Shared Services
020 7035 4848
Directorate
(switchboard)
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
BritCits
request-137719-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
request-137718-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
6 February 2013
Dear BritCits
Freedom of Information request (our ref. 25036 and 25041): internal review
I am writing further to our e-mail of 10 December 2012, about your request for an internal
review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request about statistics and
examples of cases granted to non EU parents of British citizens/ permanent residents
since 9 July 2012 under the new family migration rules.
You requested an internal review of FOI case 25041. During the course of my review I
discovered that you submitted the same request to the Home Office group twice. Once to
the Home Office headquarters (case 25041) and once to the UK Border Agency (case
25036). You were therefore provided with two individual answers to the same questions
from the Home Office group.
The UK Border Agency was formed on 1 April 2008 and has been part of the Home Office
group since its formation. Since 1 December 2012 the Home Office has comprised four
constituent parts – Home Office Headquarters (HO HQ), the United Kingdom Border
Agency (UKBA), the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) and the National Fraud Authority
(NFA).
Any response from the Home Office should be representative of the Home Office group.
Therefore this internal review has reviewed both responses issued. The outcome of this
internal review represents the Home Office position on your requests and should be
considered the Department‟s response to both case 25036 and 25041.
I have now completed this review. I have examined all the relevant papers, including the
information that was withheld from you. I have also consulted the policy units which
provided the original responses. 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
issued under case 25041 was the correct response. Section 12 and section 40 were
correctly applied. Please refer to the attached report for further details as to how this
conclusion was reached.
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
Martin Riddle
Information Access Team
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI)
Act 2000 by BritCits (reference 25036 and 25041)
Responding Units: 25036 - UK Border Agency (UKBA)
25041 - Safeguarding, Immigration and International Group (SIIG)
Chronology
FOI case 25036
Original FoI request:
9/11/2012
SIIG response:
19/12/2012
Request for internal review:
No internal review requested
FOI case 25041
Original FoI request:
9/11/2012
SIIG response:
7/12/2012
Request for internal review:
7/12/2012
Subject of request
1. On 9 November 2012, BritCits submitted two identical Freedom of Information
requests asking for the information summarised below. One was submitted to the
UK Border Agency (UKBA) and one to Home Office Headquarters (25041) The
request relates to non-EU parents of British citizens/residents and the new 'rules'
brought in with effect from 9th July:
The number of non-EU parents of British citizens/those with indefinite leave to remain,
that applied for a UK settlement visa since 9th July 2012. How many of these have
been approved, refused and are pending, up until what date?
At least three examples of situations where parents meet the criteria set.
The request can be found in full in Annex A.
2. As the UK Border Agency is an executive agency of the Home Office, it is standard
practice that a single collective response should be issued in response to Freedom of
Information requests, representative of the Home Office and all its agencies. Therefore
the Home Office should have identified these duplicate requests and provided one answer.
The response by UKBA (25036)
3. BritCits was advised that UK Border Agency could not provide the information requested
within the cost limit to answer the first point. However, a table was provided detailing
information held on all applications from parents, grand-parents
and dependant relatives of persons settled in the United Kingdom. This information did
not directly answer the request.
4. Section 21 was engaged in answer to the second question, with advice as to where
examples could be located in the public domain.
The response by SIIG (25041)
5. BritCits was not provided with any information in response to this request. BritCits was
advised that UK Border Agency could not provide the information requested within the cost
limit to answer the first point and section 40(2) was engaged to withhold the examples
requested in the second question.
Request for an internal review
6. No internal review request has been submitted for 25036, only for 25041.In respect of the
latter, BritCits argues that the cost limit should not apply as the Home Office should have
statistics on the number of migrants applied and approved under various categories. This
should not, in their view, entail more than 24 hours work.
7. Additionally, BritCits argues that in relation to their request for examples they did not
request personal information, only general case studies. BritCits believe that anonymised
examples of cases who meet the rules should be provided.
Procedural issues
8. For case 25036, the original request was received on 9 November 2012 and a response
was issued on 19 December 2012. This represents a period of 28 working days between
receipt of the request and the response being issued. This means that the response was
outside the target deadline of 20 working days as specified in section 10(1) of the Act. A
valid PIT extension could not be engaged in this case.
9. For case 25041, the original request was received on 9 November 2012 and a response
was issued on 7 December 2012. This represents a period of 20 working days between
receipt of the request and the response being issued. This means that the response was
inside the target deadline of 20 working days as specified in section 10(1) of the Act.
10. BritCits was informed in writing in both responses of the right to request an independent
internal review of the handling of the request, as required by section 17(7) (a) of the Act.
The response also informed BritCits of the right of complaint to the Information
Commissioner, as set out in 17(7) (b) of the Act.
Consideration of the response
11. The answers to both requests were very similar. Both requests cited section 12 (cost) as
the reasoning why question one could not be answered under the FOI Act. It is question
two, which related to providing examples, where the two answers differed.
Question 1 – Statistics – Section 12 Cost
12. The Home Office headquarters response (25041) did not provide much detail why the cost
limit was exceeded, but the UKBA response (25036) did. The UKBA response informed
BritCits that UKBA are only able to report on data that is captured in certain mandatory
fields on the UKBA Case Information Database (CID). Additional data concerning the
specific details of an application, such as whether an application was received from a
parent, is not recorded in a reportable format. Consequently, in order to provide the
requested information, we would need to undertake a manual case by case search of
paper records.
13. Both responses derived their information from the same source. I can confirm that all the
specific information requested is not recorded on the CID. The only way to retrieve the
requested information would be to perform a manual search of the original paper records.
At the time of the request there were close to 500 applications and a check of 25 records
found that the average time to extract the relevant data took around 45-60 minutes.
Therefore it is estimated that to retrieve the information requested would take close to 16
working days. As the cost limit equates to 24 hours work, section 12 was correctly
engaged.
14. It should be noted that if the cost limit applies to one portion of a request it can and should
be extended to cover the whole request. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO)
guidance on section 12 states:
“As a matter of good practice, public authorities should avoid providing the information
found as a result of its searching and claiming section 12 for the remainder of the
information. It is accepted that this is often done with the intention of being helpful but it
ultimately denies the requestor the right to express a preference as to which part or
parts of the request they may wish to receive which can be provided under the
appropriate limit. “
As the cost limit was engaged for question one the Home Office was under no obligation to
provide any answer beyond section 12 for the question two.
Question 2 – examples – Sections 21(1) and 40(2)
15. BritCits‟ internal review request also argued that anonymised examples should be
provided to answer question two.
16. UKBA (25036) answered question two by citing section 21 (information already accessible
to the applicant by other means). The response directed BritCits to the following web
address, explaining that this was the location where examples could be found.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco ntent/documents/policyandlaw/IDIs/chp8-
annex/section-FM-6.0.pdf?view=Binary
The response also advised BritCits that UKBA (and by extension the Home Office) does
not hold any additional example scenarios beyond what is included at the link.
17. However, the Home Office headquarters response (25041) engaged section 40(2) in
answer to this question. The Home Office argued that providing this information would
constitute the release of personal data.
18. Both answers have merit, but the Home Office can only issue one response. The original
question asked for at least three examples of situations where parents meet the criteria
set. BritCits‟ internal review request makes it clear that they are looking for actual
examples of circumstances where someone has met the criteria in the real world and not
examples created for the purpose of explaining the policy (criteria-led examples).
19. UKBA‟s response largely falls into the category of criteria-led examples. I can confirm that
the Home Office (including UKBA) do not hold additional example scenarios beyond what
is included on the website. Under the FOI Act public bodies are not required to create
information to answer requests.
20. However, BritCits internal review request indicates that it is asking for three “case studies”.
This suggests that the Home Office (SIIG) interpreted the original request correctly.
21. The Home Office does hold successful applications for a UK settlement visa under the
new rules and it is from these cases that BritCits would like examples or “case studies”.
22. The Home Office withheld any such examples under section 40(2). The argument that
such examples would constitute personal data is based on the fact that to provide the
information requested would require the Home Office to use the actual circumstances of
successful applicants to answer the request. Even anonymised data could lead to the
identification of the individuals involved. The circumstances for each person who has
applied under the new rules are the applicant‟s personal.
23. Under some circumstances it might be possible to provide „successful‟ scenarios of
applicants sufficiently anonymised to protect the individuals‟ identities. However in this
case there were under 500 applications of which less than 30 had been successful. It is
because of this low number of successful applications and the uniqueness of each case
that truly anonymised data cannot be provided.
24. The information Commissioner‟s guidance on personal data includes an 8-step series of
questions to help identify how information becomes „personal data‟. The first step cites:
“A living individual can be identified from the data. In most cases, an individual is
identified if they can be distinguished from other members of a group.”
This applies if the living individual can be identified by anyone, anywhere and
includes relatives or even the person themselves.
25. Examples such as those requested would in my view constitute personal data, even if
obviously identifying details such as names were to be removed, as there is a clear risk
that individuals could still be identified. I do not consider that such personal data could be
disclosed without breaching the first data protection principle. The information is therefore
exempt under section 40(2), by reason of the condition at section 40(3)(a)(i).
26. I can therefore confirm that the Home Office response to FOI case 25041 was the correct
response and should be considered the Department‟s response to both FOI cases (25036
and 25041).
Conclusion
Case 25036
27. There was a procedural breach of section 10(1). The response was issued outside of the
20 day deadline.
28. Section 12 (cost) was correctly applied.
29. Section 21 was incorrectly applied to question two. Section 40(2) has been engaged at the
internal review stage for this question.
30. Although section 21 was the incorrect exemption to apply to question two based on the
clarification of the question in the internal review request, UKBA was correct to provide the
link to the information in the public domain. However this should not have been under
section 21 but more under section 16 (advice and assistance).
31. There was no procedural breach of section 17(7) (a) and 17(7) (b).
Case 25041
32. There was no procedural breach of section 10(1). The response was issued inside
of the 20 day deadline.
33. Section 12 (cost) was correctly applied to the first part of the request.
34. Section 40(2) (personal information) was correctly applied to the second part of the
request.
35. There was no procedural breach of section 17(7) (a) and 17(7) (b).
Information Access Team
Home Office
6/2/2013
Annex A – Original request in full
Dear Home Office
Please advice on the following, in relation to non-EU parents of British citizens/residents
and the new 'rules' brought in with effect from 9th July:
a) how many non-EU parents of British citizens/those with indefinite leave to remain, have
applied for a UK settlement visa since 9th July 2012 under the new rules (not 8th July, 9th
July) -and of these, how many have been approved, refused and are pending, up until
what date?
b) Please give at least three examples of situations where parents meet the criteria set,
without the condition being along the lines of 'this person will meet the criteria if they can
show that this level of care can only be provided in the UK'. That is, we would like, under
the FOI act, actual examples of situations where someone does meet the criteria under the
new rules (if anyone), without the reference being this person will meet the criteria if they
meet another specified element of the criteria! I.e. no circular examples please!
Yours faithfully
Annex B – Original response in full (from SIIG)
Dear BritCits
Thank you for your e-mail of 9 November 2012 in which you ask for statistics and
examples of cases granted to non EU parents of British citizens/ permanent residents
since 9 July 2012 under the new family migration rules.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
1. You requested statistics on how many non-EU parents of British citizens/those with
indefinite leave to remain, have applied for a UK settlement visa since 9th July 2012
under the new rules (not 8th July, 9th July) and of these, how many have been
approved, refused and are pending, up until what date.
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.
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 it. We have attempted to
generate the data you are seeking using standard reports. However the information you
are seeking is not captured in our standard reports and requires the scrutiny of individual
case records to find cases which fall into the very specific data set you requested.
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.
If you refine your request, so that it is more likely to fall under the cost limit, we will
consider it again however refining the request might still result in exceeding the cost limit
because your refined request might still for example require information not captured by
standard reports and/or the scrutiny of individual records. Please note that if you simply
break your request down into a series of similar smaller requests, we might still decline to
answer it if the total cost exceeds £600.
2. You requested at least three examples of situations where parents meet the criteria set,
without the condition being along the lines of 'this person will meet the criteria if they can
show that this level of care can only be provided in the UK'. That is, you would like, under
the FOI act, actual examples of situations where someone does meet the criteria under the
new rules (if anyone), without the reference being this person will meet the criteria if they
meet another specified element of the criteria i.e. no circular examples please.
The general policy of the Home Office is not to disclose, to a third party, personal
information about another person. This is because we have obligations under the Data
Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information. Your request for personal
information has been considered in line with our obligations under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act. However, we have concluded that the information you have
requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This exempts
personal data if disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles.
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 25041. 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
: xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx 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
Annex C – Internal review request
To whom it may concern
We write with regards to the response received to the FOI request re: non-EU parents and
subsequently request an independent review as a result of the extremely unhelpful and
dismal response.
The Home Office reference is 25041.
Two extremely basic questions have been asked and it's sad that a government
department, in one of the leading developed countries in the world has trouble
understanding them, or indeed, it is politics being played out at its dirtiest.
Attached are the questions and response; the full trail of this can be found at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/immigration_of_non_eu_parents_of#incoming-
339958
1.
"How many non-EU parents of British citizens/those with indefinite leave to remain,
have applied for a UK settlement visa
since 9th July 2012 under the new rules (not 8th July, 9th July) - and of these, how many
have been approved, refused and are pending,
up until what date?" The response received from the Home Office says it's too expensive for them to provide
this information. I disagree. They should have clear stats on the number of migrants
applied and approved under various categories, and this should not entail more than 24
man hours !!
2.
" Please give at least three examples of situations where parents meet the criteria set,
without the condition being along the lines of 'this person will meet the criteria if they can
show that this level of care can only be provided in the UK'. That is, we would like, under
the FOI act, actual examples of situations where someone does meet the criteria under the
new rules (if anyone), without the reference being this person will meet the criteria if they
meet another specified element of the criteria! I.e. no circular examples please!" The response received from the Home Office is that they cannot divulge personal
information. In the interest of clarity, note that we have not requested personal information.
We are asking for general case studies, be they anonymised of those who will meet the
rules put in place (our reason for this is that the rules are so stringent that to date, not a
single politician or lawyer has been able to envisage a scenario where someone would
satisfy the criteria.
We look forward to hearing from you at the earliest.
Annex D – Internal review acknowledgement follow up correspondence from
BritCits
Dear FOI Requests,
Let us make it simple for you. How many non-EU parents of British citizens/those with
indefinite leave to remain, have applied for a UK settlement visa since 9th July 2012 under
the new rules (not 8th July, 9th July).
Please also let us know how many non EU parents of British citizens whose application is
under the new rules in force since 9July have been approved? This is a simple X applied
and Y were approved and by no means should cost over £600. If these stats aren't readily
available we will be questioning the efficiency and operations of UKBA if not having basic
records readily available!!
Please also give 3 case studies (anonymised, but giving examples of situations that where
the criteria is satisfied) of situations where parents meet the criteria set, without the
condition being along the lines of 'this person will meet the criteria if they can show that
this level of care can only be provided in the UK'. That is, we would like, under the FOI
act, actual examples of situations where someone does meet the crtieria under the new
rules (if anyone), without the reference being this person will meet the criteria if they meet
another specified element of the criteria! These do not have to be actual examples if you
are afraid that anonymised actual examples will contravene DPA, but can be examples
based on your own studies of who will be able to satisfy the criteria (it's clear who won't, so
positives only please).