PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455) - 1 December 2025 (Commons/General Committees)

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure (HC 1454).

In one sense, the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure is just tidying up a small area of ecclesiastical law—which we are all, obviously, very well versed in. But in a wider and more important way, it is enabling and supportive of the essential work carried out by chaplains to His Majesty’s armed forces.

For more than a century, armed forces chaplains have been issued with licences by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving them the ecclesiastical authority to exercise ministry in that role. However, recent work by the provincial registrars has identified a gap in the relevant statutory provision in this area: without this Measure, each armed forces chaplain would also need to obtain a licence or permission to officiate from the bishop of each diocese in which the chaplain was to exercise ministry. Not only would that give rise to a significant burden on bishops and their offices; it would also cause problems for the armed forces themselves—not least because chaplains need to be able to move with, and minister to, military personnel wherever they are currently serving. It is impractical for them to obtain a further authority to exercise ministry each time the servicemen and women they minister to move to a different part of the country.

This Measure, in a straightforward way, addresses the issue by inserting a new section, headed “Armed Forces chaplains”, into the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, which already covers ministry exercised outside the parish context, such as in hospitals, prisons, universities and schools. This Measure will provide a new statutory power enabling the Archbishop of Canterbury to license armed forces chaplains to exercise ministry in that capacity.

When exercising ministry under the Archbishop’s licence, an armed forces chaplain does not need any further authority, either from the bishop of the diocese or from the minister of the parish in which the chaplain’s ministry is exercised. That applies only where he or she is acting in the capacity of an armed forces chaplain. Any other ministry that an individual chaplain might exercise, such as preaching at a parish church, remains subject to the usual rules about authority and permissions to exercise ministry in the diocese and parish.

It is a real privilege to respond, Mr Mundell. As shadow Defence Secretary, this is my chance to pay tribute to our armed forces chaplains. I will not detain colleagues for long, but the chaplains are very important. I understand that there are 332 in total, of whom 195 are Anglican.

This year, lots of tributes have been paid in the House during the debates on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. Some 275 chaplains lost their lives in the two world wars: 96 in world war two and 179 in the first world war. I could find no figures for other conflicts, but there will no doubt have been some losses in those, too. I am sure that we all pay tribute to forces chaplains and the work that they do; the extra pastoral care that they provide is very important.

When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I did not have any particular interaction with armed forces chaplains. However, the thing one learns about the defence estate is the importance of being able to move personnel around all the time, and the hon. Lady has just described the inflexibility that is being addressed. In fact, the Right Reverend Hugh Nelson, the Bishop to the armed forces, explained it very well in front of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure would be described on our side as a deregulatory move to remove onerous paperwork—something we are always in favour of. It makes total sense, especially when we consider the nature of deployment and the continuous movement of personnel—and therefore their chaplains. It is eminently sensible; it had 100% support in the Synod and the Opposition are supportive too.

Thank you, Mr Mundell. We now move on to the Abuse Redress Measure and the associated draft rules, which lay the groundwork for the Church of England to deliver a redress scheme and confer the necessary legislative powers on the Archbishops’ Council to delegate decision-making to a third party.

I add my thanks and pay tribute to those victims and survivors who have continued to give their time and energy to the process of developing the Measure, despite the harm that the Church has caused them. The Church recognises its lamentable failings, which have made it possible for some people to abuse others, while some in the Church of England have been reluctant to face up to unpalatable truths and have avoided confronting difficult and painful situations openly and candidly. I believe that the Measure and draft rules before us contain important elements that try to right those wrongs.

In saying that, however, the Church must recognise that for many survivors the wait for redress has been too long in coming. Since the start of the scheme’s development in 2021, the Church has sought to work through some complex questions, wishing to give careful consideration to the views of victims and survivors. The Church has intentionally adopted a person-centred approach that enshrines dignity, respect and compassion at its heart. Crucially, the approach has been designed to look and feel different from mitigation. The scheme is not designed to mirror a court of law or to require a decision maker to resolve triable issues for which the scheme’s arrangements do not incorporate all of the features.

The Church has reflected carefully on eligibility and conditions, and has sought to find the right balance: one that provides that the scheme responds when a failure within the Church has been the effective cause of abuse, but not otherwise. The Church has sought to be clear about the nature of abuse that is in scope, while allowing for flexibility to respond appropriately in particular cases, taking into account the experiences of victim and survivor. The scheme provides that applications should have available independent legal and financial advice, if they wish to receive it, but not at a level that allows legal fees to consume disproportionately the amount of redress funds to the detriment of those victims and survivors. The Church has provided for a review of the operation of the Measure, giving the Church’s General Synod the ability to hold the Archbishops’ Council accountable for the scheme’s operation. That allows the Synod to extend the lifetime of the scheme if it appears necessary to do so.

I recognise that the Measure does not meet every person’s hopes, but I ask the Committee to recognise that there are many victims and survivors who want the Church to earnestly and finally meet its commitment to get on with providing this redress Measure.

I will not detain the Committee long, but I echo the Commissioner’s tribute to the victims and survivors of abuse who have participated in the process of drawing up the new Measure. I will not delve into the history but I note that, while not at 100%, the support in the Synod for this Measure was overwhelming.

I have a question relating to Kennedys, which is clearly an important point in the Ecclesiastical Committee’s discussion about the Measure. Unfortunately, we live in an age of leaks and data leaks—the Ministry of Defence is no exception to that, it has to be said. Data is becoming ever more important to our lives as we become ever more digitally plugged in, and it was concerning to hear that some victims were worried about the fact that the firm had its contract renewed. I understand that there will be a contract variation to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened and that, were Kennedys not to be rehired, there would be an estimated 18-month delay.

My question is simple: Kennedys runs a customer service-facing business, so what assurances are there that the process has changed and that what happened will not be repeated? Those participating will want to have their faith in the process underlined by the knowledge that those problems will be dealt with. That is our main concern. Otherwise, we support the Measure.

May I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner whether there is something in place to allow for the Archbishops’ Council to report, perhaps on an annual basis, to her on progress with the scheme?

The Church is fully aware of its responsibilities in relation to this redress Measure. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is right to raise the point about Kennedys. The data breach that took place was serious. Kennedys has fully owned that breach and put in place the necessary measures to ensure that something like that does not happen again. Kennedys also remains accountable to the Archbishops’ Council in that respect. There will be an oversight body to oversee how the Measure is being implemented and how the arm’s length body is operating the redress scheme.

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I asked a question—I wonder if I might have the courtesy of a reply.

I think I mentioned that there is oversight. There will be an oversight body. I believe I mentioned that in my final remarks just now.

My question was whether the hon. Lady, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will receive a progress report herself from the Archbishops’ Council, perhaps on an annual basis. Can I have clarity on that, please?

I will certainly ask for that, but it is not part of the Measure.

It would be incredibly relevant, bearing in mind that I and any number of others have constituents who have waited decades and decades for this. It is not beyond the Church to defer and to delay. It is important that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the impact of this Measure and that the Church reports to her.

I am fully aware. If the hon. Member has followed the work that I have done in this space, she will understand how seriously I take the issue of safeguarding and the redress Measure. Now that we have the Measure in place, the key is to ensure that we get it implemented so that the victims and survivors can begin to receive their redress. I have also said that the Measure does not set out that I will receive a report, but I will certainly ask for an update on how it is being implemented.

The hon. Lady should make use of Church Commissioner questions, where I am responsible for answering on behalf of the national Church institutions. I suggest that she uses that mechanism to continue to hold the Church to account.

Does it have to be a point of order?

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I would just point out that systems are set up in good faith to redress problems that have arisen, but unless those systems are overseen and scrutinised, they very often fall into disrepute themselves and fail to deliver what the legislators intended. I am appealing to you, Mr Mundell, to make sure that we have the opportunity to make these points in order.