Information Access Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Date: 23 February 2012
Reference: 20560
Dear Mr Bimmler,
Freedom of Information request (our ref. 20560): internal review
I am writing further to our e-mail of 14 December 2011, about your request for an internal
review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request about identity checks at
public transport hubs.
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 inadequate in that it did not consider other exemptions under the Act that applied to
information that was withheld from you. In addition, the response did not release information
to which you are entitled that falls under the scope of your request.
I have considered the application of exemptions at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act, which relates to personal information; section 31(1)(a)(b) and (c), which
relates to the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of
offenders and the operation of the immigration controls; section 36(2)(b), prejudice to the
effective conduct of public affairs; section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of
government policy; and section 42(1), legal professional privilege.
I have also recommended the release of information relevant to your request, which can be
found in
Annex C of the attached report.
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
Rachel Anderson
Information Access Team
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information
(FoI) Act 2000 by Michael Bimmler (reference 20560)
Responding Unit: Professional Standards for Enforcement (PSfE)
Chronology
Original FoI request:
7 November 2011
PSfE response:
6 December 2011
Request for internal review:
13 December 2011
Subject of request
1. On 7 November 2011 Mr Bimmler contacted the Home Office. Referring to an
article in the
Guardian Mr Bimmler sought information relating to the UK
Border Agency‘s powers to carry out immigration checks at bus stations.
2. Specifically, Mr Bimmler asked to receive ―any internal regulations or policies
which specifically permit and describe such identity checks at public transport
hubs which are not airports or seaports‖, in addition to ―any documents you
hold on the introduction and application of these identity checks. This
specifically includes but is not limited to: submissions to ministers; briefing
notes for ministers, senior management, SpAds, correspondence section,
customer services etc.; internal memoranda, file notes and correspondence
including emails; Lines to Take‖. A full copy of Mr Bimmler‘s original request
can be found at
Annex A.
The response by Professional Standards for Enforcement
3. PSfE responded to Mr Bimmler on 6 December.
4. The PSfE response stated that some of the information relating to Mr
Bimmer‘s request was already available to him in the public domain. PSfE
stated that section 21 of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act exempted the
UK Border Agency from having to provide the information requested.
5. The PSfE response also confirmed that it held the further information
requester. PSfE advised that it considered this further information exempt
from release pursuant to the exemptions under section 31(1)(e) of the Act.
Mr Bimmler’s request for an internal review
6. On 13 December Mr Bimmler contacted the Home Office requesting an
internal review.
7. Mr Bimmler advised that his request for an internal review was not concerned
with the application of the exemption at section 21 of the Act.
8. Mr Bimmler stated
―I believe that Section 31(1)(e) FOIA has been incorrectly
applied with regards to the remaining records. Firstly, I note that you do not
specify whether disclosure 'would' or 'would be likely to' prejudice operation of
immigration controls. There is, as you will be aware, a clear distinction
between 'would' or 'would be likely to' for the purpose of the FOIA.‖
9. Mr Bimmler further clarified his request for an internal review by stating that
―
Secondly, I do not believe that all disclosure of the records I requested would
or would be likely to prejudice such operations. If necessary with redactions,
prejudice can be avoided by suitable redactions‖. In addition, Mr Bimmler
contended that he believed that even if prejudice could be established he
believed the public interest was in favour of release.
10. The full text of Mr Bimmler‘s request for an internal review can be found at
Annex B.
Procedural issues
11. Mr Bimmler‘s request is recorded as initially having been received by the
UKBA on 7 November 2011.
12. Accordingly UKBA was obliged to provide Mr Bimmler with a response
compliant with Section 10(1) of the Act within 20 working days; that is, no later
than 5 December 2011.
13. Mr Bimmler received a final response on 6 December 2011, outside of the 20
working days statutory limit.
14. In this respect, UKBA did not meet its obligations under Section 10(1) of the
Act by having provided Mr Bimmler with a response within 20 working days of
receiving his request.
15. The response of 6 December 2011 informed Mr Bimmler in writing of his right
to request an independent review of the handling of his request as required by
Section 17(7)(a) of the Act.
16. Furthermore, the response of 6 December 2011 informed Mr Bimmler in
writing of his right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as required
by Section 17(7)(b) of the Act.
Consideration of the response
17. As previously stated Mr Bimmler‘s FOI request is principally concerned with
the application of the exemption at section 31(1)(e) of the Act and the
subsequent decision to withhold information that fell under the scope of Mr
Bimmler‘s request using this exemption.
18. PSfE advised that they limited the scope of the request to relating to
documents from the 2011 calendar year. This is because they considered
that the cost limit, as defined under the Freedom of Information Act, would
have prevented them from responding to Mr Bimmler‘s FOI request when
expressed as a request without a set time frame.
19. Section 12 of the Act states:
12.-
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request
would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to
comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying
with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
20. The cost limit is defined as being £600 which 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.
21. PSfE confirmed that, if no time frame is set to limit the scope of the request,
section 12(2) is engaged with respect to this request. This is because a
review of both electronic and manual records would need to be made in order
to ascertain whether information is held by the Home Office relevant to this
request. PSfE considered that there were 183 electronic files that would need
to be examined and that it would take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to
examine each file. If 10 minutes was spent examining all 183 files this would
take over 30 hours. As manual records would also need to be examined this
would take the request considerably over the cost limit.
22. As such, PSfE were correct to conclude that Mr Bimmler‘s request would, in
its original formulation, engage the cost limit.
23. PSfE were not obliged by the Act to subsequently narrow Mr Bimmler‘s
request. However, they were willing to do so and as such, only considered
information held by the Home Office for the 2011 calendar year.
24. I have viewed the information considered to be within the scope of this
request. PSfE holds information with regard to Street Operations (StOps).
Information about StOps falls within the scope of Mr Bimmler‘s request for
information about ―identity checks‖ conducted by UKBA.
25. I consider that PSfE were not correct to withhold all the information requested
under section 31(1)(e) of the Act (information which would, or would be likely
to, prejudice the operation of immigration controls), although some information
held by the Home Office continues to be exempt using this exemption.
26. Some of the information requested remains exempt from release. However,
the basis for this continued refusal to disclose relies on a number of
exemptions under the Act. These are: 31(1)(a)(b)(e) (law enforcement),
35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy). 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to
the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 42(1)
(legal professional privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act. These will be
discussed in further detail below.
27. I also consider that some of the information that falls within the scope of Mr
Bimmler‘s request should be released, where it had previously been withheld,
in response to Mr Bimmler‘s question. This information is provided at
Annex
C to this response.
28. I will now consider the exemptions that have been engaged with respect to
the information that falls under the scope of this request.
Section 31: Law Enforcement
29. Section 31 states:
31 - (1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section
30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would
be likely to, prejudice—
(a) the prevention or detection of crime
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders
(e) the operation of the immigration controls
Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure under section 31.
30. The Act provides a general presumption in favour of disclosure of any
information requested and the disclosure of the information you have
requested could enhance the public understanding of the government works,
particularly in the area of immigration controls.
31. Disclosure of information contained within these records would provide
evidence of how the UK Border Agency work to detect immigration offences
and the methods they use to apprehend immigration offenders. The UK
Border Agency provides a public service and it is in the public interest that
information demonstrating how it performs in regards to its duties is made
available, particularly in regards to areas of work safeguarding border controls
and preventing immigration offences.
32. Any disclosure would go towards reassuring the public, inspiring their
confidence, co-operation and engagement.
33. The accountability of the department and the manner in which it works is of
interest to the British public as a whole, particularly due to the broad and
serious work that falls under remit of the Home Office.
34. In addition to the above points, disclosure of this information would also
demonstrate openness and transparency thereby increasing public
confidence and encouraging engagement and debate.
Public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure under section 31(1)(a) and
(b).
35. The information in question includes descriptions of methodologies and
locations used by the UK Border Agency and the police when engaged in law
enforcement work and for identifying possible immigration offenders.
Disclosure of the methods and locations described in the information held
would substantially prejudice and impede the ability of law enforcement
agencies to conduct operations effectively. Allowing insight into these
techniques would allow criminals and immigration offenders to counter any
crime prevention measures that are in place.
36. The disclosure of this information could prejudice the prevention or detection
of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Clearly this would
not be in the public interest.
Public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure under section 31(1)(e).
37. It is necessary for the UK Border Agency to be able to effectively maintain
border controls and to prevent the abuse of immigration rules. Disclosure of
the information that, in particular, reveals locations or methods used to ensure
the effectiveness of border controls would harm the UK Border Agency‘s
ability to perform its statutory functions.
38. I consider that the disclosure of this information would therefore prejudice the
operation of immigration controls. Clearly this would not be in the public
interest.
Conclusion
39. I conclude that the balance of the public interest weighs in favour of non-
disclosure.
Section 36: Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs
40. Section 36 states:
36. – (1) This section applies to-
(a) Information which is held by a government department or by the National
Assembly for Wales and is exempt information by virtue of section 35, and
(b) Information which is held by any other public authority
(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the
reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of information under the Act-
(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit-
(i)The free and frank provision of advice or,
(ii)The free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation
Arguments in favour of disclosure under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)
41. Immigration and the operation of immigration controls by the UKBA is an
issue of strong public interest. Release of the requested information will
increase transparency surrounding the policy making process in UKBA, which
in turn may lead to increased engagement between citizens and government
with respect to immigration operations led by UKBA. It is important that
citizens are confident that decisions made taking into account the best
available information.
42. UKBA‘s enforcement role has a very high profile in the UK and release of the
information would also show how officials interact with each other and the
range of advice and views provided in policy discussions. Such openness
makes government more accountable to the taxpayer in terms of the quality
of decisions taken, and the spending of public money. In addition openness
enables individuals to gain a better understanding of decisions which directly
affect them, and therefore make informed contributions to public debate.
Arguments against disclosure under section 36(b)(i) and (ii)
43. It is in the public interest that there is a space within which the Home Office
and its stakeholders are able to discuss policy options freely and frankly.
Discussions about immigration-related operations contain, in some instances,
a candid exchange of views. Knowing that such discussions or advice might
be made public at an early stage would inhibit policy officials from being free
and frank in their advice or opinions. It would weaken the effectiveness of
views that are provided to Ministers and make it less likely that such
information was properly recorded in the future. Ministers and policy officials
need to be able to think through all the implications of various options – in
particular they need to be able to undertake rigorous and candid assessments
of possible strategies and policy options.
Conclusion
44. I have concluded that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding the
information.
Section 42: Legal Professional Privilege
45. Section 42(1) states:
41.–(1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in
Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal
proceedings is exempt information.
Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure under section 42(1).
46. The Home Office recognises that there is a general public interest in
openness and transparency in all aspects of government. Such openness
increases public trust and confidence in government and promotes the
accountability of government decision-making.
47. There is a public interest in the UK Border Agency being held accountable for
decisions it makes and releasing legal advice would held to ensure that the
public understand the reasoning upon which the UK Border Agency is making
decisions that have the potential to affect significant proportions of the
population.
Public interest considerations against disclosure under section 42(1)
48. In order for legal advice given to be valuable to a public authority it is crucial
that the seeking and giving of such advice be carried out with absolute
candour. This requires that the persons seeking the legal advice are secure
in the knowledge that the information that passes between them and their
lawyer will be free from scrutiny by outsiders. The Information Tribunal
recognised in Bellamy v Information Commissioner EA/2005/0023:
―There is a
strong element of public interest inbuilt into privilege itself. At least equally
strong countervailing considerations would need to be adduced to override
that inbuilt public interest‖.
49. The advice given remains current and as such, the UK Border Agency still
relies on this advice.
Conclusion
50. I consider that the balance of public interest is in favour of withholding this
information.
Section 40: Personal information
51. Section 40(2) of the Act and Section 40(3) and 40(4), the conditions to which
40(2) refers, state:
40. -(2) Any information to which the a request for information relates is also exempt
information if –
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and –
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is –
(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of
the definition of ―data‖ in section 1 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the
disclosure of the information to a member of the public would contravene –
(i) any of the data protection principles, or
(ii) section 10 of the Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the
public other than under this Act would contravene any of the data protection
principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the Data Protection act 1998
(which relate to the manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded.
(4) The second condition is that by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7 (1) (c) of that Act
(subject’s right of access to personal data).
52. In order to examine whether the exemption under Section 40(2) is legitimately
engaged it is first necessary to establish whether the information being
requested constitutes personal data.
53. The Data Protection Act (1998) defines personal data as that which relates to
a living individual who may be identified:
a)
from those data, or
b)
from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is
likely to come into the possession of, the data controller and includes any
expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the
intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect to the
individual
54. I have reviewed all the information considered exempt as personal data within
the scope of the request and conclude that on the basis of the above
definition the information is personal data.
55. Disclosure of such personal data would breach the condition in subsection 40
(3)(a)(i) of the Act. This condition states that disclosure of personal
information is exempt where to do so would breach any of the data protection
principles, specifically, the reasonable expectation of a data subject to have
their data fairly and lawfully processed as stated at Schedule 1(1)(1)(a) of the
Data Protection Act (1998).
56. For the conditions at Schedule 1(1)(1)(a) to be met, the conditions at
Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act (1998) must be satisfied when
information requests relate to personal data. These conditions are, in
summary, that:
The data subject has given consent to the processing
The processing is necessary for contractual purposes
The processing is necessary to comply with some other legal obligation
The processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data
subject
The processing is necessary for the administration of justice, for the
exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister or a government
department or for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature
in the public interest
The processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests
of the data controller or a third party (unless the processing is
unwarranted because it would prejudice the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject.
57. I do not consider that any of the conditions at Schedule 2 met; therefore, the
conditions of Schedule 1(1)(1)(a) of the Act are not engaged.
58. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption as referred to in Section 2(3)(f)(ii) of
the Act. This means that it is not necessary to consider the public interest
when assessing whether to release the information requested.
Section 35: formulation of government policy
59. Section 35(1)(a) states:
35 – (1) Information held by a government department or by the National
Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) The formulation or development of government policy.
Considerations in favour of disclosing information under section 35(1)(a)
60. The Home Office recognises that there is a general public interest in
openness and transparency in all aspects of government. Such openness
increases public trust and confidence in government and promotes the
accountability of government decision-making. Furthermore, given the
generally high level of public interest in the role of the UKBA in securing UK
borders, there is a strong public interest around demonstrating how policy
towards immigration-led operations is developed and decided.
61. The release of information around policy development can potentially lead to
greater engagement in political debate and policy discussions. The public and
particular interested parties would become better informed on all aspects of
the work of government. It would also give interested parties an opportunity
to actively contribute to the policy making process.
62. Disclosure would enhance knowledge of the way policy was developed,
enabling those with a particular interest in this subject to understand more
clearly the policy making decisions behind UKBA‘s work. It would also
demonstrate the effectiveness of the Home Office‘s work with other
government departments in the development of this policy.
Consideration against disclosing information under section 35(1)(a)
63. The information considered under section 35 relates to the policy
development of tools that could be utilised by UKBA officers in their
enforcement work. I have spoken to UKBA staff who confirm that this is in the
very early stages of development and, as such, cannot be considered to be
‗finished‘ policy. As such, the information that falls under the scope of this
request relates to the formulation and development of government policy.
64. It is vital to policy development that Ministers and their officials are able to
discuss different policy options in a candid and open way. Such a release
may have a limiting effect on the frankness of such discussions in the future.
In these circumstances allowing Ministers and officials to formulate and
develop policy in the confidence that their deliberations will not be made
public best suits the public interest. Prematurely releasing such information
could result in less robust policy discussions of the different options available,
resulting in diminished quality of the final policy produced.
65. Routine releases of this type of information could have the effect of
discouraging Ministers and their officials from comprehensively discussing
different policy options and thereby challenging established ideas which are
all important parts of the policy formulation process. In essence, officials
need to be given the space to ‗think the unthinkable‘, without fear that such
deliberations would be prematurely released and subject to the rigours of
public debate.
Conclusion
66. I conclude that the balance of public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure.
Advice and assistance
67. Although not technically obliged to do so under the Act, UKBA provided
assistance to Mr Bimmler by narrowing the scope of the information he
requested to information held within the year 2011 when it became apparent
that his request would engage the cost limit.
Conclusion
68. UKBA did not meet its obligation under section 10(1) of the Act by failing to
provide Mr Bimmler with response compliant under section 1 (1) of the Act
within 20 working days of receipt of his request.
69. UKBA met its obligations under section 17 (7) (a) and section (17) (7) (b) of
the Act by providing Mr. Bimmler with information about his right to request an
internal review and his right of complaint to the Information Commissioner.
70. UKBA did not meet its obligation under section 1(1)(b) of the Act, as it did not
provide Mr Bimmler with the information which fell under the scope of his
request to which he is entitled.
71. UKBA partially complied with section 17(1) of the Act by specifying an
exemption applicable to the information requested, naming this exemption
and stating why this exemption applied. However, UKBA failed to fully comply
with this section as it did not name the other exemptions applicable to the
information under the scope of this request or explain why these exemptions
applied.
Information Access Team
Home Office
23 February
Annex A
Dear UK Border Agency,
at the website
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/05...), the Guardian reports on a practice of UKBA to perform spot checks
of identification at bus stations and other public transport hubs,
where passengers are required to show evidence of identity to
inspectors who appear to be looking for illegal immigrants. In the
following, I will refer to this practice as "identity checks".
With relation to this, please provide
- any internal regulations or policies which specifically permit
and describe such identity checks at public transport hubs which
are not airports or seaports.
- any documents you hold on the introduction and application of
these identity checks. This specifically includes but is not
limited to
1) submissions to ministers
2) briefing notes for ministers, senior management, SpAds,
correspondence section, customer services etc.
3) internal memoranda, file notes and correspondence including
emails
4) Lines to Take
If the cost threshold is engaged, please limit this request to
cover documents from 2011.
If the cost threshold is then still engaged, please revert to me as
soon as possible to discuss further narrowing the request, rather
than wait for the entire 20 working days to inform me of this.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Bimmler
Annex B
Professional Standards for
Enforcement
18th Floor
Lunar House
Wellesley Road,
CROYDON
CR9 2BY
M Bimmler
ww
w.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Our Ref: FOI 20560
November 2011
Dear Mr Bimmler
Thank you for your email of 5 November, where you have requested information on
UK Border Agency‘s powers to carry out immigration checks at bus stations. This
request falls to be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You specifically asked us to provide
- any internal regulations or policies which specifically permit
and describe such identity checks at public transport hubs which
are not airports or seaports.
- any documents you hold on the introduction and application of
these identity checks. This specifically includes but is not
limited to
1) submissions to ministers
2) briefing notes for ministers, senior management, SpAds,
correspondence section, customer services etc.
3) internal memoranda, file notes and correspondence including
emails
4) Lines to Take
Guidance on policy and practice on undertaking immigration inspections in places
other than airports and seaports is available in chapter 31(paragraph 31.19) of the
Enforcement Instructions and Guidance at:
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/
oemsectione/ Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts the Home Office from having
to provide you with a full copy of this information, as it is already in the public
domain. If you have any difficulties in accessing this information at the source which I
have indicated, please contact me again.
As to the other documents requested you have also asked that in the event that the
cost threshold is engaged that we should limit the request to cover 2011. I can
confirm that the UK Border Agency holds the information that you have requested,
however, it has been decided not to communicate this to you pursuant to the
exemptions under Section 31(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 31(1)(e) allows us to exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be
likely to prejudice the operation of the immigration controls. Release of the requested
information may enable potential immigration offenders to obtain detailed information
on our enforcement operations and could enable them to circumvent the system.
We have considered the public interest there may be in the circumstances of this
case in disclosing the information requested. Disclosure of this information into the
public domain would provide transparency about how the UK Border Agency
enforces the immigration rules and how effective such enforcement is.
We have also considered the public interest there may be in maintaining the
exemption to the duty to communicate. Non-disclosure would allow the UK Border
Agency to ensure it can continue to combat abuse of the immigration rules in
circumstances such as those in question. There is also significant public interest in
ensuring that UK Border Agency enforcement operations are conducted with
maximum possible efficiency with respect to public funds.
We have considered whether in all circumstances of the case the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
We have concluded that the balance of the public interests identified lies in favour of
maintaining the exemption because giving such detailed information on operational
matters may prejudice the UK Border Agency‘s ability to enforce the law, and reduce
the efficiency of such enforcement with an impact on public funds.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal
review of our handling of your request. Internal review requests should be submitted
within two months of the UK Border Agency sending a substantive reply to your
original request and should be addressed to:
Information Access Team
Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
During the independent 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 will have a right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the
Freedom of Information Act.
Yours sincerely
L J Mansfield
Professional Standards for Enforcement
Annex C
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 16:48
To: <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area) <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press enquiry to RRT: did UKBA conduct any operations at Stratford Station in the last
3 months?
<redacted>
I have tried to phone <redacted> but he was presumably on the phone to you.
We are not aware of any operations at Stratford in either the last 3 months or the last 3 days. I have
checked this with both the CIOs from the Arrest Team and the CIO who is responsible for Newham
Borough.
We do support various different branches of the police <redacted> on operations at transport hubs
and elsewhere and have done quite a few with <redacted> recently. These types of Ops will involve
individuals being stopped by Police Officers and referred to UKBA for questioning. We don‘t do any
independent street ops- I was of the impression we were not allowed to conduct these types of ops?
Hope this assists
Regards
<redacted>
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 4:35 PM
To: Flannery Sharon (London Area); <redacted>; <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: Press enquiry to RRT: did UKBA conduct any operations at Stratford Station in the
last 3 months?
<redacted>, I‘ve spoken with <redacted> just now – he‘s been in touch with <redacted> about
this already.
A Sunrise TV reporter has approached <redacted> and 2MS Press Office about so-called
UKBA ‗stop and search‘ powers. There‘s a policy response to this, explaining what in-country
powers Immigration Officers have (it‘s not Stop and Search but there is a power detailed in
Chapter 31 of the Enforcement Manual) -
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/oemsec
tione/. Separately, the reporter is claiming that UKBA participated in an operation at Stratford
Station. He‘s unable to say when exactly – either ‗in the last three weeks‘ or ‗the last 3
months.‘ We‘d like to be able to shoot down the story by saying UKBA hasn‘t participated in
any operations at Stratford Station in the last 3 months, whether independently or in
partnership with other agencies (eg. TfL, BTP). Could you confirm to RRT whether this is the
case?
Many thanks,
<redacted>
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 February 2011 13:01
To: <redacted>; <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area)
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
<redacted>
No UKBA Street led Ops recorded on Nod over the past 3 months.
We are investigating the 2 Ops recorded as UKBA led Street Ops in April 2010 but believe
this to be a DQ error.
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 February 2011 11:57 AM
To: <redacted> <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area); <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
<redacted>
Obviously there shouldn‘t be anything else ‗off NOD‘ but I‘l stand by to hear back from
<redacted> too, as it‘s not pressing.
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 February 2011 11:53 AM
To: <redacted> <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area); <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
I just checked with the NOD people. Last recorded London Street Op was April 2010.
Last recorded Street Op elsewhere was Wales Dec 2010.
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 February 2011 11:41 AM
To: <redacted>; <redacted> Flannery Sharon (London Area); <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
<redacted>
We‘ve worked on this a little bit more and come up with this to go to Sunrise
TV with.
Could you confirm you‘re happy with it and if Sharon‘s office could confirm
that there haven‘t been any Street Operations in London in recent months. I‘m
almost certain that there haven‘t been any in the last couple of years but
would appreciate confirmation of that to before we go back to the journalist.
I‘d appreciate your response by 1pm if at all possible.
Many thanks,
<redacted>
We have not carried out any UK Border Agency-led Street Operations in
Stratford or anywhere else in London in recent months, however we continue
to tackle abuse of the immigration system by detaining, prosecuting and
removing those intent on breaking immigration laws.
Illegal immigration puts huge pressure on the public purse at a time when the
country can least afford it. Together with the police and the Serious
Organised Crime Agency we will continue to make life as difficult as possible
for those who cheat the immigration system.
Is it the case that UK Border Agency staff are able to demand that
members of the public show their identification even if not at the
border? Yes. Immigration Officers are entitled to examine people in order to determine
their immigration status if they have information which causes them to enquire
whether the person being examined has a right to be here.
This is not connected with the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics.
Isn’t it the case that UK Border Agency staff have been stopping and
searching people in and around Stratford underground station recently? No – there haven‘t been any such operations at Stratford or anywhere else in
London in recent months however our officers have and continue to support
police-lead operations elsewhere in other locations in London.
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 4:59 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
My attached response refers.
I don‘t know what the Olympic link is here- I certainly don‘t think that we have
any additional powers because of the Olympics.<redacted>
I think the reporter must have got confused and thinks that the U- Tube clip
refers to a more recent op. As far as I know we haven‘t done anything without
the police since the moratorium on this kind work following the ―unfortunate
incident‖ referred to below.
Regards
<redacted>
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 4:44 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>; <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
Street Ops in Stratford sounds like <redacted> domain?
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 4:26 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
Importance: High
Thanks <redacted>. I think I remember the embarrassing case you‘re
referring to….
Here‘s what I propose going back to Press Office with, quoting from
the Enforcement Manual:
―Immigration Officers (IOs) do not have the same powers as the
police to stop and search individuals in public places. As regards the
powers of IOs to question individuals ―in-country‖ (as distinct from
immigration control points at ports of entry), IOs are entitled to
examine people in order to determine their immigration status
in
certain circumstances. The authority for this stems from paragraph
2 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (the ‘71 Act) as
interpreted by the long standing judgement
Singh v Hammond.
Singh v Hammond held that:
―
An examination [under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the ’71 Act] …
can properly be conducted by an immigration officer away from the
place of entry and on a later date after the person has already
entered … if the immigration officer has some information in his
possession which causes him to enquire whether the person being
examined is a British citizen and, if not, … whether he should be
given leave and on what conditions.‖
On the basis of this authority, if an IO has a ―reasonable suspicion‖
that an individual is an immigration offender he may lawfully seek to
stop that person with a view to asking them questions. An IO‘s
powers under Schedule 2 of the ‘71 Act would then apply in the same
way as they do at a port of entry.‖
The enquirer has also approached our regional press officer as well
as the 2MS press office. He‘s claiming a recent operation was carried
out at Stratford station but is unable to provide any details other than
‗in the last 3 months.‘
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 3:49 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
<redacted>
No we cannot demand identification in the street and we do not have
stop and search powers. However, we have a power to examine
which can be deployed in-country in certain circumstances. The way
that these powers work is quite complicated so if you can get away
with it, I'd refer your journalist to the published policy:
section 31.19 of the Enforcement Manual can be found here:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandl
aw/enforcement/oemsectione/chapter31?view=Binary
In summary there are 2 types of operation:
1. A Crime Reduction Operation (aka a CROP) which is where the
police usually do the stop and then we take over and start asking
questions - and arrest if needed.
2. A Street Operation (aka a STOP) which is where we target specific
areas based on intel and we look for behaviour which gives us a
"reasonable suspicion" to trigger our powers.
You should be aware that STOPs are controversial. We try not to
advertise that we do this stuff because (1) we don't always get it right
and had an embarrassing incident involving a high profile public
figure who was stopped a few years back, and (2) <redacted>
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 February 2011 2:38 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: UKBA Rapid Response Team
Subject: Press query on UKBA 'stop and search' powers
<redacted>
We‘ve received an enquiry from a local TV station, Sunrise TV, asking ―if it is
the case that UK Border Agency staff are able to demand that members of
the public show their identification even if not at the border.‖
The reporter said that <redacted> made this point and added that UK Border
Agency has this power because of the security arrangements for the 2012
Olympics and Paralympics.
I think the reporter‘s interest was sparked by an old clip on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chQVBpA3g68. I can‘t watch the clip on
the work PC but it‘s titled ―Illegal Immigrants: Stratford Station, London - Part
1 and the accompanying text says:
―Britain Divided 05 June 2010 —
Another day in London with the UK's Border Agency.. as they watch people traveling
to work they meet a suspicious looking man who turns out to be an illegal immigrant
from Nigeria who doesn't seem to know his own date of birth. On this particular
morning, the Border Agency made seven arrests of illegal immigrants, including
several from India and Pakistan. The fact immigration officers were able to just pull
seven illegal immigrants off the street in one small area of London in a few hours is
quite worrying and shows the scale of the problem. Of the seven arrests, six were
given temporary release but failed to report to back to the police station and are listed
as absconders. This is a common pattern you see over and over again when it comes
to illegal immigrants. It illustrates clearly that our present immigrant controls are
failing. Here's how it's failing: An illegal immigrant is picked up and denies having a
passport. Without a passport they know they cannot be detained in prison and
deported from the UK. Once arrested and charged with being an illegal immigrant,
they are released by the police subject to their agreeing not to work and to report to
the police station each week until their documents and passports are ready for them
to be deported. Naturally once they are released they are never seen again and they
just move on to a different area. They have nothing to lose by absconding. Since
these individuals don't legally exist here, they don't pay any taxes and often work
illegally or get involved in crime, such as prostitution and drug dealing. Many go on to
commit serious crimes, as they know at the end of the day they have little to lose
since in a worse case scenario they get deported back to their own country. How can
we fix this problem? The simple answer is to detain all illegal immigrants and fast
track them for deportation. However the reality is there are over 5,000 illegal
immigrants rounded up every year in London alone, and in 2008 67,980 nationwide,
up 7% on the previous year. Out of those 67,980, just 3% (2,250) were detained and
of those more than half were asylum seekers. We simply don't have the space or
resources to hold them all. Illegal immigrants can't be deported without passports as
they would be refused entry to their country of origin. The procedure for getting
passports for them involves the UK government making requests to their countries
and the procedure often takes a year or more. Clearly this requires a more
coordinated and efficient international approach to dealing with moving illegal
immigrants back to their countries. If prison space is not available for detaining them,
perhaps they could be detained under house arrest using the electronic tagging
system used for ordinary criminals. At least this would allow the police to know where
they are. Feel free to post your ideas and suggestions, perhaps we can send them all
to the government who seem utterly clueless! http://www.migrationwatchuk.or<wbr>g
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/r<wbr>ds/immigration-asylum-stats.ht<wbr>ml.‖
I‘m sure there must have been previous interest in so-called ‗stop and search‘
powers as they relate to UKBA staff.
The reporter would like to know by tomorrow morning. Could you help
please?
Regards
<redacted>
From: <redacted>
Sent: 20 September 2011 13:49
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: Re: <redacted> - Street Ops at Transport Hubs
Thanks....I think my 2005 Op Order indicates the powers of persuasion and invited consent
From: <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:04 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: <redacted> - Street Ops at Transport Hubs
<redacted>
The Op Order does not follow current guidance. IOs have no authority to stop and question
persons as described and must not do so on a CrOp.
Please see the guidance at Chapter 31.19 onward -
click here – for what you can do.
StOps are still not allowed in London following their withdrawal by the RD.
Regards
<redacted> From: <redacted>
Sent: 19 September 2011 15:19
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: <redacted> - Street Ops at Transport Hubs
<redacted>
Please speak to:
<redacted>
Please see attached some very old personal documents on CROPS....This is not
policy and may not even adhere to current guidance.
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 13 September 2011 8:41 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: <redacted> Street Ops at Transport Hubs
Hi <redacted>
As discussed last week, I would be really grateful if you could send me the contact
details of <redacted>
Thank you
<redacted>
_____________________________________________
From: <redacted>
Sent: 21 September 2011 10:35
To: Adams Gail
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
Gail
I cannot remember the specifics of the press articles but if memory serves me
correctly London stopped <redacted> StOp and <redacted> pulled them as a result.
There was an issue he wanted resolved about ethnic monitoring and their seemed to
be no quick way of doing it. The form that the Met police used at the time was too
cumbersome and they were due to change it to a much simpler form. We were
going to remedy the position in the Simplification Bill but as you know there are no
current plans to revitalise it. <redacted>
I know that NW have developed their own monitoring process which I will ask
<redacted> to look into. <redacted>
<redacted> do you have anything to add?
<redacted>
_____________________________________________
From: Adams Gail
Sent: 19 September 2011 16:18
To: <redacted>
Subject: RE: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
Thanks for this <redacted> concern was also about publicity we had received on this
issue – can you advise me what happened to cause this great concern.
Thanks Gail
Gail Adams
Regional Director - Midlands & East
UK Border Agency, Sandford House, 41 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QJ
<redacted>
_____________________________________________
From: <redacted>
Sent: 16 September 2011 10:44
To: Adams Gail
Subject: RE:FW: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
Sent on behalf of <redacted>
Gail
See below the suggested reply for <redacted>
I have asked Professional Standards for Enforcement policy and guidance team to review their guidance and the e-
mails and documents from <redacted>, HOLAB and you.
<redacted>. Chapter 31.19 was last updated on 8th May 2008 shortly before StOps were suspended in London.
<redacted>
<redacted>
<redacted>
Regards
<redacted>
_____________________________________________
From: Adams Gail
Sent: 09 September 2011 14:44
To: <redacted>
Subject: **FW: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
<redacted>
I would like us to have a definitive answer on this please
Thanks Gail
Gail Adams
Regional Director - Midlands & East
UK Border Agency, Sandford House, 41 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QJ
<redacted>
_____________________________________________
From: Ind Hugh
Sent: 31 August 2011 16:39
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted> Adams Gail; <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area); Redmond Gareth (London
and South East); <redacted>; <redacted>; <redacted>
Subject: RE: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
SENT ON BEHALF OF HUGH IND
<redacted>
Thank you. This is a helpful summary of where we are at.
<redacted>
Hugh.
_____________________________________________
From: <redacted>
Sent: 19 August 2011 10:55
To: Ind Hugh
Cc: <redacted> <redacted>; Crean Brendan; Adams Gail; Armstrong Kristian; <redacted>
Subject: RESTRICTED: Legality of STOPs
Hugh,
Thanks for your comments on the removals strategy. <redacted>
Thanks,
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From:
Ind Hugh
Sent:
17 August 2011 8:19 AM
To:
<redacted>
Cc:
<redacted>
Subject:
FW: Papers for enforcement meeting at 3pm TODAY
Importance: High
SENT ON BEHALF OF HUGH IND <redacted>
These papers are pretty good. You have done better at getting under these
data/issues that I thought you might. And you still have some time to
go………….
<redacted>
Hugh.
<redacted> _____________________________________________
From: <redacted>
Sent: 16 August 2011 13:55
To: <redacted>; Ind Hugh; <redacted>; Adams Gail; Duffy Philip (Acting Head of IBPD);
<redacted>; <redacted>; <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>; Duffy Philip (Acting Head of IBPD); <redacted>
Subject: Papers for enforcement meeting at 3pm TODAY (16 August) JH 16.8.11
Importance: High
All
Pl find attached the papers for the Enforcement Strategy meeting which is taking
place at 3pm today in Room S137/8.
Regards
<redacted>
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 August 2011 14:00
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: RE: CROPS & Street Ops data Apil - June 2011
<redacted>
Thanks. That certainly makes them sound a bit better. It has been suggested to me that there were 3
ages of STOPS:
1. Pre A8 accession. Before 2004 STOPs would sweep up stacks of East Europeans who were easy
to remove.
2. Pre <redacted> event. The golden age when things were good.
3. Post <redacted> event. Now we are more risk averse and only pick up who the Police suggest, not
who we want.
<redacted>
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 August 2011 1:40 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: CROPS & Street Ops data Apil - June 2011
<redacted>
I started this reply thinking that you sent the main query to me. I only noticed that I
was CC later but thought I would contribute anyway.
The ANPR and Street Crime CROPS are led by Police. As other agencies are
present the LIT could send a minimum of 2 IO‘s to the operation as police will be on
hand to cover health and safety issues. There were 157 ANPR and CROPS
conducted in 2010/11 and 153 arrests were made as a result. <redacted>
The Street Ops (UKBA led) sample is too small to show accurate figures.
Hope this can assist he work on developing this role. <redacted> I have copied
<redacted> into this mail.
<redacted>
From: <redacted>
Sent: 03 August 2011 12:59
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>; Flannery Sharon (London Area)
Subject: FW: CROPS & Street Ops data Apil - June 2011
<redacted>
<redacted>
thanks,
<redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <redacted>
Sent: 02 August 2011 1:32 PM
To: <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: CROPS & Street Ops data Apil - June 2011
<redacted>
As discussed, attached is a zipped pivot table with
all the data you require. This includes details of all
categories and I have set the filters to CROPS & STOPS but you can ―select al ‖ for comparative
purposes in terms of other visit types and yield of arrests etc.
FYI - Historically illegal working visits always provide the biggest yield in terms of proportion of arrests
to visits – see 2nd attachment for 2010-11 data..
If you need more details please let me know
<redacted
From: Adams Gail
Sent: 19 October 2011 10:35
To: Ind Hugh
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: StOps
Hi Hugh
<redacted> however I had asked Professional Standards for Enforcement policy and
guidance team to review their guidance and the emails and documents from
<redacted>, HOLAB and you to provide me with a clear position for you. I am
clearing the decks following the move of PSE to <redacted> and wanted to pass this
information onto you.
<redacted>. Chapter 31.19 was last updated on 8th May 2008 shortly before StOps
were suspended in London.
<redacted>
Cheers Gail
Gail Adams
Regional Director - Midlands & East
UK Border Agency, Sandford House, 41 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QJ
To Note: Whilst the following information falls under the scope of your request, please note that the information
below is not an accurate reflection of the records held by the UK Border Agency and should not be used for
statistical purposes
Street Operations - April 2011 - October 2011
Enforcement Visits conducted:
April 2011 to October 2011
Operation Type
Street Operation (UKBA
Region
Led)
London and South East
1
Midlands and Eastern
1
North West
Grand Total
2
Individuals arrested
April 2011 to October 2011
Operation Type
Street Operation (UKBA
Region
Led)
London and South East
2
Midlands and Eastern
North West
Grand Total
2
All statistics were taken from the National Operations Database. Figures must be treated as provisional internal
management information and are subject to change. The statistics are not prepared under National Statistics protocols and
therefore cannot be counted as national published statistics.
