Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

I thank the Minister and his officials for their work on this Bill. It is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from noble and gallant Lords with their wealth of experience. When I read in Hansard the record of the Second Reading debate on this Bill’s predecessor five years ago, I could not help but notice that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will simply be swapping places when they come to sum up this debate. In my remarks, I will focus on three areas: first, the Armed Forces covenant; secondly, the whole-society approach to civil preparedness; and thirdly, some niche comments related to the service police powers.

“Covenant” is an ancient word with deep resonances in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It is about gifts offered and received, about commitments made and honoured, lived in mutual reciprocity. When we ask much of our Armed Forces—and, God forbid, we might need to ask more of them and their families in the years to come—pledging a commitment to what they can expect in return for all that they give and, for veterans, have given, is the mark of a grateful society.

“Gratitude” is perhaps an old-fashioned word these days, but when we lose it, recruitment drops, morale drops and retention drops. At its heart, the Armed Forces covenant seeks to embed gratitude—not special favours or a jingoistic patriotism, but a simple commitment to understanding, fairness and opportunity. That is why I am pleased that His Majesty’s Government are proposing in the Bill to enshrine the Armed Forces covenant fully in law, by extending it to central, devolved and local authorities, and expanding the issues to which these and certain public bodies must have due regard.

So much flows from that: mutual responsibility, protecting the vulnerable, providing hospitality and integration, and including appropriate housing at a good standard. Although the focus is rightly on family housing, I hope the new proposed defence housing service will also ensure that single persons’ accommodation is of a standard that can create a sense of home. I hope consideration will also be given to fitting housing with good insulation and solar panels, so reducing energy costs and contributing to His Majesty’s Government’s net-zero commitments.

The Armed Forces covenant was signed on behalf of the Church of England by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and York in February 2015. Since then, a number of English dioceses have also signed, working in partnership with local veterans, reservists and military bases. I confess that the diocese of Norwich needs to catch up, though I value my own engagement with RAF Marham, with the Queen’s Dragoon Guards at Swanton Morley, and those who serve at the STANTA. At the latter, I have witnessed the valuable work being done by the British Army, in collaboration with forces of other nations, in training Ukrainian conscripts to fight for the freedom of their country against Putin’s tyranny.

I believe that churches and Church schools have a particular role to play in supporting the 124,000 children of military families, who are likely to have to move school more often than others and to have parents away on deployment, sometimes for long periods with limited contact.

It strikes me that the conversations around signing the covenant, the engagement that involves with His Majesty’s forces, and the prompt that this gives to think more through the eyes of service personnel and veterans, is of as much importance as the ceremony of signing. Through good conversations, understanding is fostered, and the gift of concern and care can be extended.

I imagine that I am not the only father of a soldier who has stood at the central memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and run his hand over those panels of carved names on Portland stone, only to reach our contemporary era, where the stone becomes smooth: smooth stone awaiting chiselling—the names of those who will be prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation in whatever will unfold in the years to come.

There are other people, each also treasured by God, who carry or will carry the scars of conflict and war in body, mind and soul long into the future, often impacting those around them. Among those who support and care for them are our Armed Forces chaplains—men and women, both regulars and reservists, whose calling is to serve alongside, being with and being there at both joyous and tragic moments, offering hope, peace and prayerful presence, and being the bearers of spiritual, moral and pastoral support. The Armed Forces covenant is, in a sense, a continuation of that pastoral care shared by us all in wider society.

My second point is about whole society preparedness. The recently published Global Peace Index 2026 found that

“the world has continued its longstanding trajectory of deteriorating peacefulness … There are now more active state-based conflicts than at any point since the end of the Second World War, while the number of countries involved in external conflict has nearly doubled since 2008”.

Given the troubling and dangerous times we live in, the Church of England’s General Synod has been considering how we might be called to be the Church in a time of war. Last July, we heard from the Lutheran Archbishop of Tallinn, Urmas Viilma, about how their preparedness is significantly advanced. This does not sit easily with the Jesus that I encounter in the gospels proclaiming peace-making and that most difficult of commands about love of neighbour and love of enemy.

I note that Bishop George Bell in November 1939, faced with a terrible impending European war, said:

“It is the function of the Church at all costs to remain the Church”.


The Church’s task is therefore to work and pray for peace, and to shape and form peacemakers, peacebuilders and peacekeepers. I would argue that, while not scaremongering, we need also to prepare for the threats we face. The Church and other faith groups would play a key role in supporting communities in the event of a major conflict. Resilience, community solidarity and hope are all key Christian virtues that people have valued in previous wars and would be much needed in any future conflict. As St Paul’s letter to the infant church in Rome put it:

“Hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good”.


Will the Minister outline what preparations are in place and what resources are being made available to meet the strategic defence review’s goal of a “whole-of-society approach” to the review’s implementation, including

“widening participation in national resilience”?

My final point, and I declare a familial connection with the Royal Military Police, is a concern that under the Armed Forces Bill, service police will not be able to authorise pre-charge custody for Schedule 1 offences—that is, for battery, even when there is a domestic context. This is because the legislation is drafted for all serious offences to be in scope, which does not include Schedule 1 offences and does not articulate the context of domestic abuse offences. The issue of commanding officers dealing with domestic abuse offences was brought up by the Centre for Military Justice in its evidence in response to the Armed Forces Bill. It recommended an amendment to the relevant schedules to prevent commanding officers dealing with any domestic abuse matter at summary hearing. Although the Royal Military Police has a strong policy position that, where there is a domestic abuse context to offences, the commanding officer could investigate, it is very clear that such cases should always be referred to the relevant policing authority so that it can consider investigating. This is not articulated in legislation. Will the Minister commit to look at that please?

More broadly, I raise the issue that the additional requirements of meeting the threshold of a serious offence will add additional bureaucracy for service police during the arrest of suspects. This could be reduced by giving complete authority to authorise pre-charge custody to the provost marshals. The definition of a serious offence is noted as being similar to, but different from, the definition of a serious service offence in Part 1 of the Armed Forces (Powers of Stop and Search, Search, Seizure and Retention) Order 2009. The added complexity of this definition will inevitably slow down the processing of suspects in arrest and risk incorrect authorisations of pre-charge custody. Giving the provost marshals authority to authorise pre-charge custody in all offences would reduce these risks and give the service police greater parity with its civilian counterparts, who can authorise custody in such cases.

I have been made aware that service police currently have no specific legal protection against impersonation, either by civilians or by persons subject to service law. As the service police as forces are not constituted under the Police Act 1996, the offence of impersonating a police officer and the linked offences in Section 90 of the Police Act do not create an offence of impersonating a service police officer; nor are service police currently protected by the enhanced sentencing powers of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Service police officers are regularly assaulted on duty yet are not given the same respect and protections afforded to civilian police officers and other emergency workers.

Will the Minister commit to looking at these anomalies around impersonating and assaulting service police so that there can be parity with their civilian counterparts, with a view to potentially introducing a government amendment to bring clarity to these current anomalies? I look forward to engaging with the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Shall we leave the point about single living accommodation, since, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we will have a discussion around family and single living accommodation in the next group? Without ignoring the noble Baroness, we will come on to her particular questions around that in the next group and answer some of her points on that more directly then, if that is satisfactory to her.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, as always, for the considered and thoughtful way in which she introduced her amendments. Before I get into my formal remarks, and without getting into a game of semantics on introducing a satisfaction criterion in the functions, on page 7 of the Bill, under functions of the Defence Housing Service, new Section 343(1)(d)(ii) talks about the

“continued wellbeing of those communities”

as being an important function of the DHS. I would have thought that satisfaction would be an important part of that. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, and I will come to this in my formal remarks, but I thought it was important to say that my reading of the functions is that that is perhaps one of the ways in which the Government have set out within the Bill a way of dealing with the satisfaction point.

Beginning with Amendment 16, I first make it clear that the defence housing service—the DHS—will have a service ethos at its heart. We have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The DHS will have service family representatives on its independent board.

We are already making rapid improvements. We have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences, which includes seeing over 1,250 military homes improved in the last financial year, with more to be upgraded this year. We have modernised outdated policies, giving families greater freedoms to improve their homes, streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home and removing the need for permission to have a pet. We have delivered named housing officers, more photos and floorplans, and a new online repairs service. Promises made to families are now being delivered.

We are seeing results, specifically with respect to satisfaction. Satisfaction with defence homes has risen to 52%, which is the highest satisfaction rate since 2021. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily from a low of 23% in January 2023 up to 66% by the end of 2025. As of August 2026, there were 369 active complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 in November 2023. We can never say that satisfaction is done, but we hope that there is some recognition of the improvements being made.

On Amendment 19, the Bill already provides for a robust framework agreement in place, under which the DHS will report directly to Ministers, a point that the noble Baroness was keen to emphasise. I repeat that the DHS will remain accountable to Ministers through its strategic oversight, with increased reporting to Parliament for the performance of the housing services as set out in the Bill and oversight by a non-executive board. The DHS will continue working closely with departmental teams, and this will be covered in the framework document with the MoD in the usual way. The DHS will be operationally independent within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers set out in the Bill.

Our existing plans already achieve the effect of Amendment 20. Work is already under way to establish an independent board and enable preparatory activity ahead of full DHS mobilisation on 1 April 2027. The board will comprise the chief executive, an appointed chair and at least six other members, with representation from the departmental infrastructure functional owner and director-general infrastructure expected at meetings. Strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure, and four forums aligned to the “families first” pillar of the defence housing strategy and reporting directly to the DHS board and executive committee are already established.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister so much for allowing my intervention. I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, because it is about well-being and retention. From what the Minister has just said about how the new board is being set up, it does not sound to me that it will include those with lived experience, including those who have recently lived, or currently live, in forces family accommodation. Having that lived experience would aid retention, because if a family is not happy, the member of the Armed Forces will not stay in their role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We agree with that. Our intention all the way is to ensure that the family’s voice is heard and acted on. The defence housing strategy from 2025, on which much of this is based, was developed—I have examples of this—after having consulted with and listened to forces family representatives. They have informed the very structure that this new DHS body has been set up to achieve.

I absolutely accept the point that the right reverend Prelate has put to us. We would argue that the defence housing strategy was developed with the support of services families and that the legislation before your Lordships has been developed on the basis of that strategy, which has at its very heart the needs and views of forces families. That is essential. It is important to put on the record that we want to see that continue and we believe that these structures will help to do that.

As I said, strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure. Two of these forums are new to the DHS, while two are well established and will continue to operate under the DHS governance framework. These forums are the accommodation delivery forum and the families insight forum, and the newly established defence housing service customer committee and the regional customer experience committees. To go to the point that has just been made, embedding the family voice is fundamental to the DHS. Representatives from the Armed Forces Families Federation, which engages with service families daily and brings invaluable insight into their lived experience, are embedded across each of the four forums to help shape improvements and hold us to our commitments.

The new DHS customer committee places service families at the heart of decision-making, championing lived experience and ensuring that the “family first” principle drives continuous improvement in customer experience and satisfaction, further strengthened by new regional customer experience committees which provide a structured forum for families to share feedback, influence policy and service delivery and shape regional priorities.

With those remarks, I hope the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendments, but I thank her again for the opportunity to put the Government’s view on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments are intended to ensure that that is exactly what His Majesty’s Ministry of Defence provides to those in single living accommodation. I hope the Minister might feel able to find a way of ensuring that single living accommodation can meet the same standards that we are now saying we will afford to service families.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 17 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I am very grateful to her for spending time over the weekend explaining them in more detail. The noble Baroness is quite right in what she has just said to this House about the need to care for those who are in single accommodation, recognising that that accommodation can be used throughout a whole service career.

My two concerns around why I think single accommodation needs to be brought in scope with further consideration are about, first, well-being and, secondly, retention. Well-being is vital for the good running of His Majesty’s forces. We ask a huge amount from those members and we should be providing them with accommodation that is of a standard that is comfortable to live within, because, certainly on deployment, they are often living in accommodation that is very challenging. It is good for mental health and it is good for general all-round health and fitness to have accommodation that provides that basis for a good, well-lived life.

On retention, we know that we are not recruiting at the levels we should be, that there is loss of forces, and we would like to see people staying for longer military careers. Having accommodation of a good enough standard, places that people can call home, is vital for retention. I very willingly support the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her Amendments 17 and 18.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled these stand-part notices for Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to probe why the Government have decided to pursue the creation of a new public body to deliver and manage service family accommodation. I indicated to the Chamber that I would pursue this under this group. These provisions would establish the defence housing service as a new free-standing non-departmental public body, taking over responsibility for the provision, maintenance and modernisation of service family accommodation. Nobody on my Benches disputes the scale of the problem that confronts the Ministry of Defence; what I do intend to question is whether the Government are pursuing the best solution.

The defence housing strategy, published last year, offers a familiar formula: it talks of a clearer statutory footing, better focus and an accounting officer with defined responsibility for the housing estate. None of this tells us why the defence housing service, as an arm’s-length body, will succeed where the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has so conspicuously failed. The DIO, too, was created as a discrete organisation with a clear remit, and it has become a byword for bureaucratic unresponsiveness, even, sadly, being nicknamed—not affectionately, I may add—“DI-no”.

The lesson of the failures of the DIO—and, as we must not forget, Annington Homes—is that defence housing needs a different operating model altogether, one genuinely run by people whose entire professional life is housing, and one that is accountable to the families it serves, rather than upward to the department in Whitehall. That is precisely why my party’s alternative is a forces housing association. That would be an organisation modelled on an ordinary housing association, not run for profit, with every pound of revenue reinvested in the housing stock. Its executive leadership would be drawn from the social housing sector rather than the Civil Service, and representatives of each of the three forces families federations would be given a formal seat on its board. That model would give service families something the Bill does not: an institution whose culture, incentives and governance are drawn from the industry that already knows how to run good-quality rental housing well, rather than a new public body. By contrast, a national NDPB brings with it precisely the accountability weaknesses we are all too aware of. I really would appreciate if the Minister could give the House a straight answer to a very simple question: what specific mechanism in the Bill will make service families’ complaints be taken seriously and improve the satisfaction with, and quality of, service family accommodation?

My second point concerns money. I put this to the Committee because a new structure is worthless without the funding to back it up. In their defence housing strategy, the Government promised a 10-year £9 billion programme to upgrade around 43,000 defence homes—roughly nine in 10 of the whole family estate. That was, and remains, a welcome goal. Ministers understandably wanted credit for it; indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the other place repeated these figures with confidence when the Bill was scrutinised in Committee in the other place in the spring. But when the defence investment plan was finally published this summer—nine months late, let us not forget—we learned that refurbishment work on some of the worst properties, the very homes surveyed and found to require substantial work or complete rebuilding, has been pushed back to fund other priorities within that plan. Antony Cotton, the campaigner who had fronted the Government’s own publicity for this programme, said plainly that families would feel let down. He had told them, in his words, that their homes were “on the horizon”. Now, sadly, that horizon has swiftly receded.

My right honourable friend Mark Francois pressed the Minister for the Armed Forces repeatedly in Committee in the other place on exactly this point: the gap between the confident figure given by the Ministers in the spring and the reality that emerged a few months later once the defence investment plan was published. We have seen this pattern all too often with this Government, not least on the path to 3%. They make an announcement with headline-grabbing numbers and reassure us that everything is in hand, but, with depressing predictability, they end up pushing everything back because they cannot get a grip on the welfare budget. In a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, the Minister stated that:

“The Ministry of Defence will publish its delivery timeline for the £9.2 billion Defence Housing Strategy over the next 12 months”.


Respectfully, this is simply more delay with the money. The housing strategy was published in November last year. Why have the Government not established a delivery timeline already, and why will it take yet another 12 months just to publish the delivery timeline, yet alone begin with the investment?

That matters directly, because we are being asked to approve the creation of an entirely new statutory body to deliver a programme whose funding has already been rewritten within months of being announced, before the body designed to deliver it has even been established. If the Government cannot hold to their own funding timetable under the current arrangements, no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix that. Without funds that the Government promised, this is a chimera—a verbal soufflé. I ask the Minister this again, directly: can the Government confirm today, on the record, that the £9 billion and the 43,000 homes remain their firm commitment on the original 10-year timetable? Can the Minister explain why service families should have confidence that the new body created for the Bill will succeed in fixing the standard of their housing?

I do not oppose the reform of defence housing delivery; I oppose the assumption that the creation of yet another arm’s-length body will solve anything. I did warn of my scepticism on this proposal, but I feel a lot better having shared it with the Committee.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

27: Clause 16, page 36, line 22, leave out paragraph (b)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of the Lord Bishop of Norwich, seek to remove the requirement that an offence must be a “serious offence” for a Provost Marshal to be the appropriate authority and instead allow the Provost Marshal to be an appropriate authority in all service offences.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I will speak also to Amendments 28 to 34 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. I declare an interest, both for this series of amendments and for my contributions in Committee earlier today, as the father of a soldier. The amendments I am proposing are all interlinked and aim to give service police the same authority to authorise and/or request pre-charge custody as is given to commanding officers in all offences. I am grateful to the Minister for his work on the Bill and for the generosity of his time in speaking to me over the weekend about the amendments in my name.

The Bill initiates the change to give service police power to authorise custody in some circumstances. This is a very welcome change and a step in the right direction in making service police investigations truly independent of the chain of command. However, in my view, it does not go far enough by failing to give service police power to authorise custody in all circumstances. The current wording of the Bill allows service police to authorise custody only for specific offences while allowing the commanding officer to authorise custody in all circumstances.

The Bill creates the definition of “serious offence” in Clause 16(3), which sets out the offences that service police can authorise custody for. However, this definition does not include key offences such as battery, harassment and stalking, as has already been mentioned, even in the case of domestic abuse. It does not include theft, even in high-value cases, nor the vast majority of military conduct offences. The definition of “serious offence” is different from “serious service offence”, which is defined in the Armed Forces (Powers of Stop and Search, Search, Seizure and Retention) Order 2009. This definition is used by service police to authorise searches upon arrest. It gives a far simpler definition of offences to include those offences and specific military conduct offences that are indictable. These differences will create additional complexity and bureaucracy for service police acting in very dynamic arrest situations and increase the risk of authorisations for custody and/or searches being made incorrectly when the definitions are so similar.

The provision to allow service police to authorise custody for serious offences is a partial step to give service police greater parity with their civilian counterparts. It is noted that the authority will likely be delegated only to OF-2s—Royal Navy lieutenants, Army captains or RAF flight lieutenants—within the service police. The civilian rank to authorise custody is a sergeant for all offences, a rank and responsibility level significantly lower than that of an OF-2. The provision also gives the service police authority to authorise custody and reduces the following risks about availability, sufficient understanding and impartiality, which are frequently experienced. I will briefly go through each of those.

First, on availability, it is a regular occurrence that commanding officers or their delegated representatives are not contactable by telephone at night and at weekends. This means that service police have to physically attend commanding officers’ houses to gain custody authorisation. When some service police shifts have only three personnel covering a huge regional area—there are five regions covering the entirety of the UK—this can delay other vital investigative actions, such as victim engagement and contact, recovery of forensic evidence and/or the conducting of searches.

Having sufficient understanding is the second point. At the moment there is an issue of some commanding officers and their delegated officers not having sufficient training in their powers. This has led to authorisations of custody being delayed as they seek further advice and, on rare occasions, custody not being authorised without significant pressure from RMP senior officers explaining the obstruction that will be caused to an investigation by not authorising custody. The intent of the Bill to allow service police OF-2s and higher to authorise custody will mean that custody will be authorised by personnel specifically trained to deal with these circumstances.

Finally, there is impartiality. An additional issue is the conflict of interest posed by allowing commanding officers or their delegated representatives to have sole decision-making on authorising custody. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke eloquently and movingly about this area on the previous group. While most officers within the Armed Forces can appropriately be entirely impartial, there have been occasions when clear conflicts of interest have arisen. There is a significant reputational risk to the Armed Forces in this current arrangement, I suggest. Giving additional powers of authority to service police will negate the risks of conflicts of interest by ensuring that an independent service police officer can authorise custody in all circumstances.

I assure the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the proposed amendments standing in my name do not remove the ability of a commanding officer to authorise custody. None of these amendments removes their jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing. None of these amendments changes the current situation of the case eventually being referred to the CO to consider a charge. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to give my verbal support to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which I have co-signed. I did so precisely because I think there are areas that need to be further explored. In particular, the points that he raised so eloquently need to be considered. To what extent are commanding officers or their delegated officers going to be available at precisely the sort of time when there might be a need for considering custody? It might well be the time that commanding officers are not available. It would be much more sensible to have a single approach where we have police who have the training and who understand what the requirements are.

There is also the issue of impartiality, which came up in the previous group of amendments. Although I understand the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about taking commanding officers out of the equation, there might at times also be a case for a degree of objectivity. These amendments seem to be straightforward, logical and arguably desirable, so I now expect the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to explain to us why they do not quite think this is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise again to the Committee for going through this in significant detail but, as we continue our discussions around this, I thought it important to lay out the Government’s view and the rationale for some of the changes we are making with respect to provost marshals in serious cases and for retaining the authority of the commanding officer with respect to summary cases: in particular, trying to resolve the need to move quickly because of some of the serious crimes that the new Defence Serious Crime Command is dealing with, while not undermining the authority and operational effectiveness of the commanding officer. With that, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for agreeing to look further at the availability of commanding officers. We should remember that, very often, it is their delegated person being dealt with. They can frequently not have had their required training in this area, which means that it is actually the Military Police advising the delegated person to make the decision to tell the Military Police. There are some things to explore there within the Ministry of Defence and I am grateful that the noble Lord has agreed to look at that further.

The key thing here is speed and simplicity. Both are needed in the custody process so that there is justice for all and decisions are made in a timely way, so that the due process can happen. I am grateful to the other speakers—to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support and to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her very considered reflections and challenge. I look forward to seeing how this progresses with the Minister’s response and I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

59: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Impersonation of service police(1) Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (impersonation, etc.) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “force” insert “including service police”.(3) In subsection (2), after “force” insert “including service police”.(4) In subsection (3), after “force” insert “including service police”.(5) In subsection (4), at end insert—“(c) “service police” has the same meaning as in section 375 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (definitions relating to the service police and other police forces).””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to amend section 90 of the Police Act 1996 to make impersonating a service police officer a specific offence and afford service police the same protections against impersonation given to their civilian counterparts.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I will also speak to Amendment 60 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their support. I declare an interest as the father of a soldier.

The amendments that I am proposing aim to give the same protections to service police in the conduct of their duties as those afforded to their civilian counterparts. Amendment 59 would include service police in the offence of impersonating a police officer in the Police Act 1996. Amendment 60 would give service police the status of “emergency worker” within the meaning in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Both amendments are structured to amend the existing civilian criminal legislation, rather than to create additional service offences. The purpose of this is to ensure that these protections apply to both military and civilian offenders.

Service police operate both behind the wire and on the streets of Britain, where they respond to incidents involving both the military and civilians. They police high-profile events such as significant military funerals, large-scale ceremonial occasions and, for example, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, as well as Friday nights in garrison towns, when things can get quite lively. They do not have a choice as to what incidents they come across on their patrol and must be prepared to act, including using lawful force, to prevent crime and harm to others, no matter who is involved. This inevitably puts service police at risk of being assaulted when on duty.

Few service police officers know colleagues, if not themselves, who have not been assaulted while on duty. Currently, if a member of the service police is assaulted on duty, there are none of the enhanced sentencing powers afforded through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which would be used if a civilian police officer had a similar assault. Service police are asked to face similar risks as civilian police and other emergency workers, yet they are not protected in the same way. That strikes me as unjust.

Amendment 60 would add service police to the definition of “emergency worker”. The adoption of this amendment would act as a deterrent against assaulting service police, and, where assaults do occur, would give enhanced sentencing powers to deal with offenders to the same standard as if the assault were against a civilian police officer.

Similarly, Amendment 59 aims to give service police protection against impersonation by both military personnel and civilians. At present, it is not a specific offence to impersonate a service police officer. Service personnel who do so are currently prosecuted under the military offence of “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline”, while there is no equivalent legislation to deal with civilians who impersonate service police officers.

For both military and civilian offenders, this is a gap in legislation that could allow—and does allow—for the abuse of service police powers by impersonation without appropriate consequences. In recent years, offenders have avoided prosecution due to this gap in legislation, which I believe needs to be closed through an amendment to the civilian criminal legislation in the Police Act 1996, rather than through additional service offences. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have had a number of conversations with him about this outside the Chamber. I have asked my officials to look at his Amendment 59, with respect to the impersonation of a member of the service police, and at Amendment 60, which would add service police to the list of emergency workers regarding assault. I will take those forward but to be clear, I cannot promise what the outcome will be. I personally think there is a problem with these two issues, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him to see whether we can come forward with something at Report to plug what appear to be two gaps in the legislation.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her brevity at this late hour when many of us want to be tucked up in bed. It was worth staying up to hear the analysis of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. That was particularly helpful regarding the different jurisdictions around these islands, especially the potential for amending laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this Bill and for giving the commitment that he has to your Lordships’ House to look at this in further detail. My understanding is that the Service Protection Authority has given legal advice that it does not believe that service police fall under the definition of emergency workers. That is all part of the conversation to go on as this Bill progresses towards Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.