Dear Mr Peach Information Rights Team Shared Services Directorate 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF Switchboard 020 7035 4848 E-mail: Info.Access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk Our Ref: 19302 Date: 18 August 2011 Freedom of Information request (our ref. 19302): internal review I am writing further to my e-mail of 08 August 2011, about your request for an internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request about the number of people granted indefinite leave to remain under the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) legacy scheme. I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant papers, including the information that was withheld from you, and have consulted the policy unit which provided the original response. I have considered whether the correct procedures were followed and assessed the reasons why information was withheld from you. I confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request. My findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that the original response was correct. This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner at the following address: The Information Commissioner Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Yours sincerely K Mulvaney Information Access Team
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 by Mr Stephen Peach (reference 19302) Responding Unit: UK Border Agency (UKBA) Chronology Original FoI request: 09 July 2011 Acknowledgement: 11 July 2011 UKBA s response: 25 July 2011 Request for internal review: 25 July 2011 Subject of request 1. I would like to request details of the breakdown of the numbers of persons who were granted indefinite leave to remain under the CRD legacy programme who prior to this grant of leave: a) Had not had an initial decision on their unresolved asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR; and b) Had a negative decision on their initial asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR; c) Had not, to the UKBA's knowledge, ever made an application for asylum prior to the grant of ILR. The response by UKBA 2. UKBA concluded that this information was to be withheld under section 12 (cost) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. UKBA stated that the information requested by Mr. Peach is not easily accessible. Retrieving this information would involve manually searching through 161,000 individual case files of those granted indefinite leave to remain. The UKBA response is set out in full in Annex A Mr Peach s request for an internal review 3. Mr Peach does not accept that in order to retrieve the requested information it would be necessary to manually search through the relevant case files. 4. Mr Peach notes that the Case Information Database (CID) should be able to extrapolate the requested information. 5. Mr Peach also notes that the original response did not provide him with advice and assistance in line with the Information Commissioner advice. 6. Mr Peach s full request can be seen in Annex B. Procedural issues 7. The substantive response from UKBA was sent out on 25 July 2011, 11 working days after the initial request for information. 8. UKBA sent an acknowledgement letter on 11 July 2011
9. UKBA stated that the information was exempt, specified the exemption in question and provided a brief explanation of why it applied, complying with section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c). Consideration of the response Section 12(1) (Cost) 10. Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that information is exempt information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. 11. UKBA assessed the work involved in complying with the request for information, and estimated that the cost of compiling the data would exceed the appropriate limit. 12. The appropriate limit is calculated at 24 working hours to extract the requested data or a total cost exceeding 600. 13. Mr Peach referred to data provided to the Home Affairs Committee on 02 March 2011 which highlighted the outcomes of 403,500 cases dealt with by CRD. 14. This information was taken from CID which is able to extract data on the latest outcomes of a selection of cases. 15. Mr Peach goes on to suggest that CID should be able to extract the data he requested, which refers to the outcomes of any previous cases the applicants in question had submitted. 16. UKBA has confirmed that the information requested is held in CID. 17. UKBA has also confirmed that CID is unable to extract data based on the previous case history of those granted indefinite leave to remain under the CRD legacy scheme. 18. While CID is able to produce data on the latest case outcome of a group of applicants, refining that search to the level of data below (i.e. the previous case outcome) is not possible with the current database. 19. In order to retrieve this information, UKBA would need to manually search the case records of the 161,000 cases granted indefinite leave to remain under the legacy scheme or produce a more sophisticated piece of software to search the database. Advice and assistance 20. Mr Peach requested, in line with the Information Commissioner s published guidance, advice and assistance on how he could further refine his request for information to bring within the statutory cost limit. 21. In this specific case, it would not be possible to retrieve more detailed data than has already been released in the Home Affairs Committee report to which he refers, as explained in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above. Conclusion 22. UKBA provided a statutory response within the time frame of 20 working days.
23. UKBA correctly applied section 12(1). Information Access Team Home Office 08 August 2011
Annex A: Response from UKBA Dear Mr Peach Thank you for your email of 9 July, in which you have requested the disclosure of information regarding the consideration of cases by the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000. I will deal with each part of your request in turn: I would like to request details of the breakdown of the numbers of persons who were granted indefinite leave to remain under the CRD legacy programme who prior to this grant of leave: 1. Had not had an initial decision on their unresolved asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR; 2. Had a negative decision on their initial asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR; 3. Had not, to the UKBA's knowledge, ever made an application for asylum prior to the grant of ILR. Under section 12 of the Act, the Home Office is not obliged to comply with an information request where to do so would exceed the cost limit. I can confirm that we hold the information which you have requested but we have estimated that the cost of meeting your request would exceed the cost limit of 600 specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. We are therefore unable to comply with your request. The 600 limit is based on work being carried out at a rate of 25 per hour, which equates to 24 hours of work per request. The cost of locating, retrieving and extracting information and preparing the response can be included in the costs for these purposes. The costs do not include considering whether any information is exempt from disclosure, overheads such as heating or lighting, or items such as photocopying or postage. To provide a full explanation of the breakdown of the numbers of persons who were granted indefinite leave to remain who prior to this grant of leave had: an initial decision on their unresolved asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR a negative decision on their initial asylum claim prior to the grant of ILR not, to the UKBA's knowledge, ever made an application for asylum prior to the grant of ILR. This would mean that 161,000 individual case files for those granted ILR would need to be examined in detail to provide the answers to your questions. On 2 March 2011 the acting Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency, Jonathan Sedgwick, wrote to the Home Affairs Select Committee, updating them on the progress made to clear the backlog of older asylum cases. Up to
the end of January 2011 the UK Border Agency had granted 161,000 applicants some form of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference FOI 19302. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. Information Access Team Home Office Ground Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF e-mail: FOIRequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Yours sincerely Mr M McEvoy Assistant Director North West Region Case Assurance Audit Unit
Annex B: Mr Peach s request for an internal review * Cost I note you have refused this request on cost grounds. I am not satisfied that the costs limit cited are in fact an accurate representation of the costs that would in fact be incurred in providing the information requested. In coming to this view I have had regard to the following information: a) Mr M Mcevoy has asserted that to provide the requested information would require UKBA to exceed the cost limit for the reason that an individual would need to review the case files of the 161,000 cases granted indefinite leave to remain, presumably because no central information management system is available from.which this information is extracted. As Mr Mcevoy notes the figure of 161,000 is part of the evidence provided by the Chief Executive of UKBA in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 02 March 2011 which provided evidence on a total of 403,500 cases (http://bit.ly/paaxvx). I struggle to believe that each of the many letters, which provide the same type of information (although distinct)to that I have requested sent to the Home Affairs Committee was written after staff physically counted on a quarterly basis some 400,000 cases. b) I further note that in its recent report Measuring Up the National Audit Office considered the information management processes of UKBA. It found (paragraph 33) that UKBA had a management information system (Case Information Database) which is an administrative tool, used by the agency to perform asylum tasks including recording all asylum tasks, the related casework and decisions. This tool, it is reported is used to progress cases and holds a large volume of information (paragraph 35). This information is important in that this data which is used in the day to day activities of the agency and is the tool by which progress against Public Service Agreements are monitored and reported upon. I further note that the information management processes of the database have been praised by the NAO as an effective tool by which the agency's progress and performance may be reported. From this report I consider it is a reasonable conclusion that the large volume of information may be extracted from the database so as to provide a wide range of information. For the reasons above I do not consider it credible that the only means of obtaining the information would be for an individual individually check the 161,000 case records. * Information Commissioner's Advice Secondly, I have considered the Information Commissioners Good Practice guide on Refusal Notices (Good Practice guide 1) and would note that your response did not provide the information in 2 of the four bullets: Provide advice and assistance if possible. We would encourage public authorities to advise what steps could be taken by the applicant to make the request fall within the appropriate limit and Provide what information could be produced within the appropriate limit. In view of the latter should this be able to be provided I would like, without prejudice to any further appeal, information on details on how many of the 161,000 grants had a previous asylum refusal.
I would in closing like to point out that as the recent report on this very subject by MPs in the Home Affairs Select Committee demonstrates, there is a very significant public interest that exists in this matter and, in keeping with the presumption to disclose information as set out in Guardian & Brooke v The Information Commissioner & the BBC it should be incumbent on UKBA to make every reasonable effort to disclose this information and given this it would be in keeping with this stated commitment to transparency to disclose this information, even if the costs of doing so were to exceed the statutory cost limits. A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/crd_legacy_case_outcomes