Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455)

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

[The Chair]

I call the Second Church Estates Commissioner to move the first motion and to speak to both Measures. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, and then ask the Commissioner to move the second motion formally.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

I beg to move,

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Abuse Redress Measure.

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

[Tessa Munt]

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

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

[Tessa Munt]

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

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

[Tessa Munt]

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

[Marsha De Cordova]

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

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

[The Chair]

Thank you, Commissioner, for responding to that point of order. [Interruption.] Sir Bernard, are you raising another point of order?