NGOs Demand Immediate Scrapping of Home Office Age Assessment Scheme
A powerful coalition of refugee support organizations has issued a stark warning, demanding the immediate abolition of the Home Office's national age assessment board. The group asserts that the board's deeply flawed and traumatic processes are placing hundreds of vulnerable child refugees at severe risk, with some cases leading to self-harm and suicidal thoughts among young asylum seekers.
Coalition of Over 100 Organizations Sounds Alarm
The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, a formidable alliance comprising more than one hundred leading charities including the Refugee Council, Barnardo's, and the NSPCC, has published a damning report analyzing the board's performance. Established in March 2023, the national age assessment board was tasked with determining the ages of young asylum seekers arriving in the UK, often via perilous small boat crossings. The board employs over fifty social workers to conduct these assessments, but numerous children have reported feeling targeted, describing the process as adversarial and hostile.
Traumatic Processes and Severe Consequences
The consortium's report reveals that the Home Office's age assessment procedures are significantly more severe and traumatic than comparable assessments conducted by local authority social workers. In several documented cases, the process has directly contributed to the deterioration of children's mental health, manifesting in self-harm and suicidal ideation. Perhaps most alarmingly, when children are incorrectly assessed as adults, they face placement in adult accommodation alongside unrelated individuals, exposing them to considerable danger. Some have even ended up in adult prisons after being charged with offences related to their journey to the UK, such as steering a dinghy.
The report highlights a particularly distressing case involving a child who arrived at age fifteen but was assessed by the Home Office to be twenty-two. Criminal charges were brought against him before he was finally confirmed to be the age he claimed. The charges were subsequently dropped, but the trauma inflicted remains.
Systemic Flaws and Political Influence
While the previous government established the board amid concerns about adults fraudulently claiming to be children, the evidence suggests systemic failures. Freedom of information data indicates that many individuals initially declared adults by the Home Office are later confirmed to be children following detailed assessments by local authority social workers. Furthermore, some judges have criticized the board's assessment process as adversarial, inconsistent with current guidance, and lacking in objectivity.
The report raises serious concerns about potential political influence, stating there is a risk that political discourse may undermine the impartiality required by professional codes of conduct. This follows an independent chief inspector for borders and immigration report last summer that also identified significant concerns about the board's operations.
Calls for Independent Oversight and Local Authority Control
The consortium's report presents a clear set of demands: the immediate disbandment of the national age assessment board and the reallocation of its funding to local authorities to enhance their social workers' capacity for conducting age assessments. If the board is allowed to continue, the coalition insists on robust independent oversight. It also calls for respect towards local authority decisions that accept young people as children without requiring a full, traumatic age assessment.
Kama Petruczenko, senior policy analyst at the Refugee Council, emphasized the critical failure, stating, "NAAB was established to bring consistency to age checks, but the evidence demonstrates it is endangering children. Courts have found its assessments flawed, delays are commonplace, and the judgments of local social workers are frequently overridden. Because the board operates within the Home Office, the lines between immigration control and child safeguarding are dangerously blurred. Children require independent, child-centered, trauma-informed assessments led by local authorities, not adversarial processes that exacerbate their existing trauma."
Maddie Harris, founder and director of the Humans For Rights Network, echoed these sentiments, revealing that children supported by her organization have described the assessments as "interrogatory, hostile, and terrifying." She added, "It is our firm view that the NAAB often begins from the presumption that a person is an adult, then seeks evidence to support this narrative, rather than conducting an impartial evaluation."
Home Office Response and Ongoing Scrutiny
In response to the escalating criticism, a Home Office spokesperson defended the board's role, stating, "Robust age assessments are absolutely vital for both safeguarding and maintaining border integrity. We are committed to continuously improving the service in line with independent recommendations and will review this report with careful consideration. The national age assessment board provides specialist, trauma-informed expertise to support local authorities. All assessments are conducted by qualified social workers adhering to nationally recognized guidance."
Despite this defense, the pressure from over one hundred leading humanitarian organizations underscores a growing crisis of confidence in the system. The call for abolition highlights a fundamental clash between immigration control mechanisms and the paramount duty of care owed to vulnerable children seeking refuge in the United Kingdom.
