My Lords, I remarked some time ago that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, had sat through nine and a half hours of debate. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has sat through over 11 hours waiting to speak to this group of amendments, and I really feel I should let her go first—but I am not going to. My noble friend Lord Paddick and I oppose all the clauses in Part 4 standing part. I am well aware that noble Lords would like something quite cursory, but in opposing this whole Part of the Bill, I think I need to explain why.
The first of the clauses is Clause 38, which is, you might say, pre-sequential on the other clauses. The basis for all our objections may be summed up in the heading to Clause 51, “Use of scientific methods in age assessments”. This is not a scientific subject. Any noble Lord who has looked years later at school photograph will understand that. I was always at the back because I was one of the tallest in the class. My best friend, two months older than me, was tiny and she had to sit on the ground in front of the first seated row. We are not all the same and we do not all develop in the same way and at the same rate.
We are told by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, a coalition of more than 60 organisations—and the point is made by others in the sector—that even those from similar ethnic backgrounds, who have grown up in the same social and economic environment, display significant physical, emotional and developmental differences. It says:
“These differences can be exacerbated by experiences of adversity, conflict, violence and the migration process.”
I am glad that it mentioned that last. Noble Lords will appreciate that those are all factors which, as far as I know, were not experienced by a class of girls in Manchester in the 1960s, so that did not account for all the differences.
2.15 am
Anyone who takes an interest in the subject will have heard that the registration of births and the importance of chronological age differs across the world, that often individuals have never had any official identity document, that dates may be calculated in a different manner, or that there is confusion about the calculation. Documents may have had to be destroyed en route. I accept that sometimes that is done cynically by an asylum seeker, but that is by no means always the reason. It may have been at the instigation of traffickers and smugglers, or documents may have been lost. Because age assessment is not scientific, inevitably sometimes a young adult may be treated as a child, but noble Lords should consider the balance of risk—in other words, as one example, the risk of placing a child in accommodation with adult strangers. The British Dental Association has sent noble Lords a briefing regarding its opposition to these provisions, and it is very powerful.
Before I run through other specific amendments, I want to say that I very much support Amendment 151C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Ludford’s name is added to it. I would improve it by extracting the references to the clauses that we get rid of; I would apply it to all age assessments.
Amendments 142 and 143 would make it a matter for the local authority to decide how to proceed, without reference to the Secretary of State. Age assessments are a function of child protection and safeguarding. If central government is to get involved, that should be to support social workers, who really do not need to be undermined. Amendments 144, 145 and 150 would substitute a reasonable degree of likelihood for the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. Why include a standard of proof above the current standard? By definition, a higher standard will increase the risk of a child being treated as an adult.
Amendment 149 is to Clause 52, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the consequences of an age-disputed person showing a “lack of co-operation”. I am very uneasy that the Secretary of State can make—and, obviously, keep making and varying—regulations that mean that conclusions can be drawn. It is sort of the equivalent of “no comment”, but the implication is, “You’ve got me there, guv.” Conclusions will be drawn from someone so young, whether they are under or over 18, who does not know the language well or perhaps does not know it at all, who is intimidated—whether or not that is intended—by the whole situation, and who is affected by his or her experiences.
We support Amendments 146 to 148 in the group but, in brief—not that brief, but not that long, given the seriousness of the subject—we want to see the back of these clauses, which are not worthy of a nation that welcomes refugees.