My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in her Amendments 146 and 148. I thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their sympathy, but they too have been sitting here for a very long time, whereas I got here relatively late—admittedly after quite a long day, and I will be here late tomorrow.
This part of the Bill is seriously concerning. We know, as the noble Baronesses already said, that age assessment techniques are notoriously inaccurate. These so-called scientific techniques are opposed by the BMA, the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, the medical and dental royal colleges and all sorts of associations and many others; I am immensely grateful to all those organisations that have provided briefing on this matter.
It is very late indeed, and I am extremely glad that we have the time on the record in Hansard. However, I want to quote the Minister in the other place, because it is important that we concentrate on this. The Minister said that
“the Secretary of State may only specify a scientific method of age assessment in regulations once she has sought scientific advice and determined that the method in question is appropriate for assessing a person’s age. I expect that scientific advice to also cover related ethical considerations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 2/11/21; col. 559.]
This kind of age assessment is unethical per se; therefore, we need to question this quite deeply.
The use of these techniques, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, does not benefit the children or young people concerned, so how on earth can they be justified and ethical? We already know that medical methods used for age assessment can be invasive and potentially harmful—ionising radiation is one example. To make it all worse, the evidentiary burden on local authorities assessing age is increased in the Bill, and they may be compelled to provide evidence to the Home Office even where no doubts have been raised about a child claimant’s age. That means that there is the potential to increase the number of unnecessary age assessments conducted, and the risk that children are incorrectly assessed as adults and diverted to adult reception and immigration processes, which might include detention.
This really is unethical. Other countries may be doing it—although they are increasingly desisting from it on ethical grounds. I do not believe that we should allow it. It was confirmed in Committee in the other place that the Government will determine that any scientific method is appropriate for assessing a person’s age and comply with all relevant frameworks in relation to the scientific methods chosen. Given this, will the Government put a commitment to obtain written approval from relevant medical and dental bodies on the face of this Bill? That is the very least that we can expect of something that is, on the face of it, so unethical.
2.30 am