Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'and decide'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 137, in page 11, line 8, at end insert

'in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child'.

No. 241, in clause 36, page 20, line 1, at end insert—

'(2) Where the Secretary of State inquires into a person's age under section 19(2) he shall not do so until he is satisfied that the person has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation.

(3) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides legal advice and representation to a person described in subsection (2).

(4) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Amendment No. 136 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to decide a person's age or to draw attention to the issue. The Law Society is among many that are concerned about the implications of clause 19(2) with regard to children. As it says, assessing age accurately is difficult, so the benefit of the doubt should be applied to children unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The British Medical Association has also said that accurately assessing the age of the child is extremely difficult, and almost impossible when the child is between 15 and 18. A Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report also found that it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of a child's age within five years either way. Those assertions indicate that there should be safeguards to the effect that in a difficult decision in the case of a child, the benefit of the doubt should be applied unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Amendment No. 137 is designed simply to ensure that the process is conducted in the child's best interests and in accordance with the internationally accepted norms and procedures. Like the others, amendment No. 241 is a probing amendment designed to safeguard against a practice that is not uncommon: distressing questioning of minors. Apparently, there is considerable evidence of that as a current practice, and the amendment would ensure that children have access to a lawyer and legal advice before they are questioned.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is doing constituency work today, and he apologises for his absence. We support amendments Nos. 136 and 137.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

As the hon. Member for Woking said, amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would prevent the Secretary of State from deciding a person's age when assessing whether they qualify for support in an accommodation centre. It is essential that the Secretary of State is able to make a decision on a person's age to establish which method of support is appropriate. We said that we would not place unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in accommodation centres. If we are to discharge that commitment, the Secretary of State must take a decision on someone's age. There would be little point in the Secretary of State being able to inquire about someone's age, if he could not decide the outcome of that inquiry in a dispute. Some people believe that there is an advantage to concealing their age. An adult may believe that it is better to say that he or she is a minor, as the local authority would be obliged to support an unaccompanied child. That

would enable the person to stay in London if they had arrived there first. It is therefore important to be able not only to inquire about someone's age, but to take a decision on it.

Article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child states that

''the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration''

in all actions concerning children. The Committee will be aware that the UK has a reservation on that purely to safeguard our immigration and nationality legislation. That does not inhibit our ability to take full account of the child's best interests.

Amendment No. 241 is unnecessary. Our concern is whether someone is the age that they claim to be. That can be difficult to establish if, for example, they cannot provide any documentary evidence. However, matters will not be improved by requiring the Secretary of State not to take a decision until the applicant has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation. The applicant will be entitled to apply to the relevant social services department for support as an unaccompanied asylum seeker. It is up to the local authority to consider whether there is evidence to back up the claim.

If someone arrives at a port and needs support, they will be referred to a reception assistant for advice, which is provided by members of voluntary organisations who specialise in dealing with migrants and refugees. If they consider an applicant to be a minor, they are likely to refer the person to the social services department for help. If a social services department does not consider the person to be a minor, it will refer them to NASS for consideration of support. In the absence of any other evidence, NASS will be guided by the view of social services.

In that system, if the person obtained judicial review of the move, they would be entitled to legal representation. However, given that the Government do not accept the case for legal advice and representation in the first instance, we see no need for a statutory power to make grants to voluntary organisations, with or without conditions attached, in those circumstances.

I hope that, with those assurances, hon. Members will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary: do the Government have any plans to withdraw their reservation to the declaration of the rights of the child? If not, will she either tell us now or write to us saying why?

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

We have no plans to withdraw our reservation.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary and I am grateful to her. It was worth having that short debate, even though not all the questions were answered. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I reflect on the fact that, under the process here, the date on which the asylum claim shall be treated as determined is decided by the moment at which the Secretary of State sends off his notification. The calculation also involves the post for a couple of days. However, as we discovered earlier, the date on which someone applies is taken to be not the date on which they send off their application, or a couple of days later, but the date on which it is received. There is an inconsistency there.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.