Dame Angela Eagle says testing of 'most cost-effective' option of AI Facial Age Estimation will begin this year
The Home Office will begin testing AI-driven Facial Age Estimation technology as a new method for assessing the age of asylum seekers, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum announced today.
Testing will begin later this year, with a view to integrating the technology into the asylum system by 2026, subject to further evaluation. In a written statement to Parliament, Dame Angela Eagle said:
Statement
In the Immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, we undertook to improve the robustness of the age assessment process, including exploring scientific and technological methods to ensure that adults entering the asylum or immigration system are not wrongly identified as children, or vice versa. I wish to update the House on that work today.
Accurately assessing the age of individuals is an incredibly complex and difficult task, and the Home Office has spent a number of years analysing which scientific and technological methods would best assist the current process, including looking at the role that Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology can play. Since coming into office, this Government has commissioned further tests and analysis to determine the most promising methods to pursue further.
Based on this work, we have concluded that the most cost-effective option to pursue is likely to be Facial Age Estimation, whereby AI technology – trained on millions of images where an individual's age is verifiable– is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy for an individual whose age is unknown or disputed.
In a situation where those involved in the age assessment process are unsure whether an individual is aged over or under 18, or do not accept the age an individual is claiming to be, Facial Age Estimation offers a potentially rapid and simple means to test their judgements against the estimates produced by the technology.
The quality of this technology has improved rapidly, and is continuing to evolve and improve as it becomes more widely adopted by online retailers, social media websites and other companies to conduct online age verification tests.
Early assessments suggest that Facial Age Estimation could produce workable results much quicker than other potential methods of scientific or technological age assessment, such as bone X-rays or MRI scans, but at a fraction of the cost, and with no requirement for a physical medical procedure or accompanying medical supervision.
I have therefore commissioned further work to test and trial this technology, with testing due to begin later this year, and I have commenced a procurement process which has involved market engagement with an Invite to Tender to be launched in early August, so that – subject to the results of further testing and assurance – Facial Age Estimation could be fully integrated into the current age assessment system over the course of 2026.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee (AESAC) for the work it has carried out since 2021 to support the development and analysis of options in this area. The Home Office will continue to consult closely with experts in the field as we pursue the Facial Age Estimation method, and will also maintain an open mind as other techniques emerge or evolve that could provide an alternative in the future.
I am also today publishing the report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into the Home Office's use of age assessments, along with the Home Office's response to the recommendations the Inspector has made. This inspection was carried out prior to the Home Office reaching its conclusions on scientific and technological methods to support the age assessment process, as set out above, and does not therefore take into account either those conclusions, or the decisions I have announced today.
The 126-page inspection report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) is available to download here.
In its inspection, the ICIBI found that the Home Office's process for determining the age of asylum seekers remains flawed, inconsistent, and insufficiently child-sensitive. The report warns that many longstanding concerns - including weak training, rushed procedures, and poor communication - remain unaddressed, despite increasing arrivals of young asylum seekers via small boats.
The inspection focused on the initial age assessments conducted by the Irregular Migration Intake Unit (IMIU), particularly at Western Jet Foil (WJF) in Dover, the primary processing site for people arriving by small boats. It also evaluated the role of the recently established National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), which assists local authorities by carrying out more thorough, Merton-compliant assessments.
Arrivals via small boat now form the bulk of those subject to the initial age decision process. At WJF, initial age decisions are made by immigration officers based on appearance and demeanour alone. Under Home Office policy, individuals claiming to be under 18 are only challenged if they appear "significantly over 18." But ICIBI inspectors found that this subjective threshold is inconsistently applied, with frontline officers often working under pressure and without adequate training or safeguards. Staff responsible for initial age decisions are trained Immigration Officers (IOs) and Chief Immigration Officers (CIOs), but age assessment is only one part of their broader role, and none are dedicated specialists in this complex and sensitive area.
The report states: "Dating back to 2013, several ICIBI inspections have identified issues with the Home Office's initial age decisions, including poor record keeping, 'perfunctory' visual assessments, and a lack of clarity surrounding the 'significantly over 18' policy. This inspection found that many of the concerns that have been raised previously remain unanswered. … [I]nspectors identified areas where improvements could be made, including to training for those making initial age decisions; to explaining to the migrants what was happening, why, and the possible outcomes; to the use of interpreters and of social workers; to interviewing skills, record-keeping, and assurance checks; and to learning lessons."
It continues: "Inspectors found inconsistencies in the approach and lines of questioning used during interviews. They saw examples of professional and sensitive questioning, and decisions that were detailed and well reasoned. But they also saw examples of adversarial lines of questioning, lack of cultural awareness or of an appreciation of the person's individual circumstances, and decisions that relied on generic physical characteristics and conclusions about demeanour that were open to interpretation. Inspectors also saw examples of interviews and decisions that focused excessively on the claimant's credibility, which should not be a factor in the initial age decision."
Responsibility for further age assessments of asylum seekers often falls to local authorities, who must determine whether individuals claiming to be children fall within their statutory duties. The ICIBI found that in cases where the Home Office initially assessed individuals as adults, local authorities were frequently required to conduct full age assessments and provide accommodation during the process. In a sample of 38 such cases, 22 were later assessed by local authorities to be under 18. While not a statistically significant sample size, the ICIBI said it nevertheless raises concerns about the reliability of initial Home Office decisions.
The National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), established in 2023 to deliver consistent and expert-led age assessments, has made limited progress in improving overall efficiency and confidence in the process. While NAAB staff are qualified social workers, concerns persist over the body's placement within the Home Office, with stakeholders questioning the impact on professional independence. Inspectors also noted blurred boundaries between age assessments and immigration enforcement, particularly where case information is used to test credibility rather than to safeguard welfare. The NAAB continues to miss key performance targets, and without stronger quality assurance mechanisms and clearer safeguards, its credibility and effectiveness remain in question.
Summing up the inspection's overall findings, the report states:
Conclusions
1.44 Accurately assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult, and many would argue that it is not possible. This inspection has identified a number of improvements that the Home Office can and should make to its assessment processes and practices when making initial decisions on age, but, however much it is able to improve these, it will not satisfy those who believe that assessments based on appearance and demeanour are fundamentally flawed. At the same time, the Home Office will argue that it has to have some means of distinguishing adults from children on first encounter to ensure that the latter receive the protections they need and to which they are legally entitled.
1.45 This inspection does not seek to come down on one side or other of this argument. However, it was evident that, if it wishes to build greater confidence in how it goes about making initial decisions on age, the Home Office needs to involve others (interpreters, social workers, experts, and practitioners in supporting and providing services for children and young people) as much as possible in the process. In the meantime, it might help the debate if both the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age, and that not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment risks incentivising more to do so, which is not in the overall best interests of UAS children. It might also be helpful if all parties could accept that the Home Office gets some initial age decisions wrong. Denying this is the case, because these decisions are an opinion, and as such cannot be quality assured, is obtuse and vexing.
1.46 This inspection has also identified improvements that the Home Office can and should make in its dealings with local authorities. In particular, it should strive to communicate and engage better, sharing whatever data it has about the number of individuals being dispersed into local authority areas who, despite being assessed as an adult at the border, have disputed their age. This would be welcomed by local authorities (and accommodation service providers), both practically, as it would enable them to plan more effectively for 'spontaneous arrivals', and as a sign that the Home Office appreciates the challenges local authorities face and is looking to work in partnership.
1.47 The NAAB is a good example of partnership working, and it has undoubtedly made a positive contribution, despite some initial difficulties with recruitment. But there is a real risk that this could backfire if it does not get its positioning, messaging, and performance right. This starts by having a fully funded business plan and sharing its aims, objectives, and intended service levels with local authorities and other stakeholders, and not solely through individual MoUs. The NAAB also needs to be able to demonstrate that it operates to the highest standards if it wishes to be seen as a 'centre of excellence' for age assessments. As with initial age decisions, there is a strong case for involving others more in its operations, in particular in quality assuring its work.
The report makes eight recommendations, with the Independent Chief Inspector, David Bolt, noting: "I have made eight recommendations. These cover initial age decisions, the end-to-end age dispute process, and the NAAB. They focus on improvements to training, guidance, assurance, resources, and communication. But 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."
The Home Office's official response to the report is available here. All eight recommendations are accepted.