Information Rights Team Corporate Services, 020 7035 4848 2 Marsham Street (switchboard) London SW1P 4DF www.gov.uk
N D Donovan mailto:request-302547- [email protected]
14 December 2015 Dear Mr Donovan,
Thank you for your e-mail of 15 November 2015 in which you ask for data on juxtaposed controls. The request is asset out in full at Annex A.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested. However, after careful consideration, we have decided that it is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1) (a) & (e) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld, where they relate to the prevention and detection of crime and the operation of immigration controls, respectively. These are ‘qualified’ exemptions, meaning that the public interest both for and against disclosure, are considered before they are applied and information withheld under them.
The arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest, with the reasons for the conclusion to withhold the information, are set out in Annex B.
You may be interested to note that the Home Office publishes data on overall refusals at juxtaposed controls, on the GOV.UK website. A link to the relevant data can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2015/list-of- tables#admissions
When you open the link above, go to Section 3 – Admissions, open the ‘Admissions data tables’ document, and select tabs "ad_04" & "ad_04_q". You will find in column E, the overall refusals at Juxtaposed controls.
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 37482. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Rights Team Home Office
Fourth Floor, Peel Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF E-mail : [email protected].
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
M Seedansingh Information Rights Team
Annex A
From: NDDonovan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 November 2015 12:49 To: FOI Requests Subject: Freedom of Information request - Numbers on those refused entry at juxtaposed controls
Dear Home Office,
Please provide me with data from each of the most recently available five years for each of the following questions:
1) How many people have been refused entry by the UK Border Force, and previously the UK Border Agency at Paris Gare du Nord immigration control?
2) How many people have been refused entry by the UK Border Force, and previously the UK Border Agency at Coquelles immigration control?
3) How many people have been refused entry by the UK Border Force, and previously the UK Border Agency at Gare de Calais-Frethun immigration control?
4) How many people have been refused entry by the UK Border Force, and previously the UK Border Agency at Lille Europe immigration control?
Yours faithfully,
NDDonovan
Annex B
Section 31 states:
(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 (e) the operation of immigration controls
Public Interest Test
Section 31 requires the public interest to be considered, as it is a qualified exemption. The use of this exemption requires Border Force to balance the public interest in withholding the requested information against the public interest in disclosing it. Whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption stated above outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. There is a general public interest in increasing the public awareness of the steps taken to ensure our borders are being effectively and adequately policed and secured.
Considerations in favour of releasing the information
The Home Office has a responsibility to conduct its business in an open and transparent manner, in line with the Government’s transparency agenda. As a publicly funded department there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that the operation of the immigration control by the Home Office is both effective and that public funds are well spent. The public will also have a legitimate interest to know how the Home Office is tackling the abuse of and threats to the immigration control as well as to be reassured that our borders are secure. If the information were to be disclosed, it would provide assurance to the public that controls at our juxtaposed locations are effectively managed, ultimately increasing public trust in the work of Border Force and ensuring public confidence in the United Kingdom’s border controls.
Considerations in favour of withholding the information
Disclosure of the information could assist those engaged in criminal activities at the UK’s borders. If individuals were to request the same information for different locations, it would give them the ability to build a picture of the work of Border Force and identify any strengths or weaknesses, compromising the integrity of immigration controls. This information could substantially prejudice the work that Border Force carries out. It may also enable potential offenders to circumvent the controls by building up a picture of our operational priorities, activities and areas of highest risk, enabling them to target specific ports of entry. There is a public interest in ensuring the integrity of the borders and it would not be in the public interest to compromise it.
Conclusion
I have considered whether in all circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I have concluded that the balance of the public interest identified lies in favour of maintaining the exemption because it is in the overall public interest that the Home Office can securely maintain the immigration control and conduct effective law enforcement activities against criminal groups or individuals who seek to contravene our immigration controls.