Source · Select Committees · Women and Equalities Committee

Recommendation 6

6 Rejected Paragraph: 69

Home Office Country Policy Notes show concerning inaccuracies affecting asylum claim decisions.

Conclusion
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 We heard several examples of outdated or otherwise inaccurate CPINs leading to poor initial decisions and flawed legal arguments being made, particularly in relation to sexual orientation and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.
Government Response 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.
Paragraph Reference: 69
Government Response Rejected
HM Government Rejected
In relation to the recommendations at paragraphs 69 and 70, we consider that the Country Policy and Information Team (CPIT) can maintain and update high quality CPINs in a timely manner and that a discrete review of its performance is not necessary. CPIT produces CPINs on the main, but not all, types of protection claim from the top 20 to 30 nationalities making claims. The team keeps CPINs under regular review, aiming to update notes that continue to be relevant at least once every two years (or more regularly where necessary). It also operates an information request service where decision makers can seek information to supplement CPINs or to cover a country or issue where there is no existing CPIN. CPIT’s country information (COI) products, including CPINs, are already subject to regular review by the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI), which reports to the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). The IAGCI commissions third party reviewers—usually academic country experts—to check the accuracy, reliability and currency of CPIT’s COI products. The IAGCI focuses on CPINs, meeting two to three times a year covering the top 20 asylum intake countries over a two-to-three year cycle. The Group also commissions reviews of thematic issues, such as gender or sexual orientation and gender identity, on an ad hoc basis. The IAGCI reviews, and the publicly available ICIBI’s reports of these, are overwhelmingly positive and help ensure that CPIT’s COI products are generally accurate, reliable and current. Additionally, since CPINs are operational tools which are publicly available, they are routinely ‘stress-tested’ in the immigration courts and by other interested parties. CPIT uses feedback from this public scrutiny to update and revise its CPINs where necessary. Our decisions strive to be well reasoned and properly consider the evidence provided by the claimant against available country information. Our processes are underpinned by a robust framework of safeguards and quality checks, ensuring that claims are properly considered, decisions are sound, and that protection is granted to those who genuinely need it. As part of the current Foundation Training Programme, asylum decision makers are provided with a bespoke module which focusses on the correct use and interpretation of CPINS. Furthermore, there is currently work underway to review the training of asylum decision makers and the focus of the project is to ensure that the right training is given at the right time. The expectation is that by moving to this model it will help decision makers become more productive in a quicker timeframe as the training will be more focused on the type of cases they are going to work and the tasks they will need to undertake at that time. This will include country specific learning interventions, including utilising relevant CPINs.