An MP has called for dental checks on refugees who claim to be children.
The Conservative member for Monmouth, David Davies, said some
teenagers photographed arriving in the UK on Monday under a scheme to
resettle unaccompanied minors “don’t look like children”.
He called for claimants to have their teeth or wrist bones X-rayed
to check their real age, denying that such tests would be “intrusive”.
Mr Davies was later accused of “disgraceful xenophobic rhetoric” by
an SNP MP, but defended himself by saying: “I don’t want to vilify
anyone, and I would like to see genuine children being brought in, but I
think we have got a right to raise this question.”
It’s obviously an emotive subject. What are the facts?

Who are these young refugees?
The 14 young people photographed arriving this week are the first of
several hundred unaccompanied children now living in refugee camps on
the outskirts of Calais, whom Britain has agreed to take in.
There are an estimated 1,000 such young asylum seekers in the notorious
camps. The French government is about to close them down and disperse
the people living there.
The UK government has agreed to resettle children who are judged to have direct family connections to this country.
It’s not yet clear what the final number will be but the home secretary,
Amber Rudd, said campaigners had identified 387 children as having a
legal case for coming to Britain, and the French authorities had agreed
to check their identities.
Does the Home Office check their ages?
The Home Office said the 14 teenagers who arrived this week had already
been interviewed by French and British officials, who were satisfied
they were genuine child refugees.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Where credible and clear documentary
evidence of age is not available, criteria including physical appearance
and demeanour are used as part of the interview process to assess age.”
The full details of this joint checking process has not been made public.
Ordinarily,
British asylum officials treat
applicants who claim to be children as adults if they have no documents
proving their age and “their physical appearance/demeanour very
strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age”.
The decision has to be signed off by a supervisor and can be overturned
if new evidence of age comes to light. All other young people who cannot
prove their age are given the benefit of the doubt.
But young asylum seekers can be subject to something called a “Merton
test” later if the local authority tasked with looking after them doubts
their age.
Council social workers carry out detailed interviews to try to piece
together the claimant’s background and likely age, but are not supposed
to make a decision based on appearance alone.
Is the Home Office going to start doing dental tests?
No. A spokesman said: “We do not use dental X-rays to confirm the ages
of those seeking asylum in the UK. The British Dental Association has
described them as inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical.”
Both the
last Labour government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
coalition made noises about introducing dental tests, only to quietly drop the plans.
Some local authorities have reportedly tried to use dental age tests rather than stick to the Merton guidelines.

How accurate are dental tests?
There appears to be a difference of expert opinion about this, but
everyone agrees that dental imaging is not completely accurate as a
judge of age.
Tim Cole, professor of medical statistics at UCL, told FactCheck that
dental imaging used to test whether someone was over 18 or not would
give the wrong result
about one third of the time.
And that “error rate goes up slightly” when you start testing people of
different racial and ethnic groups, he added, since people of different
races mature at slightly different rates.
Professor Graham Roberts, a paediatric dentist at King’s College London, has
disputed that dental age assessment is harmful or unethical,
writingthat it “is not precise but it provides a realistic quantifiable estimate of age which is not matched by any other method”.
Comparison of dental tests with genuine birth certificates shows that
“42 per cent of the age estimates are within six months of the true age
and 68 per cent of age estimates are within one year of the true age” he
wrote in an article in the British Dental Journal.
What are the ethical problems?
The British Dental Association – the main trade union and professional
body for dentists – says: “It is inappropriate and unethical to take
radiographs of people when there is no health benefit for them.
“X-rays taken for a clinically-justified reason must not be used for
another purpose without the patient’s informed consent, without coercion
and in full knowledge of how the radiograph will be used and by whom.”
The
Refugee Council says
it has heard of cases of young people told they will be treated as an
adult claimant unless they consent to a dental x-ray, or told that the
X-ray results can accurately determine a young person’s age – which
isn’t true.
“We became aware of this practice after young people we were helping
were to be sent for X-rays without informed consent being gained,” the
campaign group said.
Other individuals and organisations who have objected to dental X-rays
on ethical grounds in the past include the General Dental Council, the
Royal College of Paediatrics, Children’s Commissioners and Chief Medical
Officers.
Is there a better way of assessing age?
Not that we know of.
Britain used to X-ray claimants’ wrist bones to try to assess their age, but the practice has been widely discredited.
The Conservative Home Secretary
Willie Whitelaw banned
bone X-rays in 1982 after hearing expert evidence that it was “unlikely
to provide more accurate evidence of age than the assessment of other
physical characteristics of an individual”.
In 2011 the Australian authorities were forced to free a number of young
Indonesian fishermen they wrongly jailed as adults for people
smuggling.
Bone X-rays had been used to decided the defendants’ ages, but Australia has now agreed not to use the method.
Other
countries in Europe use a range of methods, some of them controversial.
Many do carry out bone and dental X-rays – despite
scepticism from doctors – and genital examinations have been reported to
have taken place in Austria and Germany, although the practice was
recently
bannedin Germany.
How many adult asylum seekers pretend to be children?
A lot of news stories say things like: “Two-thirds of child refugees
screened by the Home Office to the year September 2015 were later found
to be adults.”
That
doesn’t mean two-thirds of all people who claim to be child refugees are lying.
The latest figures we have from the Home Office cover the year to June
2016. In those 12 months, There were 3,472 asylum claims from
unaccompanied children.
Officials were suspicious about less than a third of those claimants,
and 933 age disputes were resolved. Of those cases, 636 were ruled to be
over 18.
So about 18 per cent of all people who say they are unaccompanied
children ended up being treated as adults. It’s hard to say they were
“proved” to be over 18, since in most cases there will be no definitive
proof of age.
And there is another side to this story:
genuine children being wrongly treated as adults on the basis of their appearance.
We can’t say for sure how often this happens, but the Refugee Council
says it regularly takes on cases of young people being wrongly treated
as adults and held in detention.
The organisation says it has supported 41 young asylum seekers whose age
was disputed since October 1 2014. Of those, 20 have been reassessed
and found to be children, and most of the others have been released from
detention pending an assessment.