children – Page 6 – The Church of England in Parliament

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks to Bishop of Durham’s amendment on detention conditions for vulnerable individuals

On 7th June 2023, during a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of the Bishop of Durham’s amendment 78, which would allow exceptions to the bill’s proposed ouster of judicial review during the first 28 days of detention, for vulnerable individuals such as children, pregnant women, and those with mental health issues:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 78, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who is unable to be here at this early hour. I know that he is grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, for their support.

A statutory regime of clinical screening for people at risk of harm in detention and for healthcare professionals to be able to report concerns to the Home Office has been a cornerstone of safeguarding in immigration detention since 2001—and rightly so. This amendment looks to ensure that this process does not become inconsequential by preventing the necessary legal oversight of detention decisions. Given the technical nature of the issues relating to medical reporting in detention centres, I will focus my comments on the context of this amendment and set out a few key questions for the Minister.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments limiting detention of children on behalf of Bishop of Durham

On 7th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill in Committee. The Bishop of Southwark spoke, on behalf of the Bishop of Durham, in support of a group of amendments tabled by Baroness Mobarik which would place limits on the detention of children:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 which, as has been demonstrated, have strong support from all quarters of this Chamber. It was the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to these amendments but he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight.

I believe that the strength of opposition to any change in the current detention limits for both accompanied and unaccompanied children is because it is one of the most alarming and unedifying provisions in the Bill. Ministers have set out what they see as the need to detain children for immigration purposes in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently create incentives for people smugglers to target vulnerable individuals. Were this the case, then there would be a case for considering some sort of remedy. However, yet again we have been provided with no evidence that this is the case.

Building an asylum system with deterrence diffused throughout, as described by His Majesty’s Government, has led to this inappropriate proposal to restart detaining children, potentially for an unlimited period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, it was a Government led by the party currently in office who took the brave decision to end the routine detention of children. That was against significant departmental pressure to retain the practice. How have we arrived, just 10 years later, at the conclusion that the well-being and welfare of children can now be sacrificed in consequence of the need to control migration?

Bishop of Gloucester asks about extended funding for holiday activity and food programme for children

The Bishop of Gloucester asked about funding for extending the holiday activity and food programme for children during a debate on links between poor health and economic inactivity on 18th May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, we know that food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes. Professor Greta Defeyter found that, for every £1 invested in the holiday activity and food programme, there is a wider economic benefit of £11. Can the Minister confirm whether funding is available to extend that programme beyond next year?

Lord Evans of Rainow (Con): I apologise to the right reverend Prelate, but I am afraid I do not have that information to hand, so I will write to her with an answer.

Hansard

Bishop of Derby asks about numbers of children remanded in custody

The Bishop of Derby received the following written answer on 17th May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Leeds asked His Majesty’s Government how many children are being held on remand in the most recent period for which data is available; and whether they are taking steps to reduce this.

Lord Bellamy (Con, Ministry of Justice): As at 31 March 2023, there were 244 children and young people remanded to custody in the Youth Secure Estate (this figure includes 18-year-olds). Remanding a child to custody must always be a last resort, however that option must remain open to the courts where it is necessary to protect the public.

Bishop of Durham asks about impact of Illegal Migration Bill on children’s rights

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 17th May 2023:

The Lord Bishop Durham asked His Majesty’s Government whether a Child Rights Impact Assessment has been carried out for the Illegal Migration Bill to assess the impact it will have on children; if so, what was the outcome of the assessment; and if it has not yet been completed, when it will take place.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): We will publish a child’s rights impact assessment in respect of the Illegal Migration Bill in due course.

Hansard

Bishop of Durham asks about status of migrants under the proposed Illegal Migration Bill

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 16th May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government when a child is under the care and accommodation of the Home Office, due to the Home Secretary’s duty to detain and remove under clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill, what international or domestic legislation the Home Office is required to meet.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): The duty to make arrangements for the removal of an illegal migrant who meets the conditions in clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill does not apply to unaccompanied children, although clause 3(2) of the Bill confers a power to remove them in the circumstances set out in clause 3(3).

Bishop of St Albans asks about safeguarding absent schoolchildren

The Bishop of St Albans asked about potential safeguarding issues for children persistently absent from school, and support for local social services working to identify these children, during a debate on persistent absences on 2nd May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, this has the potential to be a major safeguarding issue, which many professionals are concerned about. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to help schools work with local social services teams to ensure that we have identified who these children are, that their risk is assessed and that they are given the proper support that they need?

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Oxford supports amendments on online harms

On 27th April 2023, the Bishop of Oxford spoke in committee in support of amendments to the Online Safety Bill that would expand the definition of online harms to children to cover a broader spectrum of potential risk:

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I support Amendments 20, 93 and 123, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Stevenson. I also support Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I pay tribute to the courage of all noble Lords and their teams, and of the Minister and the Bill team, for their work on this part of the Bill. This work involves the courage to dare to look at some very difficult material that, sadly, shapes the everyday life of too many young people. This group of amendments is part of a package of measures to strengthen the protections for children in the Bill by introducing a new schedule of harms to children and plugging a chronological gap between Part 3 and Part 5 services, on when protection from pornography comes into effect.

Every so often in these debates, we have been reminded of the connection with real lives and people. Yesterday evening, I spent some time speaking on the telephone with Amanda and Stuart Stephens, the mum and dad of Olly Stephens, who lived in Reading, which is part of the diocese of Oxford. Noble Lords will remember that Olly was tragically murdered, aged 13, in a park near his home, by teenagers of a similar age. Social media played a significant part in the investigation and in the lives of Olly and his friends—specifically, social media posts normalising knife crime and violence, with such a deeply tragic outcome.

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.]

Bishop of Leeds supports motion to regret on secondary legislation regarding Manston Detention Facility

The Bishop of Leeds spoke in support of a Motion to Regret tabled by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 18th March 2023:

“That this House regrets that the Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/1345) remove important safeguards and reduce the standards for the lawful detention beyond 24 hours of migrants, including children and vulnerable adults, at the immigration detention facility in Manston, Kent; that the Home Office has not consulted on these changes nor provided an adequate policy justification for them; and that this potentially contentious legislation was brought into effect while the House was in recess.”

The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I support the Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The Government were clearly right to openly acknowledge that the Manston short-term holding facility had been operating outside of legal requirements and that action was needed to improve conditions at the site. Therefore, the decision then to use secondary legislation not only to extend the length of detention powers at such facilities but to reduce the required safeguarding standards must be highly regrettable. It cannot be right that, when the immigration estate fails to meet legislation passed by this House, the response is simply to rewrite the rules. I am reading a lot about the Soviet Union at the moment, and there is an echo of that: if the five-year plan was not met, you simply changed reality to meet what you were going to get.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: