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.

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

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.

Defence Investment Plan

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an interesting idea. Indeed, the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out the contribution that many departments, not just the MoD, will make to homeland defence and the protection of critical defence infrastructure. In terms of what happens to the budgets, there will clearly have to be more co-ordination and work between government departments if we are to ensure that homeland defence and the security of our nation is what we want it to be.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the answers he has given so far. I want to ask a question about service personnel retention; I declare an interest as the father of a soldier. The defence investment plan primarily addresses equipment, procurement and investment in research. However, one of the greatest challenges we face with the Armed Forces is retention and the general health and well-being of service people. Currently, the outflow before the end of their agreed engagement or commission stands at around 6%. What more can the Minister and His Majesty’s Government do to retain and support our service community?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are taking a lot of action on recruitment and retention. To give a couple of examples in the short time I have, the announcement last week about the further increase to Armed Forces personnel pay was important, showing that the Government support and respect the work they do. There is also the work we are doing on military housing; that is an important statement as well. We are taking a variety of measures in a variety of ways to ensure the value that we all place upon our Armed Forces personnel.

Middle East: Defence

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a very important question. Of course we speak to the United States. The permissions we have given are very clear. Nobody wants to see civilian casualties, and we talk to the Americans about the need for careful targeting and to ensure that any potential impact on civilians is minimised. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I am sure we all share.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, as other Members of the House have done, I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As the father of a soldier, I am acutely aware of what the families at Akrotiri in Cyprus are going through at the moment. I am sure they are being well supported by chaplains in the Armed Forces, just as many of the communities in the Gulf will be being supported by Anglican and other denomination chaplains serving in the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. I am grateful to the Minister for the briefing that was given yesterday at the Ministry of Defence. I found it immensely helpful and it gave me assurance about the preparedness that had gone on over the last few weeks.

However, when we focus on one conflict, we tend to take our eye off the ball of other conflicts, and I am very worried about what is now happening in Ukraine—I am sure we are still as committed to supporting the people of Ukraine—but also elsewhere. I hear increasing reports of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Six Palestinians were killed by settler militia armed by the IDF in the first week of the war with Iran. In Qaryut, two brothers were killed a week last Monday and three others were injured simply because they were trying to protect their olive groves. Settlers are taking advantage and acting with impunity under the cover of this war. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in other places where we have a strategic interest, or a deep concern for the people, we are not taking our eye off the ball, particularly in the West Bank, where this further violence is reducing yet more the possibility of a two-state solution?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for the point about the briefing. We try to have as many briefings as we can so that people can keep up to date with the MoD’s thinking, and then they can make up their own minds. I join in him recognising the support that chaplains and other faith leaders give people in conflict, as well as the Armed Forces. That is a very important point to make.

Of course, our focus also remains on Ukraine. The MoD will be visiting the High North in the not-too-distant future. All of that is going on. He also made the point that, of course our focus at the moment with respect to the Middle East is on Iran, but that does not alter the fact that there are continuing issues with respect to Gaza and the West Bank. Tomorrow, I am seeing the Lebanese ambassador to talk to her about some of the issues occurring with Israel, the south of Lebanon and Hezbollah. So, it is quite right to say that, and we will continue to work with others to ensure that these other conflicts and problems, while they may not be in the headlines, are not forgotten and also need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the way in which he has engaged with us on the Bill and, in particular listened well in the scrutiny stages.

These amendments are important because whistleblowing provides an important safety valve, especially for those who are vulnerable or whose experiences of poor behaviour from others make them vulnerable. Armed Forces chaplains regularly hear concerns in their pastoral work, but I am told that those bringing these concerns can often fear reporting them. A whistleblowing function would reduce that fear of making a complaint or fear of the impact on one’s future career, or enable a family member to have a voice they might not otherwise have.

As your Lordships have already heard, Amendment 3 keeps the function within the definition and boundaries of the Bill while not overstretching the commissioner. It should be noted that the German armed forces commissioner has a whistleblowing function within their role, and that German model has been upheld in your Lordships’ House as an example of good practice. If, as part of this Bill, we want to ensure a positive culture, positive attitudes and positive behaviours within the Armed Forces, these amendments will support that endeavour.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, not least because the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill are ones with which agree.

When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate—which is worth having, without a doubt, and raises serious issues—can he reassure the House, first, that the commissioner will have the powers she or he needs to investigate, whether in individual or thematic investigations? Secondly, can he confirm that the amendment we are considering, however well-intentioned, which it clearly is, does not in fact add anything to the powers the commissioner already has under the Bill? Thirdly, can he say something about the role of anonymity in relation to these matters? I think there is a common concern around the House that people should feel able to raise matters in that way.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 8 and 9 in this group, in the name of my noble friends Lord Minto and Lady Goldie and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am really grateful, as I am sure a lot of members of the Committee are, to the Royal British Legion for its briefing on this. I speak as someone who was privileged to lead the legion’s public affairs team when we persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—David Cameron as he then was, the Prime Minister—to enshrine the covenant’s principles in law. I am particularly proud to have played a small part in that. I also very much welcome the consensus that now exists, both in this Committee and, I believe, across the House, on the commitment to ensuring that the principles of the covenant are honoured.

I wonder whether we can simply consider these amendments to be, as I think they are, self-explanatory and logical. The issues they relate to are the provision and operation of the continuity of education allowance and tuition for children with SEND, which, as my noble friend Lord Minto mentioned, is so important and is related to an issue on which your Lordships’ House voted so overwhelmingly to ask the Government to think again—specifically in relation to non-domestic rating and private schools—only yesterday. These are important and crucial welfare issues, and they should be explicitly included within the provisions of the Bill, as should provisions for pensions and death-in-service benefits to serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants.

I hope very much that the Minister will listen to the Committee—and also to the legion, as the voice of the Armed Forces family—and accept Amendments 8 and 9 in this group.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the reflections that he has offered the Committee. I rise to support Amendments 8 and 9. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for outlining their thinking around this issue because it goes to the heart of how we as a nation care for and see the well-being of our Armed Forces and their families, as part of the whole package that we offer to them.

As I think noble Lords know, I speak as the father of a member of the Armed Forces. It is often said that a parent is only as happy as their least happy child. On one level, I can imagine that it is also true that a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces is only as happy as their least happy family member. So there is a pastoral duty here—one that is supported by many in the Armed Forces, including welfare organisations and our military chaplains—but both these amendments would help us really state the pastoral support that we as a nation feel is important for not only our Armed Forces personnel but their children, their families and their dependants.

As has already been said by other noble Lords, continuity of education is vital for a family that may often move around a lot during the career of service personnel, when one or both of the parents may be on deployment. We must not forget the small number of wonderful state boarding schools that offer important support for service families.

Moving on to tied accommodation, as somebody who has lived in tied accommodation all my professional life—most of it much more modest than what I live in at the moment—I know that the maintenance of tied accommodation and responsiveness to its condition and repairs has an impact on the state of morale of a family, and I am pleased to see that that is also mentioned, as are special education needs. Such needs are an issue not only when forces families move between different places and between different local authorities; this is also about CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services. Often, the waiting list is two to three years. Moving out of an area has a profound impact on families in terms of getting crucial support for young people who are often in a very difficult state and who need support as soon as possible.

On Amendment 9, the reality is that many Armed Forces families live with, right at the back of their minds, an ongoing sense of, “Will I get a knock in the middle of the night?” The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has already spoken about the injustice of what is being built in here. We significantly need the Minister to look at this—I urge him to do so—so that that injustice is removed. If you go to the National Memorial Arboretum, there is an incredible memorial right in the centre where the names of those who have lost their lives are carved into the Portland stone, and then there is a part of the wall that is totally flat and bare; it is very moving to move your hand along it and on to that flat stone awaiting, God forbid, future names.

We owe to the Armed Forces and their families a sense of care if there is a need for a death in duty payment. So I am really grateful for the way in which the Minister has engaged around the Bill and engaged us in a really thoughtful discussion and debate about it. I look forward to hearing his comments.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendments 11 and 12. It would be impossible to argue that the commissioner should not support the interests of women and minority groups, but I am not sure that this level of prescription, particularly in Amendment 11, serves the Bill well. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about the volume of work that the commissioner will already inherit from the ombudsman, and there will be a lot of work on top of that.

I am a founder member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, so I obviously would want every public office to bear in mind and have due regard to the interests of those who have protected characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the public sector equality duty, so that takes care of that aspect of their work. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may come back to me and say that that does not necessarily guarantee that the level of focus that she would rightly like to see paid to the problems that some minority groups experience in their armed service life will be fully taken care of in the way that she would want from this amendment.

But my general point in arguing that the amendment may not sit well in the Bill is that one of the perennial themes of debate on the Bill, both here and in the other place, has been the much-welcomed independence of the Armed Forces commissioner. Independence implies a degree of freedom, discretion and flexibility. Therefore, it does not fit well with that level of independence to prescribe how that particular function would be carried out in such detail, in the way that this amendment does.

I have seen a lot of equality and diversity programmes that specify a lot of detail. The end result has been that, when it comes to the end of the year and the prescribed annual report is published, it is little more than a tick-box exercise, and we would not want that to be the consequence of an amendment like this. For that reason, I reluctantly find myself unable to support these two amendments.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. I saw it as a very positive step that the Labour Party pledged in its 2024 general election manifesto to establish an independent Armed Forces commissioner to improve service life.

I declare an interest as the father of a soldier. While my own son is enjoying his Army career and gaining much from it, previous speeches in your Lordships’ House and in the other place have cited record lows in morale and a crisis in recruitment and retention as driving this need for a strong, independent voice to represent the needs of service personnel and their families. So I see it as a very positive step forward that the Bill will enable any personnel or their families to raise a service welfare matter with the proposed commissioner, wherever in the world that matter may have taken place.

Service personnel and their families give much to this nation, as has already been said in your Lordships’ House. Much of that is unseen and can impact on extended family members, who often give unstinting support to loved ones during deployments and at other times. Personnel and their families never know what is around the corner or what might be expected of them, as we know all too well at present.

One restriction of the present system with the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman is that families of personnel are currently unable to submit a complaint. I am therefore pleased to see, in the Explanatory Notes, that His Majesty’s Government are speaking of the commissioner as a new, direct and independent contact point for serving personnel and their families, all outside the chain of command, to raise issues that impact them. The new commissioner, rightly, needs to champion our Armed Forces and, for the first time, to be a champion for Armed Forces families.

I am interested to discover how the role of the commissioner will be different from that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman as far as families are concerned, especially where there may well be a culture of not wishing to report or to raise concerns as it might impact negatively on a career, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

What will be key is that the Bill results in a culture change, whereby reporting or raising concerns becomes recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and the continuous improvement of the welfare and well-being of personnel. As the Royal British Legion has said:

“Absolute clarity is required from the outset of this new role, so that the remit is fully understood by Armed Forces personnel and their families, and expectations are set at the correct level”.


I welcome that the Minister has already spoken about independence, and I very much align with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on that independent role. I will also be looking, in the person specification for this new role, for someone who has good experience and is well-qualified in handling disputes and working around mediation. The commissioner must be resourced sufficiently to be reactive and responsive. The commissioner also needs to work with compassion; it is from compassion that things will change on the ground. That will involve the commissioner working alongside a number of others, including not only those within the chain of command but welfare groups and chaplains.

I will offer a brief comment on the invaluable work of Armed Forces chaplains, who are embedded with their flock on deployment and often live alongside them, perhaps with their families on the naval base, at the Army camp or at the Air Force station. A week last Monday, I had the immense privilege of spending the third anniversary of the terrible invasion of Ukraine with the chaplain of the Irish Guards, alongside Australian and Ukrainian chaplains, for a service with a significant number of Ukrainians, who were training in deepest Norfolk on a five-week course to prepare them to go back to Ukraine. It was one of the most poignant and moving services that I have attended: Ukrainians and their allies together remembering the immense sacrifices that have already been made.

This is the bread-and-butter stuff of Armed Forces chaplains. They accompany an officer who has bad news for a family. They listen to a young recruit working out if this career is for them. They quietly let the commanding officer know that the person she is about to see has something going on in their private life. They sit consoling personnel who have just lost a comrade and need to go back on patrol. They anoint the injured and pray for the dead. They ensure that families have someone to turn to when the clay beneath their feet begins to wobble. On this Ash Wednesday, Christian chaplains will be marking the beginning of Lent. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that the work of chaplains, of all faiths, is a crucial investment in the well-being of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families.

I have three questions. First, how does he expect the proposed commissioner to work with chaplains as part of their brief? Secondly, how does he expect the proposed commissioner to align their work with the UK Armed Forces Families Strategy 2022 to 2032? Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the Bill does not give an exact definition of family members, so what does the Minister think about that? For example, might it be appropriate to include the bereaved siblings of service members? Overall, though, I support and thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think my noble friend has answered his own question. I thank him for that. The important point to make is that, when we came into government, we were determined to ensure that the recommendations of various public sector pay bodies were met in full. The pay recommendations of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body were met in full and that was an important statement made by the Government about the importance not only of public service workers in general but of the Armed Forces personnel who serve our country.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, as the father of a soldier, I am particularly interested in this topic, particularly where both parents are serving in the Armed Forces, often in different locations. What assessment has the Minister made of confidence in the Armed Forces covenant with this change?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I go back to the answer I gave before. If the Government were taking no action with respect to the increase in fees resulting from the VAT increase, that would no doubt be a matter for concern and consideration in this Chamber. The fact of the matter, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, is that the Government have continued with the policy that existed under the previous Government where up to 90% of the fees of eligible children are to be met through the continuity of education allowance. That policy is important and has not changed. We will continue that policy, because we recognise the sacrifice that is sometimes made by Armed Forces personnel who, because of their duty, have to move regularly between different bases or between bases here and bases abroad.