Policy paper

Response to a report on country of origin information, Albania and Pakistan

Updated 1 March 2024

October 2023

Introduction

The Home Office thanks the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) for these reports, as well as the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI), and the individual reviewers for the positive overall nature of the reviews and the constructive comments and feedback to enable further improvement.

Response to recommendations

1. We have accepted many of the reviewers’ recommendations contained within the reviews annexed to the ICIBI’s report and have updated or are updating our Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) accordingly. We will re-issue our products when or research is complete.

2. Where we have not accepted an individual reviewer’s recommendation – for example where the information suggested is too old to use, not publicly accessible or not relevant to the specific topic – we clearly state our reasons for not doing so.

3. There are two overarching recommendations by the ICIBI in addition to those contained in the individual reviews of the country products chosen by the IAGCI. However, we see the first recommendation as having two distinct parts. Therefore, we have separated our considerations and response.

4.

[1] The Home Office’s Country Policy Information Team (CPIT) should:

[a] Consider how the delineation between country information and policy guidance in its country of origin information (COI) can be made as clear as possible …; and

[b] … [consider] what mechanism might be agreed with ICIBI and the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information to allow for comment on objective factual material wherever it might appear in a COI publication.

[1a] – Not accepted

5. The first concerns the clear delineation of policy guidance and COI, which we consider is already in place. Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) clearly mark the sections as Assessment (the analysis of the evidence relevant to the claim type and the guidance given to caseworkers) and Country Information (the ‘raw’ COI, which underpins it). We detail the scope of each at the start of the relevant section in newer CPINs, or in the Preface of older CPINs. We have not identified a need from caseworkers as our primary users to make changes to the format of these sections.

6. Similarly, whilst ICIBI-commissioned reviewers may be country- and/or subject- experts, they do not necessarily have immigration, asylum or legal experience. Their comments often show a misunderstanding of the claim types we receive, how the Home Office consider asylum claims and the wider directions given to decision makers, and a lack of knowledge about refugee law and issues relevant to litigation. The Home Office takes the view that the ICIBI/IAGCI reviews should be limited to the COI, and it should be for the Home Office to make any consequential amendments to our assessments as necessary. This avoids any blurring of lines for the reviewer.

[1b] – Accepted

7. The second part proposes a mechanism on future reviews and brings up the question of the role the reviewer and IAGCI play in considering factual material within the Assessment part of the CPIN. As noted in the ICIBI’s Foreword, CPIT asked for comments contained within the Assessment section to be removed. As the Assessment is the Home Office’s analysis of the country material (as well as other considerations) when the reviewer comments on the COI, we can adjust our assessment inline where appropriate and necessary. This achieves what the ICIBI is seeking but avoids the reviewers potentially (and has happened in the past) commenting on things that are outside of scope, on legal assessments, or on areas outside of their stated knowledge or experience.

8. The second recommendation noted:

[2] The Home Office should:

Support CPIT by expanding its capacity to engage with foreign language material, giving consideration to the allocation of additional resources for translation services and to engaging staff with language expertise relevant to selected key source countries for asylum claims.

[2] – Not accepted

9. CPIT already has capacity and a small budget to engage with non-English language material. It can commission experts and facilitate translation of material when operational demand (individual cases or litigation) requires it or when a wider information gap has been identified and cannot be filled through English language sources.

10. It is our long-standing position that, with a responsibility to the public purse, we must balance the need and value of the translation against the cost. Online translation tools are also increasingly accurate and available at little or no cost. Additionally, non-English language sources are more relevant for information from some countries opposed to others and the need for translation should always be considered on a case-by case basis.