Recommendations & Conclusions
8 items
5
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
The Home Office should demonstrate it is taking effective steps to mitigate the risk of unequal effects in the asylum process. There is a range of distinct difficulties faced by people claiming asylum on grounds of sexual orientation or gender-identity. These claims are difficult to evidence, legally complex and difficult …
Read more
The Home Office should demonstrate it is taking effective steps to mitigate the risk of unequal effects in the asylum process. There is a range of distinct difficulties faced by people claiming asylum on grounds of sexual orientation or gender-identity. These claims are difficult to evidence, legally complex and difficult to determine accurately. They are not determined consistently well, leading to expensive appeals and overturned decisions. We were disappointed that the Minister was unable to set out in any detail the steps the Department has taken since the internal review it conducted in 2019–20 to improve the accuracy of its initial decision-making in such cases. In response to this Report the Home Office should set out the main findings of the 2019–20 review and the steps it has taken to improve decision-making in cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity-based claims.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects publishing the main findings of its 2019–20 internal review. It states that it learns from errors through improved guidance, training, and an established quality audit process, including specialist checks for decision-makers handling sexual identity or FGM claims.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
6
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
We share expert witnesses’ concerns about the performance of the Home Office Country Policy and Information Team and the accuracy and timeliness of Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs). We heard several examples of outdated or otherwise inaccurate CPINs leading to poor initial decisions and flawed legal arguments being made, …
Read more
We share expert witnesses’ concerns about the performance of the Home Office Country Policy and Information Team and the accuracy and timeliness of Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs). We heard several examples of outdated or otherwise inaccurate CPINs leading to poor initial decisions and flawed legal arguments being made, particularly in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity-based claims.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government dismisses concerns about the Country Policy and Information Team's performance and CPIN quality, stating that a discrete review is not necessary. It explains that CPIT regularly reviews and updates CPINs and its products are already subject to external review.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
7
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
We recommend the Home Office conduct a review of the performance of the Country Policy Information Team, including its ability to maintain and update high quality CPINs in a timely manner. We further recommend the Home Office introduce a new programme of training for asylum decision-makers and presenting officers on …
Read more
We recommend the Home Office conduct a review of the performance of the Country Policy Information Team, including its ability to maintain and update high quality CPINs in a timely manner. We further recommend the Home Office introduce a new programme of training for asylum decision-makers and presenting officers on correctly using and interpreting CPINs in the claim determination process.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to conduct a review of the Country Policy and Information Team's performance, stating it is not necessary. Regarding training, it notes that decision-makers receive a bespoke module on CPIN use as part of the current training programme, and work is …
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
10
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
There is a lack of access to expert legal representation for people claiming asylum in the UK. This is particularly problematic in relation to complex claims, often involving sexual orientation or gender identity, religious belief or renunciation of belief, and sexual and gender-based violence and abuse. There is evidence that …
Read more
There is a lack of access to expert legal representation for people claiming asylum in the UK. This is particularly problematic in relation to complex claims, often involving sexual orientation or gender identity, religious belief or renunciation of belief, and sexual and gender-based violence and abuse. There is evidence that lack of legal representation during the initial claim determination phase leads to poor initial decisions and unnecessary and expensive appeals later in the process. We agree with expert witnesses that an overhaul of legal aid for these types of complex asylum cases is needed.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the committee's suggestion that there is insufficient access to legal advice for asylum seekers, citing existing legal aid provisions and £34m spent in 2021/23. It commits to updating the Exceptional Case Funding process to ensure it is simple and accessible.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
14
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
£40 per week was clearly inadequate to meet the essential living needs of people seeking asylum in the UK. Women, including those with children, face particular difficulties and near-impossible choices about how to provide for themselves and their families. It is unsurprising that the High Court ordered an immediate increase …
Read more
£40 per week was clearly inadequate to meet the essential living needs of people seeking asylum in the UK. Women, including those with children, face particular difficulties and near-impossible choices about how to provide for themselves and their families. It is unsurprising that the High Court ordered an immediate increase to £45—the “minimum legal action required” for the Home Secretary to meet her legal duty. It is clear that a long-term solution is required after many years of below inflation increases to asylum support have left people facing severe poverty. We believe the simplest, fairest and most sustainable solution is to link the rate of asylum support to that of the main annually uprated mainstream social security benefit. In the context of the asylum system, this would also be relatively inexpensive, at a likely initial annual cost in the low tens of millions of pounds.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the committee's implicit suggestion to link asylum support to Universal Credit, stating its position remains that Universal Credit is not set according to the 'essential living needs' test but to 'help with basic living costs'.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
15
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
We recommend the Government set the weekly asylum support payments at 70% of the standard over 25s rate of Universal Credit. The Government should also consider increasing the payment for women to address specifically concerns regarding period poverty. (Paragraph 111) 74 Equality and the UK asylum process
Read more
We recommend the Government set the weekly asylum support payments at 70% of the standard over 25s rate of Universal Credit. The Government should also consider increasing the payment for women to address specifically concerns regarding period poverty. (Paragraph 111) 74 Equality and the UK asylum process
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to set weekly asylum support payments at 70% of Universal Credit, reiterating its stance that Universal Credit is not for 'essential living needs.' It does not address the suggestion for increased payments for women for period poverty.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
24
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
We agree with legal and policy experts that the Government’s equality impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022’s asylum provisions is inadequate. There are clear risks, acknowledged by the Government, of unequal effects on asylum claimants with vulnerabilities related to Equality Act protected characteristics. These include women and …
Read more
We agree with legal and policy experts that the Government’s equality impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022’s asylum provisions is inadequate. There are clear risks, acknowledged by the Government, of unequal effects on asylum claimants with vulnerabilities related to Equality Act protected characteristics. These include women and girls with histories of sexual and gender- based violence and abuse; LGBT people who have complex sexual orientation and gender-based claims; and disabled people. Without effective mitigations, these groups are likely to be disadvantaged by the new procedures. It is unacceptable that the Home Office remains unable to set out a clear plan to monitor and mitigate unequal effects.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government believes any differential impact is because of an individual’s conduct and is proportionate to control illegal migration and reduce crime.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
25
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Equality and the UK asy…
Rejected
The Home Office must publish an updated equality impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Act’s asylum provisions within three months. Alongside this assessment it should publish a mitigation plan to prevent discriminatory effects of the Act’s asylum provisions on people with vulnerabilities arising from protected characteristics, including women with …
Read more
The Home Office must publish an updated equality impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Act’s asylum provisions within three months. Alongside this assessment it should publish a mitigation plan to prevent discriminatory effects of the Act’s asylum provisions on people with vulnerabilities arising from protected characteristics, including women with disclosed histories of sexual and gender-based violence and other forms of abuse, people with physical and mental disabilities, children and families, and LGBT people. It should seek the advice of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure the equality impact assessment and mitigation plan follow best practice and fully comply with the Equality Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty. (Paragraph 154) Detention
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government believes any differential impact is because of an individual’s conduct and is proportionate to control illegal migration and reduce crime.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office