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.
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).
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?
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.
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.]
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.
The Bishop of Leeds asked a question on the purpose of the two child benefit cap on 18th April 2023, during a debate on universal credit reform:
The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, could the Minister remind the House what the point of the two-child limit is and what its impact is on the provision of essentials?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): The House will be very aware of this subject, which does keep cropping up. The House will be aware that, since 6 April 2017, families have been able to claim support for up to two children and there may be further entitlement for other children if they were born before 6 April 2017 or if an exception applies. As the right reverend Prelate will know, there are a number of exceptions, including any child in a household who is adopted, any child living long-term with friends or family or who would otherwise be at risk of entering the care system.
The Bishop of Derby asked a question on the issue of criminalisation of children during a debate on the government’s anti-social behaviour plan on 29th March 2023:
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the Children’s Society. I read the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan with real interest. Criminalising young people through tackling anti-social behaviour is counterproductive, not least given the pressures on the criminal justice system. I am therefore pleased to see a focus on preventive work with at-risk and vulnerable children with expanded funding for youth offending teams, for example. Can the Minister commit to look again at a definition of child criminal exploitation that recognises the abuse and manipulation of vulnerable children, which catches them up into what can become quite horrific spirals of crime? Such a definition would offer them greater protection.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 29th March 2023:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government, further to the analysis by the Child Poverty Action Group, published in June 2022, which found that there are currently 800,000 children in poverty in England that are not eligible for free school meals, what steps they are taking to ensure that all children in poverty are eating a healthy and substantial lunch every day.
Baroness Barran (Con): The Autumn Statement 2022 announced £26 billion in cost of living support for 2023/24. This includes Cost of Living Payments for the most vulnerable. In 2023/24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to a further £900 in Cost-of-Living Payments. A £300 payment will be made to pensioner households and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits will receive a £150 payment. Also included is the amended Energy Price Guarantee which will save the average UK household £500 in 2023-24 and raising the benefit cap by 10.1% in line with inflation.
The Bishop of Derby asked a question on the treatment of children in the criminal justice system on 27th March 2023, following a Children’s Commissioners report on the strip searching of children, many from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, by police:
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Children’s Society. I join other noble Lords in expressing horror at the findings of the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It is vital that children are treated as children at all times. Can the Minister reassure the House that children are treated and recognised as children within every aspect of the criminal justice system?
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.