Something to say about the age assessment debate yesterday in the @UKHouseofLords. Lord Hodgson complained that Baroness Bennett disregarded "evidence" from Migration Watch, an easy thing to do based on Migration Watch's track record. 1/
More importantly is how both he and Baroness Neville-Rolfe disregarded evidence from medical experts, social workers, child centred NGO's etc. Implementing the current proposals for age assessments with a "review" after a year, as they suggest, would place children at risk. 2/
In the space of that year how many children will be incorrectly classified as adults, something which when it happens is incredibly hard to appeal, and will become harder under proposals in the Judicial Review Bill. 3/
As Lord Paddick subsequently raised, the Home Office figures on the number of adults classed as children, those also quoted by Migration Watch, are potentially misleading, as well as also not showing the far bigger problem of children being classed as adults already. 4/
How many children are people prepared to see treated as adults, put at risk of exploitation and abuse, denied basic rights, even down to being forced to undergo medical testing? I would argue the answer should be none. These measures will potentially see it happen to hundreds. 5/
It's also worth flagging the not insubstantial matter the clause would see certain necessary processes effectively removed from local authority social workers and placed with the Home Office, this would severely undermine overall child protection frameworks for all children. 6/
For a more in depth analysis of the ways in which the #NationalityAndBordersBill undermines child protection, and significantly puts children at further risk, can be found in the evidence from @Love146UK to the @HumanRightsCtte. 7/
love146.org.uk/blog/love146-u…
love146.org.uk/blog/love146-u…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
