Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of
Information (FoI) Act 2000 by Syed Faghurudeen (reference
13002)
Responding Unit: United Kingdom Border Agency
Chronology
Original FoI request:
02 October 2009
Acknowledgement:
12
October
2009
UKBA
response:
23
October
2009
Further
request:
24
October
2009
UKBA request for clarification:
04 November 2009
Reply from Mr Faghurudeen:
04 November 2009
Second UKBA response:
04 November 2009
Request for internal review:
08 November 2009
Subject of request
1. Mr Faghurudeen asked for information about the use of DNA Tests in
support for applications for a British Overseas Citizen Passports.
2. The request in full was:
• Most of the British posts overseas issue First passport after the
documentary verification with interview. If insufficient documents
are submitted but DNA tested to applicants. Is it necessary to
produce the insufficient documents which is unavailable. Or
what documents is sufficient to produce in the case of DNA
tested to applicants.
The response by UKBA
3. The first response by UKBA was by e-mail on 15 October. The reply in
ful was:
• You need to make your request to the FCO consular department
and there is an address on the F&CO website.
4. The second response from UKBA was by e-mail on 04 November and
can be found at
Annex A. This followed Mr Faghrudeen's request to
the UKBA’s Nationality Group’s e-mail enquiry account. This reply is an
auto response which covers the majority of enquiries received on their
e-mail account.
Mr Faghurudeen’s request for an internal review
5. Mr Faghurudeen asked for an internal review of the UKBA response
through the whatdotheyknow.com website on 08 November. He stated:
• I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's
handling of my FOI request 'DNA for First British passport'. A full
history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dn...
Procedural issues
6. Mr Faghurudeen’s original request of 02 October, sent by e-mail to the
UKBA Freedom of Information Team, was formally acknowledged as a
FoI request by e-mail on 12 October. The UKBA reply was sent on 23
October, 14 working days after the original request, and complied with
the 20 working day limit imposed by section 10(1) of the FoI Act.
Consideration of the response
7. I have considered both responses from UKBA to Mr Faghurudeen.
8. The first response to Mr Faghurudeen’s request for information simply
advised him to contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
UKBA directed the requester to the FCO as he had prefaced his
question with ‘most of the British posts overseas issue First passport
after documentary verification with interview’. The responder
considered that Mr Faghurudeen was requesting information in relation
to applications made outside the United Kingdom.
9. In the course of my review I have contacted the FCO to confirm they
are the department responsible for guidance in relation to the issuing of
BOC Passports, when the applicant is abroad.
The FCO have verified
that their guidance on DNA is that testing should not be used as
an alternative to providing information by other means. DNA
testing can prove a relationship but cannot prove legitimacy or verify
that the person being tested is the same person as listed on a birth
certificate.
10. DNA testing should be used if, after 'Authentication By Interview', the
Passport officer at Post is not satisfied with the relationship as
claimed. The Ministry of Justice accredit various companies for DNA
testing. These can be found at the following address:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement300708.htm.
11. Only companies that are accredited should be used. As UKBA
currently use Cellmark, if asked, posts may indicate that this is the
company that UKBA use. However, we cannot stipulate that an
individual company is used.
12. If there are reasons why the applicant wants to use a different
company then Posts are supposed to contact the relevant desk officer
in the Nationality and Consular Registration Section.
13. I am satisfied, given the information provided by the FCO in
paragraphs 10 to 13 above, that the UKBA response of 23 October
correctly advised Mr Faghurudeen to contact the FCO.
14. In relation to the second occasion when Mr Faghurudeen contacted the
UKBA Nationality Enquiries section, with the same request for
information. Nationality Enquiries did not fully understand what
information was sought by the requester. A customer service advisor e-
mailed the requester on 04 November with the following questions:
• Can you please expand on your enquiry?
• Is this an ongoing application for British Citizenship?
• If positive can you provide a Home Office reference number?
15. The requester in his reply of 04 November did not expand on his
request and simply stated ‘I requested as a public and general to know
the exact of DNA test’. As the requester provided no clarification of his
enquiry he was sent an auto response by e-mail.
16. Under section 16 of the FoI Act a public authority, here UKBA, are
under a duty to provide assistance and advice to a person who makes
a request for information. I am satisfied that the UKBA e-mail of 04
November was a reasonable attempt to advise and assist Mr
Faghurudeen.
17. Mr Faghurudeen is of the opinion that the second response from UKBA
failed to provide the information requested. I am satisfied the reason
that UKBA were unable to provide the information requested was that
the phrasing of the question made it difficult to understand what was
being asked for and the requester failed to provide any clarification, to
assist the responder, in his e-mail of 04 November.
Advice and assistance
18. The UKBA Correspondence and Enquiry Team sought clarification
from Mr Faghurudeen on 04 November, by e-mail. In this respect,
UKBA complied with their duty to provide advice and assistance under
section 16 of the FoI Act.
Conclusion
19. The first UKBA response of 23 October was provided to Mr
Faghurudeen within the 20 working day limit imposed by section 10(1)
of the FoI Act.
20. The second UKBA response of 04 November was provided within the
20 working day limit imposed by section 10(1) of the FoI Act.
21. The UKBA response of 23 October correctly advised Mr Faghurudeen
to contact the FCO.
22. I confirm that the Home Office does not hold the requested information
23. The UKBA response of 04 November correctly provided an auto
response to Mr Faghurudeen’s request, as the responder was unsure
what information was required, following a request for clarification.
Information Access Team
Home Office
24-Feb-10
