This is an important set of amendments, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords supporting them that we on these Benches have some disagreements with them.

Amendment 162 proposes that, where there is any doubt as to age, we should simply presume that the individual is a child. I cannot think of a more reckless approach. We all know that children are entitled to greater rights and protections under our law, but those protections exist precisely because children are vulnerable. If we hand them out indiscriminately to anyone who claims to be under 18, we risk creating grave safeguarding failures. There are well-documented cases where individuals who arrived illegally have lied about their age, and as a result adult men were placed in classrooms with teenage girls or in accommodation with vulnerable children. This amendment, whatever its good intentions, would compromise safety, weaken enforcement and put children at risk, and we cannot allow that to happen. Furthermore, Amendment 163 seems to me to be completely impractical in operational terms.

The fundamental point is this: age is one of the characteristics that we need to determine as soon as someone arrives in the UK illegally. This is innately tied to the sort of support they receive, who they are housed with, what services they can access and how they will interact with other migrants and those already in the United Kingdom.

We cannot pretend that we have the luxury of unlimited time in this matter. The use of a scientific age assessment is a necessity if we are to protect children from those who falsely claim that they are under 18. We on these Benches are absolutely unequivocal on that point.

Finally, I come to Amendments 180 and 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and the noble Lord, Lord German. I can see some merit in the principle behind Amendment 180. Ensuring that those who may be children are properly assessed before criminal proceedings are brought is an important safeguard. However, I have concerns about how this would operate in practice. We have already spoken at length about the backlog in the asylum system and the enormous delays that are causing real frustration, both for those with genuine claims and for the British taxpayer.

Amendment 194 would require that whenever the Home Office determines that someone claiming to be a child is in fact an adult, local authorities must be notified and given an opportunity to conduct or review an age assessment before any placement in adult accommodation or detention occurs. This is a recipe for more endless appeals, endless second-guessing and endless delay. If the Home Office, with all the information at its disposal, has determined that an individual is an adult, then that decision must stand.

While I acknowledge the fairness objectives underpinning Amendment 180, I cannot support Amendment 194, which would drive us in the opposite direction towards further delay, duplication and dysfunction.