Update for FOI58887 Five Eyes Statistics

Dear Home Office,

I’d like the Home Office to provide updated statistics for the whole of 2020 for the data requested in FOI 58887. For your convenience the original response is here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/6...

The updated questions are as shown below:

1) How many fingerprints were shared with each of the four FCC countries? How many cases returned a positive match?
2) How many requests were received by the UK from each of the four FCC countries? How many inbound requests had a positive match?
3) Does ‘positive match’ mean cases where there is any record at all of the individual in the country where the request is sent, even if this information isn’t necessarily negative?
4) When there is a match, what information is shared?
5) What is the maximum number of fingerprints that may be shared with each FCC member per annum? Please include numbers for both outbound and inbound requests.
6) Which fingerprint database(s) does the UK use to check against fingerprint received from foreign countries for this purpose? Is this the same database used for outbound requests?
7) When will automated sharing under "Secure Real Time Platform” begin? Will this mean all applicants’ fingerprints will be sent/received between the countries?

If data for the whole of 2020 is unavailable please provide data starting from 1 Jan 2020 until the latest possible date.

Yours faithfully,
Roberto Villeros

Dear Home Office,

I would like to add the following 4 questions to FOI 64629, please kindly merge this into the original request instead of filing this as a new request. Thank you.

8) I note from published FOI requests that in addition to the FCC 'High Value Data Sharing Protocol', the UK has MOUs & Annexes with each of its partners allowing for the sharing of data for immigration controls. Could you confirm that the statistics provided above relate to those shared under the 'Protocol' only and not to the other MOUs signed with the UK's partners?
9) Could you elaborate on the differences between the 'Protocol' and the individual MOUs & Annexes, for example the type of individuals being searched or the information shared, as they seem to be extremely similar?
10) Are there maximum limits on the amount of requests that can be made under the individual MOUs & Annexes? Please provide details.
11) Does the UK use the same fingerprint databases for incoming requests under both the Protocol and the MOUs & Annexes?

Yours sincerely,

Roberto Villeros

Dear Home Office,

Re. FOI 64629

Thank you for your timely response to FOI 64629. The following questions relate to the original request:

1. Would the Home Office be able to provide an explanation for why there were 0 requests to/from Canada in 2020?
2. You mentioned that incoming fingerprints are 'checked against the Immigration and Asylum Biometrics System (IABS).' If, for example, an individual had fingerprints (or other information) recorded on other UK databases but not on IABS, would a 'match' therefore not be generated at all?
3. In your response to Q8 you confirm that the statistics provided do not cover requests made/received under the 'umbrella MOUs'. Could you provide the relevant statistics for data shared under these MOUs with each of the 4 countries in 2020? If you are unable to provide a precise number, would it be possible to give a rough indication of requests made per year e.g. hundreds/thousands?

Yours faithfully,

Roberto Villeros

Dear Home Office,

This is a further enquiry in relation to request 64972.

You stated that 'Canada is no longer able to support the High Value Data Sharing Protocol (HVDSP) process'.
1a) Can you confirm if this is permanent, and if there are alternative arrangements replacing this process?
1b) Or is data sharing with Canada now only done under the other relevant MOUs as described in your response to my first request?
1c) Please also explain why Canada ceased to support HVDSP.

For the question relating to statistics for requests made under the other data sharing MOUs, I note that even a refined request is likely to exceed the cost limit.
2) Can you provide any guidance as to whether this would still be the case should the time period be shortened to one month or even shorter (e.g. Jan 1-10 2020) and if I only requested data from one country and not all 4?

Failing this, please could you kindly file an internal review for this part only? Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Roberto Villeros