good reason, calling for the recognition and protection of the SS “Tilawa” from 1942 and comparable cases. This is identifying a statutory framework gap governing maritime war graves. Perhaps, again, the Minister might like to write to me about that. I realise it is a fairly technical issue, but it is one that we will be raising in future.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to thank her for supporting my Amendment 55. I am going to concentrate on that amendment, because this is a carefully worked attempt to deal with an issue that the noble Baroness has already clearly outlined—criminal behaviour by US service people in the UK that is not being appropriately dealt with. There are more than 12,000 US military personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, operating from at least 15 bases and facilities. These are people living, working and socialising in communities across the UK. They will and do commit offences.

My amendment is focused particularly on sexual offences, but of course the noble Baroness referred to the disgraceful, awful death of Harry Dunn, and the fact that his family had to campaign against the entire US Government to try to achieve some kind of justice. However, that is not the focus of my amendment. I also note that, given the current state of the US today, these bases are coming under increasing public attention. However, that is not the subject of this amendment either.

I spoke on Second Reading and said that I was going to table this amendment. In doing so, I have to thank the Guardian journalists—and, indeed, editors—who have put a great deal of resources into uncovering this situation. I should perhaps declare my former position as editor of the Guardian Weekly, but I am not influenced by that. I also want to thank the Centre for Military Justice for its advice and assistance in developing the amendment that I put before your Lordships’ Committee today. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, chose not to name any of the people concerned, but—given that she bravely chose to waive her own anonymity and speak to the Guardian—I am going to put forward the name of Sarah Steele, because she wanted to speak publicly about what she went through.

Ms Steele went through an ordeal that was a result of the failure of UK processes. This was an incident, an attack, that took place on UK soil away from a US military base and while the service member was off duty. Yet the US military police quickly took over the investigation and the whole proceeding subsequently took place through the US military justice system, as the noble Baroness said. Indeed, it was held at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US military base in the UK. Ms Steele described this as “confronting … frustrating and distressing”. The procedures she found were “archaic and bizarre”. Think about what she experienced: the procedure was held before a military courtroom, and at points during her testimony fighter jets were taking off just a few hundred metres from where she was speaking. She described the experience as feeling as if she was in an alternative world.

In Ms Steele’s case the US court martial ultimately convicted the defendant of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted him of the sexual assault charge. He received a sentence of six months in a corrections facility, and the conviction was subject to automatic appeal. You might have views about that—I certainly do—but that is not directly what this amendment is about.

As the noble Baroness said, this is one case on which we have a great deal of detail. I will not go through the others she has already outlined. But I will just mention one of the cases in which the victim recounted that the court martial process took two years, she was forced to drop out of a midwifery degree as a result, and she had to give evidence in the same room as the man she had accused, without the protections that victims would normally have in a UK court.

What is the current legal position here? How have we got to this point? My understanding is that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement provides a framework for determining which country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Where the offence is punishable under the laws of both countries, the sending state has the primary right in certain specified circumstances. These include where the offence is solely against the security or property of the sending state, where it is solely against another member of the force or their civilian component or dependant, or where it arises out of an act done in performance of official duty.

However, where an alleged sexual offence is committed against a civilian who has no connection with the visiting force, and the alleged offence does not arise out of an act done in the performance of official duty, the receiving state, i.e. the UK, has the primary right and jurisdiction. So, the question is not about that; the question is who decides that the UK does not use that jurisdiction, which is where this amendment comes in.

In the UK, we have no process for how the decision should be made, what criteria should apply or what role the victim should have; nor, according to the Centre for Military Justice, is there an equivalent statutory framework governing the transfer of jurisdiction to a foreign military justice system. I want to highlight that we have recognised within our own justice arrangements that decisions about serious sexual offences require appropriate safeguards. Where there is a question of whether a serious offence should be dealt with by a civilian or service justice within the UK, there is now a protocol between the DPP and the Director of Service Prosecutions. It provides for senior level consideration of jurisdiction in rape and sexual assault cases, ordinarily treats offences against civilians as matters for the civilian courts, and provides for the victim’s views to be sought. But there is no equivalent safeguard where a foreign military person is involved.

This amendment fixes that situation. It adds a new Section 3A to the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which would create a clear presumption that where a member of the visiting forces is accused of a qualifying sexual offence against someone with no connection to that force, the case should be investigated by UK police and heard in a UK court. It provides for exceptions—though I find it hard to imagine where there would be exceptions, but that is the way the law works. It also provides what specific matters the prosecutor should consider:

“The gravity of the alleged offence … the connection of the alleged victim and of the offence with the United Kingdom … the capacity of the sending country’s arrangements”—


that is particularly important, given what we have heard about all of this—

“including its treatment of victims … any matters relied on in support of a request for a waiver, and … any representations … made … by the alleged victim”.

Furthermore,

“the decision and the reasons for it”

would have to be recorded

“in writing and, so far as reasonably practicable”,

notified to the victim. It would make a huge difference to all the cases we have been talking about tonight, and it would mean that a person who has already taken the difficult step of reporting an alleged sexual offence would not have to adjust to a justice system they never expected to encounter.

Here, I will put a direct question to the Minister. In the current arrangements, there is an exception to question of duty offences. I hope the Minister agrees with me that a qualifying sexual offence would never be capable of being characterised as arising out of and in the course of official military duty. This and the previous Government have had a very good record of addressing issues of sexual violence in conflict, and it is important that that is made clear, perhaps in writing if not now.

I have another question for the Minister. As a starting point, surely the argument has been made, but do the Government accept that there is currently a gap in the process for deciding whether the United Kingdom should relinquish its primary jurisdiction in serious sexual offence cases involving visiting forces?

This amendment is ultimately about confidence in our justice system and the public’s trust in having visiting military forces on our soil. In closing, I stress that this is not an issue I will allow to slip lightly. We owe it to all the victims we have already heard from—and others we do not know about, but who almost certainly exist—that this be dealt with in the Bill. This is clearly the Bill to deal with this situation now that it has come to light. We will discuss the details and the ways in which we might combine the amendments in this group, or look at how they fit in detail, but something has to be done about this utterly unacceptable current situation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think I need to wind up from these Benches. My noble friend Lady Brinton has said everything that needs to be said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I understand if the Minister will want to write in answer to this question as well. He referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council considering further formal guidance and writing to forces. What will that be based on? What is the legal basis of this? Where is it coming from? Surely, it is a matter for Parliament and not just for the police chiefs to work out the way forward. Where is the framework coming from?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not sure if I totally understand what the noble Baroness means. I thought it was a pretty important step that the National Police Chiefs’ Council was taking in looking at whether the current guidance was appropriate or further guidance was needed to ensure that some of the issues that have arisen and some of the concerns that have been rightly expressed were avoided in the future. That is the normal practice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a whole range of very difficult issues. It reflects on the law and the guidance with respect to the law when considering whether any of its guidance needs to be changed or adapted. That is my understanding of the guidance to be issued to the various police forces: it is to ensure that questions of jurisdiction are properly answered within the context of the law as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 56 from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain applications for spouses and immediate family members of serving personnel and veterans. I have tabled Amendment 66, which seeks to achieve the same outcome through a slightly different route: by requiring the Government to bring forward secondary legislation within a specified timeframe. My amendment is designed to address some of the concerns raised by Ministers in the other place around specific approaches and wording.

Frankly, I do not mind what legislative approach is taken provided the issue is resolved. I do not need to add to the noble and gallant Lord’s exposition of the issue, but I say to the Minister that, typically, the Immigration Rules are changed twice yearly, with the next set expected in October. Can he provide greater clarity on the Government’s timetable for action? Can he reassure military families that this commitment—by all three major parties—will finally be delivered in the forthcoming changes this autumn?

I turn to Amendment 57 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Harlech, to whom I am grateful for their support. At the heart of this is how we support military families, but it is also about military capability. The strategic defence review identified a workforce crisis. When our Armed Forces depend so heavily on experience and invest so much in their personnel, retention matters as much as recruitment. That is why I welcome the many provisions in the Bill designed to strengthen service life. Amendment 57 proposes a relatively small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference to military families and retention.

The recently published Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey underlines the reality for families. Some 78% of service families have children, and one in five have children who are under two years old, yet a quarter of service families live apart during the working week, rising to almost 40% in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Nearly three in 10 families experienced separation of three months or more during the past year.

At present, serving fathers receive two weeks of paternity leave at full pay. However, for military families, returning to work after two weeks is not a return to a normal commute; it means returning to a posting many hours away, or to months of separation. That is why this issue matters so deeply to those who serve. One serving soldier told the Dad Shift:

“Being posted 4 hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having 2 weeks to bond before I was back to being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and has definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother too”.


These challenges are reflected further in the Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey: 52% of spouses disagree that they feel valued by the service, 34% say they would feel happier if their partner left the military, while 44% have at some time in the past year encouraged their partner to leave.

The factors driving dissatisfaction are revealing. The impact on careers, the amount of separation from spouses and the effect on children are the top three reasons. Improving paternity leave is not a silver bullet, but the evidence consistently shows that it supports maternal employment, strengthens family relationships and improves outcomes for children. At a time when retention is a strategic issue, we should take seriously reforms that strengthen the family life of those who serve. The experiences of serving personnel illustrate why. One RAF officer recalled:

“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice ... With only two weeks available, time spent dealing with complications or hospital stays can consume a significant proportion of the leave itself”.


The Minister may point to shared parental leave or the possibility of additional compassionate leave as options to resolve this. However, service families often describe those options as difficult to access and inconsistently applied. One army officer reported:

“I pushed and took Shared Parental Leave but I had to threaten a Service Complaint to do so with my work at the time”.


He added that if the process was difficult for a senior officer, it would likely be much harder for more junior personnel. Likewise, a RAF corporal told the Dad Shift:

“I’ve had my paternity leave handled three different ways for my three children; it does come down to that reoccurring line manager lottery issue unfortunately”.


That inconsistency in itself is part of the problem. Families should not have to rely on confidence, rank or managerial discretion to receive adequate support at such a significant moment in their lives. Soldiers, sailors and aviators should not have to worry about explaining to their commanding officer that their wife and baby are struggling with breastfeeding and need more support, or that their wife’s stitches are infected, or that they are worried that she might be suffering from postnatal depression but cannot even be sure because they are not home enough to tell.

Of course, the impact of leave on operational readiness must be taken into account. Unlike maternity leave, paternity leave is not exempt from the provision in JSP 760 that

“the granting and timing of all forms of absence … is to be at the discretion of the Service and is subject to operational requirements and the general exigencies of the service”.

Nothing in my amendment changes this.

The sacrifices made by those serving in our Armed Forces are shared by their families. When a child is born, those pressures are felt even more acutely. Two weeks of paternity leave is increasingly out of step with the realities of modern family life, the practices of leading employers, and the approach taken by many of our closest allies, with Australia offering eight weeks of paid paternity leave and the United States offering 12 weeks to its military personnel. When Congress extended that entitlement, bipartisan supporters from both Houses described it as a matter of military readiness and national security.

I hope, therefore, in responding to this group, that the Minister will recognise not only the family case for reform but the strategic one. Supporting military families at the moment they need it most is the right thing to do, but it would also be an investment in retention, morale and the long-term strength of our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and to attach my name to Amendment 57, which would provide for six weeks of fully paid paternity leave for servicepeople. The Committee will see that this is perhaps not the broadest alliance across the political spectrum that you might find, but it is certainly up there in the spread that you will typically see in your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has powerfully outlined, the arguments for the amendment, which I will not repeat, are twofold. First, it is about the welfare of children. It is about children being able to establish a proper relationship and foundation for family life—something that will be with them through their lives. It is also, of course, a big issue for retention and recruitment of servicepeople, so it is an issue for the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

At Second Reading, I addressed this issue with a number of quotes from the survey. I will just add one here. Think about what two weeks is like. This is an RAF officer from the Dad Shift survey:

“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice … even low-level complications might result in the first week of paternity leave being spent in hospital”.


Those are not circumstances in which, for one week, you will establish a stable relationship—they are extremely stressful, extremely difficult, extremely unnatural circumstances. Then maybe you will have one week or no weeks after that. I know that the Minister said at Second Reading that there is a broader government review of paternity leave, but I do not think, given that we have this Bill before us, that there is any need or any argument for waiting. Action can be taken—and clearly needs to be taken—now.

Amendment 67 in this group is in my name. It is a fairly simple amendment which would put into the Bill that the Government must establish a concessionary travel scheme for veterans’ bus travel. The amendment does not specify the exact detail of what concessionary bus travel might be provided, how it might be set out or what level it might be set at; that is clearly the sort of thing that is appropriate for a statutory instrument. If we think about the situation of veterans, some may qualify for concessionary travel because they are older or because they have a qualifying disability, but what about the veteran at the age of 30, 40 or 50 who has no qualifying disability but who returns to the UK, perhaps after many years of service, not having a stable base here in the UK?