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?
The Secretary of State has a legal duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Can the Minister therefore say how the welfare of a child will be protected by not allowing judicial review to act as a temporary delay to their removal? The Government appear to be arguing that when a child legally challenges an age assessment, it is simply a spurious attempt to use legal methods to postpone removal. However, as we know, the majority of children are found to be children after local authority assessments, so it is more likely that what is happening is an attempt to protect their proper right to be treated as a child. Can the Minister therefore take the opportunity at least to confirm that when an individual’s age is disputed, they will not be subject to removal before having met with a social worker and a child protection team for a more comprehensive age-assessment process?
The determination that an individual may be a child and therefore could deserve all the rights a child is due should and must be reason enough to prevent their removal. When the implications for children are so grave and lifelong, it seems that to not delay a child’s removal from the UK until those questions are resolved is immoral. I plead with the Government to recognise this as a failure of safeguarding, which we are all trying to treat at the highest possible standard. However, in view of the lateness of the hour when we are likely to reach a vote on this matter, and the many other matters your Lordships’ House has to deal with tonight, I am not minded at present to press this Motion to a Division.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): I am very grateful for the kind remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I am glad that we were able to reach the accommodation that he identified. On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if a person objects to an age assessment, it is clearly open to them to challenge it by judicial review, but that will not be suspensive. On the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the duty to remove does not apply to unaccompanied minors—there is a power to remove in Clause 3 of the Bill—and if a child is to be removed in exceptional circumstance, it is open to that child and his or her representatives to make a suspensive claim.
As I have said in this House many times, the purpose of these provisions is to prevent people smugglers encouraging fraudulent claims to be children. On the question raised by the right reverend Prelate as to whether Rwanda will provide appropriate care for the children, this matter was extensively canvassed during the Rwanda litigation, and the court was satisfied that sufficient arrangements had been made in the memorandum of understanding. I invite noble Lords to refer to the judgment in that regard. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his indication that he will not press that amendment to a Division.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.