Inspection report published: An inspection of the Home Office’s use of age assessments (July 2024 – February 2025)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-23)

The Independent Chief Inspector, David Bolt CBE, comments on the inspection report on the Home Office's use of age assessments, and the Home Office's response, following its publication yesterday.

My report on the Home Office use of age assessments was published yesterday (22 July 2025). The report was sent to the Home Secretary on 20 May 2025, so publication fell just outside the agreed 8-week target timescale. I made eight recommendations designed to improve training, guidance, assurance, resources and communication and I am pleased that all were accepted.

When a young person claims asylum in the UK, the Home Office must determine whether they will be treated as an adult or as a child while their claim is being processed. The focus is on chronological age, reflecting the fact that immigration and other relevant legislation is framed around 18 years as the bright line between childhood and adulthood. However, the binary nature of the determination and the absence of a foolproof ‘test’ of chronological age mean that the Home Office will sometimes get it wrong. This is clearly a cause for concern, especially where a child is denied the rights and protections to which they are entitled.

This inspection examined initial age decisions based on appearance and demeanour made by the Home Office when first encountering young people who claim asylum, in particular those arriving by small boat. It also examined subsequent age assessments, including those conducted by the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), which sits within the Home Office and since 2023 has been assisting local authorities by conducting Merton-compliant age assessments on their behalf.

Inspectors set out to understand how far the Home Office went to ensure that its assessments were sufficiently mindful of the difficulty of getting it right and of the consequences of getting it wrong. Inspectors looked for evidence that processes were methodical, fairly and consistently applied, and child-sensitive; that decisions were balanced and reasonable; and that those involved were open to learning from others and from their mistakes.

Inspectors found that many of the long-standing concerns about policy and practice, especially in respect of initial age decisions, remain unanswered, and for small boat arrivals some of these concerns had increased. Yet there was a surprising lack of curiosity about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and a prevailing view that there was no learning to take from these later assessments as the processes were too dissimilar.

For those disputing their initial age decision, the greater reliance on qualified social workers, whether employed by local authorities or by the NAAB, the recognised Merton ‘standard’, and the fact that there is more time to probe and reflect, made for a more careful and thorough process, though still not guaranteed to get it right. Here there was a need to improve information sharing (with local authorities regarding age disputed individuals dispersed to their area) and capacity (especially of the NAAB to meet the demand it had generated for its services), along with record-keeping, data and quality assurance.

Previous inspections have raised concerns about the Home Office’s ability to identify vulnerable adults and respond effectively. In focusing on determining chronological age the Home Office needs to take care that it is not deflected from making a more holistic assessment of individual needs, since a young person who is assessed correctly to be over 18 may nonetheless be vulnerable and at risk if placed with other adults.

Underlying my eight recommendations the overall message is that the Home Office should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders, including local authorities in England and Wales and their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Strategic Migration Partnerships, Non-Governmental Organisations, and should involve others (interpreters, social workers, experts and practitioners in supporting and providing services for children and young people) as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes.

Home Office policies and practice in relation to age assessments will always be hotly contested, not least because of what is at stake. But a more open and inclusive approach will make it easier for the Home Office and its critics to maintain a constructive dialogue about how to ensure that the best interests of children are served. Committing to better communication, engagement and collaboration would be a start.

Yesterday, the government also issued a written ministerial statement (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-22/hcws885) regarding the use of scientific methods to help determine age. As no scientific methods are currently in use, this was out of scope for this inspection. However, the ICIBI will no doubt wish to return to age assessments at some point to follow up on its recommendations, and this will also be an opportunity to inspect any new methods that are in use at that time.

David Bolt CBE, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

23 July 2025
- An inspection of the Home Office’s use of age assessments (July 2024 – February 2025) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-inspection-of-the-home-offices-use-of-age-assessments-july-2024-february-2025)
- The Home Office responses to the Chief Inspector’s reports (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/responses-to-reports-by-the-independent-chief-inspector-of-borders-and-immigration)