Child Protection – The Church of England in Parliament

Church Commissioners Written Questions: Christianity in Palestine, Child Protection, Poverty

On 16th October 2025, the Second Church Estates Commissioners, Marsha De Cordova MP, gave the following written answers to questions from MPs:

Christianity: Palestine

Richard Baker MP (Lab, Glenrothes and Mid Fife): To ask the hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, what support the Church of England is providing to Christians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Bishop of Chelmsford asks about safeguarding victims of child criminal exploitation

The Bishop of Chelmsford asked a question on introducing a legal definition of child criminal exploitation on 24th February 2025, during a discussion on county lines drug trafficking:

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces new offences, which appear to have no connection to immigration, of possessing any specified article that might be used in connection with any serious offence. What safeguards does the Minister think need to be in that Bill to prevent the needless criminalisation of children? Does he agree that a legal definition of child criminal exploitation might help in that?

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Manchester tables motions to limit detention of children and ensure safe accommodation

During a debate on Commons Amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill on 12th July 2023, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of his motion K1, which would include an amendment to limit the amount of time a child could be kept in detention under the bill, and his motion N2, on safe accommodation for unaccompanied children:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support for my Motion K1, even though I suspect we would both prefer his stronger Motion. I also welcome the government amendments that would allow an unaccompanied child to seek bail after eight days if they have been detained for removal.

I struggle to see why similar rules should not apply to all children. Hence, Motion K1 seeks to rectify the unreasoned omission of children who are with their families. It proposes a 24-hour extension to the current statutory 72-hour time limit for detention of children with families. Hence, the detention of these children would not be indefinite but be for no more than 96 hours or, if a Minister personally approved it, for no more than seven days. This seems a fair and reasonable change and I urge the Government to seriously reflect on it. I really cannot see that it is morally justified not to have equal provisions for children with families and those who are alone; one child is not different from another.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Manchester tables motion to maintain safeguards for unaccompanied children

On 12th July 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of motion A1, moved by Baroness Chakrabarti, to insert a new clause into the bill which would stipulate that the UK must abide by international obligations, and in support of his motion U1, which would propose that removal of putative children should be delayed until judicial review of disputed age assessments had been completed:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I support Motion A1 but will speak more particularly to Motion U1 in my name, to which the noble Baroness just referred. It proposes that if an age-assessment judicial review is in progress, removal should be delayed until its completion. I welcome comments from Ministers that those subject to an age dispute will be accommodated in an age-appropriate setting here in the UK, but can the Minister confirm that will be the case in a third country? Will Rwanda, for example, be informed that a young person is subject to an age dispute, and will the Rwandan Government then be required by the UK to keep that person separate from other adult residents and to supervise them properly as a child until the courts have made a judgment?

Bishop of Chichester asks about missing asylum-seeking children

On 10th July 2023, the Bishop of Chichester asked a question on the plans for accommodation of asylum seeking children who are found after going missing from Home Office accommodation, and whether the government could confirm that such children would be returned to local authority care rather than the care of the Home Office:

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, our duty of care in the welfare of children is provided for in a number of ways: the Children Act is one, as is the routine of Ofsted inspections of schools and children’s care homes. Can the Minister confirm that, if an asylum-seeking unaccompanied child is found after going missing from Home Office accommodation, they will not be returned to hotel accommodation but instead will be returned to local authority care, where all their rights under the Children Act can be met and the quality of their accommodation will be subject to Ofsted regulation and inspection?

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham moves amendment to ensure safeguarding of migrant children in local authority care

On 3rd July 2023, during a debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Durham tabled amendment 89, which would “limit the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority care and into accommodation provided by the Secretary of State, by providing that they may only do so where to do so is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.”

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 89, and I am grateful to my noble friends from differing Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic—for their support. It is a damning indictment that an amendment of this nature is even required, as it proposes such a basic safeguard to ensure the well-being of unaccompanied children. It requires that, if a child is to be transferred from local authority child protection systems, a justification should be provided as to why it is in their best interests to be looked after by the Home Office rather than the local authority.

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Oxford supports amendments to protect children from online pornography

On 23rd May 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Online Safety Bill in committee. The Bishop of Oxford spoke in support of amendments tabled by himself, Lord Bethell, and Baroness Kidron, which would institute greater protections for children to prevent them from accessing online pornography:

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it is such a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I pay tribute to her years of campaigning on this issue and the passion with which she spoke today. It is also a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in supporting all the amendments in this group. They are vital to this Bill, as all sides of this Committee agree. They all have my full support.

When I was a child, my grandparents’ home, like most homes, was heated by a coal fire. One of the most vital pieces of furniture in any house where there were children in those days was the fireguard. It was there to prevent children getting too near to the flame and the smoke, either by accident or by design. It needed to be robust, well secured and always in position, to prevent serious physical harm. You might have had to cut corners on various pieces of equipment for your house, but no sensible family would live without the best possible fireguard they could find.

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Gloucester backs amendments to increase safety duties to children

On 2nd May 2023, the House of Lords debated the Online Safety Bill in the fourth day of committee. The Bishop of Gloucester spoke in support of amendments to the bill that would “amend the safety duties to children to consider all harms, not just harmful content”, including amendment 261 in the name of the Bishop of Oxford:

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that, with regard to safety by design, will address functionality and harms—whatever exactly we mean by that—as well as child safety duties and codes of practice. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, have laid things out very clearly, and I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a happy birthday.

I also support Amendment 261 in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to consider safety by design, and not just content, when reviewing the regime.

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Guildford speaks in favour of amendments on child protection

On 27th April 2023, the House of Lords debated the Online Safety Bill in committee. The Bishop of Guildford spoke on behalf of the Bishop of Derby on amendments to the bill that she had tabled concerning protection of children from exploitation and trafficking:

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 128, 130 and 132, as well as Amendments 143 to 153 in this grouping. They were tabled in the name of my right reverend colleague the Bishop of Derby, who is sorry that she cannot be here today.

The Church of England is the biggest provider of youth provision in our communities and educates around 1 million of our nation’s children. My colleague’s commitment to the principles behind these amendments also springs from her experience as vice chair of the Children’s Society. The amendments in this grouping are intended to strengthen legislation on online grooming for the purpose of child criminal exploitation, addressing existing gaps and ensuring that children are properly protected. They are also intended to make it easier for evidence of children being groomed online for criminal exploitation to be reported by online platforms to the police and the National Crime Agency.

Research from 2017 shows that one in four young people reported seeing illicit drugs advertised for sale on social media—a percentage that is likely to be considerably higher six years on. According to the Youth Endowment Fund in 2022, 20% of young people reported having seen online content promoting gang membership in the preceding 12 months, with 24% reporting content involving the carrying, use or promotion of weapons.

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Oxford supports amendments on preventing harms to children

On 25th April 2023, the House of Lords debated the Online Safety Bill in committee. The Bishop of Oxford spoke in the debate, in support of various amendments to the bill that would extend protections for children against online harms:

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses. I remind the Committee of my background as a board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I also declare an indirect interest, as my oldest son is the founder and studio head of Mediatonic, which is now part of Epic Games and is the maker of “Fall Guys”, which I am sure is familiar to your Lordships.

I speak today in support of Amendments 2 and 92 and the consequent amendments in this group. I also support the various app store amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, but I will not address them directly in these remarks.

I was remarkably encouraged on Wednesday by the Minister’s reply to the debate on the purposes of the Bill, especially by the priority that he and the Government gave to the safety of children as its primary purpose. The Minister underlined this point in three different ways:

“The main purposes of the Bill are: to give the highest levels of protection to children … The Bill will require companies to take stringent measures to tackle illegal content and protect children, with the highest protections in the Bill devoted to protecting children … Children’s safety is prioritised throughout this Bill”.—[Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 724.]

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: