Service Levels for EEA2 Applications

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

After sending various e-mails to your agency attempting to get information as to why EEA2 applications (aka Residence Cards) are taking an inordinate time to process, I have had no success in getting any information. Multiple queries on search engines such as google have shown frustration by your customers as to why there is such a long time to process an application under Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (a search on "eea2 processing time" in google can easily illustrate the point).

As such, I am requesting the following from the UKBA to shed light as to why applications are taking such a long time to process:

Percentage of applications decided within the service level as stipulated under section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Number of applications from implementation of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 that have been decided outside of the service level section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Notes, minutes, e-mails and other such information in relation to changing policy for publishing processing times for applications under the remit of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. (e.g. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/euciti...).

Notes, minutes, e-mails and other such policy papers stipulating the UKBA's plan of approach to achieve acceptable service levels as per the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (e.g. the six month rule as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule) (e.g. what steps are being taken to address the current backlog of applications).

Number of cases and details of where the UKBA and Home Office has been exposed to damages or settled prior to an application to the court in instances where the UKBA have been negligent in applying Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 in particular the six month rule as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule).

Notes, minutes, e-mails and policy statements in relation to the permitting of applications under application EEA2 to have their identity documents returned to them during the processing of the EEA2 application since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Service level calculations (percentages acceptable) of applications under the EEA2 application where the application has requested that their identity documents are returned to them during the processing of the EEA2 application since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

The complaints manual as defined in various casework documents as maintained by the UKBA.

Number of applications where escalation to the EU Solvit network has been initiated due to applications falling outside of the service level as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Number of applications where escalation to a UK or European Member of Parliament has been initiated due to applications falling outside of the service level as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...) (the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

I hope I can count on your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear C Gillstrap,

Thank you for your below request, which is being considered under the
Freedom of Information Act. We will respond shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Feakins,
Freedom of Information team

show quoted sections

Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ), UK Border Agency

1 Attachment

<<FoI 12439 (Gillstrap).doc>>
Dear C Gillstrap,

Please see the attached in relation to your Freedom of Information
request.

Kind regards,

S Goddard
Information Access Policy Team
(Freedom of Information)
UK Border Agency

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Ref: 12349

I write in response to your letter dated 11 August 2009, the contents of which are duly noted.

In your response, you make a claim that the cost to provision this request would exceed the £600 threshold as stipulated under the Freedom of Information Act. I acknowledge that some of these responses may fall under that threshold.

However, I dispute your finding that points 1, 2, 5 and 10 would exceed the cost of £600 to provision. The UK Border Agency has already provided some of this information as evidenced in written answers to Hansard (column 166W pt 0038 dated 1 June 2009). The text of your response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

You have further provided similar statistics to Hansard on the 29 October 2007 (column 927W pt 0073) as evidenced here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

As I am asking for an update on statistics and basically interpretation and recalculation of the aforementioned, I can not see how this is a costly or onerous activity.

Further, your response to point 8 is not what I requested. For avoidance of doubt you make reference to a complaints manual in your annual report to the complaints audit committee (2007-2008)

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...

The reference to this manual is found in points 27-33 of the report as found in page 40. There are several other references as well. It is this manual, that I would like under my FOI request.

As you have asked me to clarify my request, can you please accept clarification on the following.

I would like points 1,2,5 and 10 on my original request to be processed by your team. As I have provided to you already, this should not be an onerous task and therefore should be satisfied in sufficient time.

I have clarified my request on point 8 and would like this processed per the clarification that I have provided.

I acknowledge that you do not have the information under point 9 of my request.

I note that points 3, 4 and 6 of my original request are likely costly and withdraw them at this time, to consider how I may best form these request to conform to the constraints of the freedom of information act.

I would appreciate your prompt acknowledgement of this clarification so as to prevent an escalation to your internal review process.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

ref: 12439

Regarding your response to my freedom of information request on the 11th of August, I have clarified my request as per your instruction. Over five days has passed and I note that your process normally allows for an acknowledgement of any FOI requests within that window.

Can you please let me know if the clarification that I submitted is acceptable and is being worked on.

I would prefer to not have to raise this to an internal review process.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Can you please let me know the status of this application before I escalate for an internal review. It is over 20 days from the date that I resubmitted and this is an additional 20 days from the time it took for you to respond requesting a clarification. I would appreciate a response with an update by some point today.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ), UK Border Agency

1 Attachment

Dear C Gillstrap

A response was sent to you in relation to your FOI request on 11/08/09.
However please find a copy of what we sent to you.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Team
UK Border Agency

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Thank you for your response. However I sent an e-mail to you on the 11th of August where I refined this request. The details of this e-mail I have included following this e-mail.

I am rather disappointed that your team have appeared to have either lost my clarification or are intentionally being vexatious in responding to my query. I would appreciate from the refined request that I have included below if you can by close of business today let me know when I can have the refined information (as I have allowed 20 days for the refined request). Otherwise, I will tomorrow be escalating this for internal review.

Regards,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Ref: 12439

I write in response to your letter dated 11 August 2009, the
contents of which are duly noted.

In your response, you make a claim that the cost to provision this
request would exceed the £600 threshold as stipulated under the
Freedom of Information Act. I acknowledge that some of these
responses may fall under that threshold.

However, I dispute your finding that points 1, 2, 5 and 10 would
exceed the cost of £600 to provision. The UK Border Agency has
already provided some of this information as evidenced in written
answers to Hansard (column 166W pt 0038 dated 1 June 2009). The
text of your response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

You have further provided similar statistics to Hansard on the 29
October 2007 (column 927W pt 0073) as evidenced here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

As I am asking for an update on statistics and basically
interpretation and recalculation of the aforementioned, I can not
see how this is a costly or onerous activity.

Further, your response to point 8 is not what I requested. For
avoidance of doubt you make reference to a complaints manual in
your annual report to the complaints audit committee (2007-2008)

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...

The reference to this manual is found in points 27-33 of the report
as found in page 40. There are several other references as well. It
is this manual, that I would like under my FOI request.

As you have asked me to clarify my request, can you please accept
clarification on the following.

I would like points 1,2,5 and 10 on my original request to be
processed by your team. As I have provided to you already, this
should not be an onerous task and therefore should be satisfied in
sufficient time.

I have clarified my request on point 8 and would like this
processed per the clarification that I have provided.

I acknowledge that you do not have the information under point 9 of
my request.

I note that points 3, 4 and 6 of my original request are likely
costly and withdraw them at this time, to consider how I may best
form these request to conform to the constraints of the freedom of
information act.

I would appreciate your prompt acknowledgement of this
clarification so as to prevent an escalation to your internal
review process.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear C Gillstrap

I apologise for the confussion we would look into your requeste and hope to deal with it promptly.

Freedom of Information Team
UK Border Agency

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

As it has been 5 days since you acknowledge that this request is outstanding, can you please provide me an actual date for when I will receive the data that I requested.

I remind IND that it has now been over 40 days since I made my initial request and over 20 days since I refined my request per your instructions. I do hope that I am not going to have to wait an additional 20 days to receive the data that I have asked for.

I would appreciate a response by close of business on the 16th detailing when I will be able to get the information that I requested. Otherwise, I will be forced to raise this for internal review as this well past reasonable expectations for tardiness

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear C Gillstrap,

Thank you for your below enquiry. I realise that we have not been able
to answer your request within the statutory limit for which I apologise.

We will respond shortly.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of information team

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's handling of my FOI request 'Service Levels for EEA2 Applications'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se...

It has been over 40 days from my initial request, where at 20 days I was asked to re-frame my request to conform to FoI Act guidelines. I promptly refined the request and over 20 days from that have passed where I have yet to receive the information. Multiple queries with the FoI team have not resulted with a revised time for the request. I would appreciate a prompt review of this as I view the behaviour from the FoI team to be vexatious in nature.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ), UK Border Agency

1 Attachment

Mr Gillstrap

Please find the response to your FOI request.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information team

UK Border Agency

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's handling of my FOI request 'Service Levels for EEA2 Applications'. I requested an internal review on 16 September due to the delay in providing the information I requested. I am happy to report that on 23 September, Ms. Deans from your Liverpool office provided a substantial response to my request.

However, Ms. Deans alleges in her response that she is unable to provide the complaints manual for the UKBA as this has been withdrawn subject to redrafting. Whilst I appreciate that policy and operational documents are redrafted in light of changes in policy or operating models, I can not believe that the UKBA are operating without any guidance or operating procedures in dealing with complaints from your customers.

Whilst the manual may have been withdrawn, I still believe there is sufficient public interest in this information. Even if the information provided in this document is out of date or subject to review, denying access to such information on the basis of revision does not appear to satisfy the goals of the freedom of information act.

I would appreciate that in your internal review, if you can review the release of this manual or any equivalent or comparative guidance that is used within the UKBA. As the manual is already cited by the complaints audit commission reports, I think understanding the operational processes in dealing with complaints is definitely in the public interest of how the UKBA operates.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se...

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter as to date, it has taken over 40 days to get the subset of information that the UKBA has provided so far.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have yet to hear any confirmation on my request for an internal review for my FOI request. In the internal review, I asked you to review the release of the complaints manual as maintained by the UKBA. Can you please provide me an update as to whether the review has been acknowledged and when you expect the review to complete?

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear Mr Gillstrap,

Thank you, for your message requesting an Internal Review this will be
dealt with under the FOI Act 2000.

Freedom Of Information, Information Access Policy Team

Information Management Directorate

UK Border Agency

External: [1]http://www.UKBA.homeoffice.gov.uk/

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Many thanks for your acknowledgement of my request for an internal review. Can you please confirm whether you are acknowledging from the date I submitted the review or from today?

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear C Gillstrap,

Your request for internal review is being considered from the date that
you first lodged it i.e 24/09.

Freedom of information team
Paul

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Many thanks for your confirmation for my internal review on the 20th of October and the subsequent follow up on the 21st.

As it is now 22 working days from the date of my request for an internal review, can I please have an update of where this internal review stands?

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

Following from my e-mail on the 23rd, may I please have an update on the status of the internal review for my FOI request. It is now 23 days from when I requested this review and I remind UKBA that they were negligent in responding to the initial request.

ICO guidance stipulates that you should be responding to internal review requests promptly and in all cases no later than 20 days from request (either with a result of the review, or informing me of an extension to no later than 40 days from the request).

I would appreciate an update and hope that I will not have to escalate this to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

Following my previous e-mail's to the UKBA, can I please have the courtesy of a reply as to the status of the internal review for this request.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

C Gillstrap left an annotation ()

As UKBA have seemed to gone quiet on this request, I have lodged a complaint with the ICO office today (5 November 2009):

The supporting documents provide the detail for my complaint, but in summary:

I made a request to the UK Border Agency for information on 14 July 2009. UKBA responded within the allocated 20 days stating that my request would have exceeded £600 and requested that I refine the request. I refined my request on the 11th of August (the same day that the UKBA responded) and it appears due to administrative error, the request was not subsequently satisfied within the 20 day timeframe.

I received a partial response to my FOI request on 23 September 2009. Whilst useful, UKBA allege that they could not release a portion of the request (their corresponding complaints manual) as the manual was withdrawn and was in the process of being redrafted (with no date as to when this redraft was completed). This response came from a Ms. Deans based in the NW Region (Liverpool) office of the UKBA.

I requested an internal review on 24 September 2009 to review the decision with regards to the complaints manual. This review was never acknowledged until I prompted the UKBA on 19 October 2009. I receive acknowledgement from the UKBA on 20 October that the request for an internal review was received and being processed. I further received a clarification on 21 October 2009 that the review was being considered from the date of lodging (24 September 2009)

As of today, the UKBA have not been in contact with me to either confirm the internal review findings or stipulate that an extension is necessary. I have prompted the UKBA several times (23, 26 October & 4 November) asking what the status of this review, and they have been met with silence.

The full correspondence with the UKBA is lodged with the website http://www.whatdotheyknow and can be found here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se...

I have however, also presented the correspondence in PDF format as well as their responses as supporting documentation to this case.

I would be grateful for any support you can provide in dealing with this request.

Regards,

C Gillstrap

Information Access, UK Border Agency

1 Attachment

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Information Access,

Being that I already previously complained to the ICO on this request, and being that you responded on the 11th of January that this was being reviewed. What is the status of this request? There has been more than ample time to complete an internal review and your delay has definitely gone against the spirit of the FOI. I would prefer to not to have to escalate this to the ICO again.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Information Access, UK Border Agency

Dear Mr Gillstrap,

Thank you for your e-mail of 2nd February.

I am sorry that the internal review of your Freedom of Information Request
is taking longer than anticipated.

Your request for a review is currently being considered by an official
within the Information Access Team. It is expected that the review will be
completed in the near future.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the
Information Access Team.

Information Management Service | Financial and Commercial Group | Lower
Ground Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London
SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

C Gillstrap left an annotation ()

I've reraised this with the ICO as I still have yet to receive a response

Dear ICO office,

Following from your advice to my previous complaint, I have followed up with the UKBA on the internal review of my FOI request that I requested on the 24th of September. As it is now the 3rd of February, I have yet to receive a response from the UKBA and after prompting them yet again, have been informed that my case is still under review with an apology for the delay.

As you can appreciate, UKBA have now grossly exceeded accepted practices in dealing with this request. I hope that this complaint can be reopened and investigated.

Regards,

C Gillstrap

Information Access, UK Border Agency

3 Attachments

Please find attached.

Information Management Service | Financial and Commercial Group | Lower
Ground Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London
SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Freedom Of Information Team \( IND \), UK Border Agency

Dear C Gillstrap,

Freedom of Information request (our ref. 12897): internal review

Thank you for your e-mail of 18 November 2009, in which you asked for an
internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FOI)
request about the EEA Application process. I am sorry for the delay in
responding.

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.

In response to your request for a review of the information you were not
provided with, I maintain that the original response was correct and
that Section 31(1)(e) of the FOI Act was correct. The information is
withheld in the interest of maintaining immigration control. An
appropriate Public Interest Test was conducted and found that it was in
the public interest to withhold information held by UKBA beyond that
already in the public domain. All other questions were answered in full
within the UK Border Agency's original response.

This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you
remain dissatisfied with the response to your Freedom of Information
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

Mr L McGirr
Information Access Policy Team
Resource Management Group

Internal Review Report

Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information
(FoI) Act 2000 by C Gillstrap (reference 12897)

Responding Unit: Immigration North West Region

Chronology

Original FoI request: 24/09/09

Acknowledgement: 29/09/09

Immigration North West Region response: 02/11/09

Request for internal review: 18/11/09

Subject of request

The request made by e-mail on 24/09/09 asked the following 5 questions:

1) From 2008 to current, what has been the average time to decide an
EEA2 residence permit (from receipt of application to closure of case)

2) From 2008 to current, what percentage of applications have been
rejected in the population of applications under EEA2

3) I note Chapter 5 of your European Casework Instructions provides high
level guidance on deciding EEA2 applications. However based on the fact
that 70% of applications are not decided in the required SLA, I believe
there is sufficient public interest in understanding the actual process
in working an EEA2 application. Therefore, I would appreciate the
process flow or operational manual that is used by your European
casework staff in managing an application from receipt to disposition.

4) What internal or external checks are made on EEA2 applications?
Again, noting Chapter 5 of your European Casework Instructions, you
allude to high level requirements such as checking for validity of
marriage, execution of treaty rights and so forth. What systems or
queries does the European casework team conduct in reviewing an EEA2
application to decide accordingly?

5) You allude to recruitment of staff to respond to the backlog and
provide assurances by November 2009 that the UKBA will be working in
line to the obligations stipulated in legislation. What funding has been
allocated to support this hiring? Is this additional funding that has
been secured across multiple years or is this at the expense of other
departments?

The response by Immigration North West Region:

The response sent out on 02/11/09 answered all of the questions asked
except for Question 4 where the information was withheld under Section
31(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

C Gillstrap's request for an internal review:

The request for internal review was focused on the answer to Question 4.
Specifically the requestor said that the public interest test (PIT)
analysis was flawed, and that even if it was correct in part some
information could still be released in redacted or summary form.

Procedural issues:

The request for information was received on 24/09/09 with an
acknowledgment sent on 29/09/09. One of the questions required the
drafter to consider the PIT in relation to qualified exemptions, and
therefore a PIT extension letter was sent on 23/10/09. The PIT letter
extended the period of response to 19/11/09. The final response was sent
on 02/11/09.

Section 10 of the FOI Act permits the deadline to be extended for a
reasonable time where necessary in circumstances such as these. ICO
guidance states that PIT extensions should not normally be in excess of
an additional 20 working days. I am therefore satisfied that the time
taken to answer this request was reasonable and compliant with section
10 of the FOI Act.

Consideration of the response:

The information requested in question 4 of the e-mail from C Gillstrap
dated 24/09/09 was withheld according to Section 31(1)(e) of the FOI
Act, this is a qualified exemption and therefore required a PIT to be
carried out. Where the public interest in withholding the information
outweighs that in favour of disclosure, this exemption allows
information to be withheld where release would (or would be likely to)
prejudice the operation of immigration control.

In the response from Immigration Northwest Region the public interest in
disclosure or non disclosure was assessed. Factors highlighted for
disclosure serving the public interest were that it would increase the
transparency of the work of UKBA and the Immigration Service and ensure
public confidence in the United Kingdom's immigration controls. These
issues were balanced against issues raised in the public interest for
non disclosure. These issues were ensuring the integrity of border
controls and that disclosure would allow the public to assess the
effectiveness of checking procedures and might assist potential
immigration offenders to circumvent immigration control.

I agree that section 31(1)(e) was correctly engaged. Disclosure would
prejudice immigration control as described in the original response, as
release would aid those wishing to circumnavigate the immigration
system.

As recognised in the original response, there are public interest
factors favouring disclosure. Taking the above issues into account, and
the presumption in favour of disclosing information that the FOI Act
carries, there are certainly grounds for suggesting that this
information would increase transparency and accountability - both of
which are in the public interest. It is in the public interest that
information is released which provides the public with reassurance that
immigration controls and systems are as effective as they can be, and
that UKBA is accountable in this regard. It is also in the public
interest that UKBA is accountable in terms of getting best value from
available resources in this area of work. Furthermore it is in the
public interest that the public understand how decisions are made given
the impact that they have on members of society. It is with all these
points in mind that UKBA already publishes a very considerable amount of
information on this subject, as referred to in your request,

However, on balance, the possibility that putting further information
relating to the checks carried out in applications of this nature would
be misused should it be released is high. It must be remembered that if
we release information to one person under the FOI Act we must release
it to anyone, regardless of their motives. This information would
provide a more detailed picture of the methods used to check applicants
and therefore allow potential immigration offenders to use this
knowledge in their favour, and to the detriment of effective immigration
control. Once this information was to be released into the public
domain, potential immigration offenders could tailor their applications
to ensure the best prospects of success. Therefore not only is section
31(1)(e) of the FOI Act engaged, but I am satisfied that the public
interest in protecting these purposes outweighs that in favour of
openness at this time.

In reaching this conclusion I have come to the view that it is not
possible to provide any information beyond that already in the public
domain.

Conclusion:

In conclusion it seems that an appropriate exemption was applied and a
PIT was carried out correctly. As pointed out above, the information
asked for in point 4 of the request could not have been released in
redacted or summary form however, it may have been possible to provide a
more detailed explanation of why partial disclosure was not possible.
Section 31(1)(e) was applied correctly, and the request was answered in
a timely fashion.

Mr L McGirr
Information Access Policy Team
Resource Management Group

show quoted sections