Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the Abuse Redress Measure, which is also in my name on the Order Paper.

The Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure is in one sense just a tidying up of a small area of ecclesiastical law, but in a wider and more important way it is enabling and supportive of the essential work carried out by Church of England chaplains to His Majesty’s forces, to whom I am sure we all want to pay tribute. For over a century, forces chaplains have been issued with licences by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving them ecclesiastical authority to exercise ministry in that role. However, recent work by the provincial registrars has identified a gap in the relevant statutory and canonical 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 is to exercise ministry. Not only would that give rise to a significant burden on bishops and their offices but, more significantly, it would cause problems for the Armed Forces, not least because chaplains need to be able to move with and minister to military personnel wherever they are currently serving, and sometimes to do so at some speed. It is impractical for them to seek a further authority to exercise ministry each time the service men and women they minister to move to a different part of the country. This Measure addresses that in a straightforward way by inserting a new section headed “Armed Forces chaplains” in the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967.

That Measure already covers ministry exercised outside the parish context; for example, in hospitals, prisons, universities and schools. The Measure will provide a new statutory power enabling the Archbishop of Canterbury to license forces chaplains to exercise ministry in that capacity: that is, in the exercise of the role of chaplain to which they have been commissioned or appointed under the King’s regulations for the relevant service. When exercising ministry under the Archbishop’s licence, a forces chaplain will not need any further authority, either from the bishop of the diocese or from the minister of the parish where the chaplain’s ministry is exercised. That would apply only where he or she was acting in the capacity of a forces chaplain. Any other ministry an individual chaplain might exercise—for example, preaching at a parish church—would remain subject to the usual rules about authority and permission to exercise ministry in a diocese and parish. I hope your Lordships will look favourably on this simple but necessary provision.

Turning to the Abuse Redress Measure, it seems appropriate that we are discussing this now after the powerful Committee stage debate that we have just experienced. The Abuse Redress Measure and associated draft rules lay the groundwork for the Church of England to deliver a redress scheme and confer the necessary legislative power on the Archbishops’ Council to delegate decision-making to a third party. In introducing it, I repeat the Church’s tribute to those victims and survivors who have continued to give their time and energy to the process of developing this Measure despite the harm which the Church has caused them. I add my own warm personal thanks to them for that assistance.

The Church recognises its lamentable failings, which have made it possible for some people to abuse others while others in the Church of England have been reluctant to face up to unpalatable truths and avoided confronting difficult and painful situations openly and candidly. The Measure and draft rules before your Lordships comprise important elements of trying to right those wrongs. In saying that, the Church, of course, must recognise that, for many survivors, the wait for redress has been too long in coming.

Since the commencement of the scheme’s development in 2021, the Church has sought to work through some complex and novel questions, wishing to give careful consideration to the views of victims and survivors. The Church has intentionally adopted a person-centred approach, which enshrines—indeed, in the first section of the Measure—“dignity, respect and compassion” at its heart, and which, considered as a whole, allows for more generosity than the alternative of litigation. Perhaps most crucially, it has been designed to look and feel different from litigation. The scheme is not designed to mirror a court of law or require a decision-maker to resolve triable issues, for which reason the scheme’s arrangements do not incorporate all these features, such as disclosure and cross-examination, which noble Lords would expect in an adversarial process, which this is not.

The Church has reflected carefully on the eligibility conditions and has sought to find the right balance, which provides that the scheme responds where a failure within the Church has been the effective cause of abuse but not, of course, otherwise. The Church has also sought to be clear about the nature of abuse, which is in scope, while allowing for appropriate flexibility to respond appropriately in particular cases, taking into account the personal experience of each victim and survivor.

The scheme provides that applicants should have available independent legal and financial advice if they wish to receive it, but not at a level which allows legal fees to consume a disproportionate amount of the redress fund, to the detriment of 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 and which allows the General Synod to extend the lifetime of the scheme if it appears necessary to do so.

In closing, I recognise that this Measure does not and could not meet every person’s hopes, but it is notable for having commanded overwhelming support at General Synod. I ask your Lordships’ House to recognise that there are many victims and survivors who want the Church earnestly and finally to meet its commitment to provide redress. I know that there are survivors watching now who look forward very much, according to your Lordships’ pleasure, to this Measure receiving Royal Assent. As noble Lords will be aware, the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered both these Measures and found them to be expedient. I am very grateful to the committee for its careful consideration. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for bringing these two Measures to your Lordships’ House. I will address the Abuse Redress Measure first.

This is yet another Measure that we have recently discussed in the Ecclesiastical Committee—one of a number of crucial pieces of legislation which the Church is putting in place to address the unacceptable and disgraceful past experiences of survivors of abuse perpetrated by Church personnel, both priests and lay members. Under the exceptional guidance of our chair, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, we are slowly making our way towards some resolution of painful incidents, some of which happened many years ago.

The Abuse Redress Measure seeks to bring in a redress scheme, as we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, which enables the Archbishops’ Council to delegate decision-making on cases to a third party. This scheme, long in the production, has the approval of almost all parts which make up the General Synod. However, when we looked closely at the scheme, members asked many searching questions of the Church representatives, not least around transparency and the need to have independent observance of the scheme to ensure equity and speed of redress.

The Church of England’s dire handling of abuse issues has prompted urgent calls for it to quickly put into place a scheme which recognised its failings and offered compensation to the victims affected by the appalling behaviour of some clergy. Their pain and suffering needed to be addressed urgently. As we have heard, the scheme is not intended to mirror a court of law, but responds whenever there is a failure within the Church if it has been the cause of abuse. Applicants will be offered independent legal and financial advice in order to bring their case forward, and a review process whereby the General Synod will hold the Archbishops’ Council accountable for the operation of the scheme is proposed. Many victims and survivors have waited years for such legislation and, although it is not perfect, it begins to address some of their concerns. As we have heard, we deemed it expedient.

The second Measure before us, and I will be brief, is the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure, which simply seeks to address a rather odd problem which has been occurring for years, and which this Measure had to be brought forward to correct. Chaplains play a very important role in the armed services. This tidying-up and simplifying legislation avoids the need for a chaplain to get the permission of another bishop, in whose diocese he might be present, to officiate in his or her role as army chaplain. The Measure provides a statutory basis for the current custom and practice, whereby the Archbishop of Canterbury licenses chaplains to His Majesty’s forces, giving them ecclesiastical authority to exercise the Church’s ministry in that role, without them having to also seek permission from the diocesan bishop to exercise their ministry as an Armed Forces chaplain in the area in which they find themselves. This is a wholly sensible and necessary Measure to which all members of the General Synod agreed. We certainly deemed it expedient when we addressed it in committee, and I commend it to the House.