Plans to use X-rays to check the age of children seeking asylum could put them at risk of harm from radiation and cause distress, official government advisers have warned. The scientific advisory committee tasked with considering proposed changes to the assessment of people who have crossed the Channel and are suspected of lying about their age, also told ministers and officials no checks would be able to predict a person’s age “with precision”. Unveiling the proposals last year, the then home secretary, Priti Patel, said using biological tests would stop men from “masquerading as children” on their asylum applications. But some campaigners and medical professionals questioned whether using scientific methods, which could also include MRI scans, to examine the development of teeth and bones, was ethical or reliable. In a report published on Tuesday, the age estimation science advisory committee recommended the continued use of existing checks, which rely on interviews with social workers, but said they could be “supported by biological age assessment”. The panel of medical professionals, academics, scientists and social workers – led by the forensic anthropologist Prof Dame Sue Black – stressed the tests should only be carried out in cases where the “claimed age remains in doubt or there is conflicting or insufficient evidence to allow the social worker to assess the young person’s age with confidence”. According to the group, there is “no method, biological or social worker-led, that can predict age with precision”, so biological checks should consider whether the age claimed by the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child (UASC) is “possible”, rather than be used to answer “the specific question of how old that person is or whether they are under or over 18 years of age”. “It must be accepted that there is no infallible method for either biological or social-worker-led age assessment that will provide a perfect match to chronological age,” the report said. The committee “recognises the risk and harm of using ionising radiation and recommends that the use of ionising radiation in age assessment should be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradication”. It also said the “use of biological assessments in addition to social worker interviews could increase distress”, and urged ministers to assess the impact such checks could have on lone children. The Home Office previously suggested asylum seekers could damage their “credibility” if they refused to undergo the checks “without good reason”. But the committee said asylum seekers should give “informed consent” to biological tests and face “no automatic assumptions or consequences” for refusing them, adding: “There may be many reasons why a UASC may choose not to give consent for biological age assessment that is not linked to concealment of chronological age.” Enver Solomon, the head of the Refugee Council, said scientific age assessments were not risk-free. “These children simply want to start rebuilding their lives after the traumatic experiences they went through,” he said. “The government must not ignore the committee’s findings.” The Home Office welcomed the report and said it would consider the recommendations and provide “further details … in due course”. A department spokesperson said the use of scientific methods to resolve age disputes would “bring a more consistent and robust approach to age assessments”.