Shared Services Directorate 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

Transcription

1 Aditi By request Shared Services Directorate 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF (switchboard) Dear Aditi Freedom of Information request (our ref: 35213): internal review Thank you for your of 23 May 2015, in which you asked for an internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request about Tier 2 Sponsor Audit. I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant papers, and have consulted the policy unit which provided the original response. I have considered whether the correct procedures were followed. 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 UKVI was correct to apply section 12 (cost) to questions 3 and 7 of your request, to advise that a refined request was still in this case unlikely to fall under the cost limit. For further information see paragraphs If you have any further questions, please let me know. Yours sincerely A Ojewale Information Access Team

2 Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 by Aditi (reference 35213) Responding Unit: UK Visas & Immigration (UKVI) Chronology Original FoI request: 27 April 2015 Response: 22 May 2015 Request for internal review: 23 May 2015 Subject of request 1. Aditi asked for information about Tier 2 Sponsor Audit. He requested the following: 1. What is the defined policy for audit of sponsors? Please share documentation regarding this. 2. How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors? is it a minimum once per year? 3. How many audits were done in FY 2014 (Jan-Dec) on the premises of the sponsors where visa type is stated as Not on client contract? 4. Does the SMS (Sponsor Management System) hold the client address for CoS classified as On client contract? 5. How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors at client location (when on client contract)?please state number of audits done in FY 2014 (Jan-Dec). 6. Is it necessary (as per guidance) for CoS marked as Not on client contract to always work out of the premises of the sponsor? Can the individual work out of the client s location as well? 7. How many violations have been found when auditing the top 25 sponsors for the FY 2014? The response by UKVI 2. The response confirmed that the information was held for questions 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 but was unable to provide the requested information for questions 3 &7 as the cost limit was exceeded. For the full text of the response see Annex B. The request for an internal review 3. On 23 May2015, Aditi requested an internal review stating that some of the information withheld under section 12 is actually not revealing the data when available and asked where possible to know what amount of data could be revealed. For the full text of the internal review request see Annex C. Procedural issues 4. The Home Office received Aditi s request via on 27 April On 22 May 2015 the Home Office provided Aditi with a substantive response, which represents 18 working days after the initial request. Therefore, the Home Office

3 complied with section 10(1) by providing a response within the statutory deadline of 20 working days. 6. The response confirmed that information was held relating to questions 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 the request, but was unable to provide the answers to questions 3 &7 citing section 12 - cost and an explanation of why the cost limit was exceeded was provided, as required by section 17(7)(c) of the Act. 7. Aditi was informed in writing of the right to request an independent internal review of the handling of the request, as required by section 17(7)(a) of the Act. 8. The response also informed Aditi of his right of complaint to the Information Commissioner, as set out in section 17(7)(b) of the Act. Consideration of the response 9. Aditi made a request for information regarding the department s Tier 2 category of the Points-Based-System. He asked 7 questions in total. 10. UKVI provided Aditi with a response providing answers to 5 of the questions and applied section 12 (exceeds cost) to questions 3 and 7. It is this part of the request only that will be the focus of the IR. 11. The response confirmed that the department holds the requested information, but the cost of retrieving and extracting the data would exceed the 600 cost limit. It further explained that this was because providing information relating to the number of Tier 2 audits done in 2014 on the premises of the sponsor where visa type is classed as Not on Client Contract and the number of violations found when auditing the top 25 sponsors would require the production of four separate large reports and data matching all four in order to extract the requested data. Use of exemptions- Section 12 cost 12. Section 12 Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit. (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. 13. In its initial response, UKVI estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost limit of 600 specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit & Fees). 14. The 600 limit is based on work being carried out at a rate of 25 per hour, which equates to 24 hours of work per request. The cost of locating, retrieving and extracting information 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. 15. In the course of this review, UKVI explained that due to the way the sponsorship database is designed and the reporting tools used to extract data, obtaining the

4 statistics requested by Aditi would entail producing 2 large reports and copious data matching. It would take a member of staff at least two days to produce the initial data and another two days to match the data together. Therefore the overall time taken to produce the requested data would be at least four days. This alone would already exceed the cost limit. 16. In determining whether or not the cost limit is exceeded, a public authority should estimate the costs it reasonable expects to incur in relation to the following: - Determining whether it holds the information - Locating the information, or a document which may contain the information, - Retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information - Extracting the information from within a relevant document. Having consulted the relevant business unit, I am satisfied that the cost limit under section 12 of the Act was correctly applied. 17. Aditi was advised that if he could refine the request so that it is more likely to fall under the cost limit it would be considered again. However, UKVI stated that in this case, a refined request is still not likely to fall under the cost limit due to the system for extracting data. 18. I am therefore satisfied that the unit considered the information requested and concluded that the retrieval of this information would breach the cost limit provided for by section 12 of the FOIA. Conclusion 19. The response was sent within 20 working days; consequently the Home Office complied with section 10(1) of the FOI Act. 20. Section 1(1)(a) was complied with, as the response clearly stated that the requested information was held. 21. The response complied with the requirements in section 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b) as it provided details of the complaints procedure. Information Access Team Home Office 1 July 2015

5 Annex A full text of request Dear Home Office, Regarding Tier 2 Sponsors, Q1) What is the defined policy for audit of Sponsors? Please share documentation regarding this. Q2) How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors? is it Minimum once per year? Q3) Please share the no# of audit done in FY 2014 (Jan - Dec) on premises of the Sponsors where Visa Type is mentioned as "Not on Client Contract" Q4) Does the SMS (Sponsor Management System) hold the client address for COS classified as "On client contract"? Q5) How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors at client location (when on client contract)? Please share no of audits done in FY2014 (Jan - Dec) Q6) Is it necessary (as per guidance) for COS marked as "Not on Client Contract" to always work out of premises of sponsor? Can the individual work out of client location as well? Q7) How many violations have been found when auditing the top 25 sponsors (FY 2014)? Yours faithfully, Aditi

6 Annex B full text of the response letter Aditi request d7851ecd@whatdotheyknow.com FOI Reference: 3168/35213 May 2015 Dear Aditi Thank you for your enquiry of 16 April and subsequent clarification in which you requested information about Tier 2 of the Points-Based System. This has been dealt with as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act You requested: Regarding Tier 2 Sponsors, Q1) What is the defined policy for audit of Sponsors? Please share documentation reg this Q2) How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors? is it Minimum once per year? Please see the published Tier 2 guidance which is found at the following link: Q3) Please share the no of audit done in FY 2014 (Jan - Dec) on premises of the Sponsors where Visa Type is mentioned as "Not on Client Contract" Under Section 12 of the act, the Home Office is not obliged to comply with an information request where to do so would exceed the cost limit. This is set at 600. To provide the information requested would necessitate building two separate large reports and copious data matching, thus incurring disproportionate cost.

7 The 600 limit applies to all central government departments and is based on work being carried out at a rate of 25 per hour, which equates to 3½ days work per request. Prescribed costs include those which cover the cost of locating and retrieving information, and preparing our response to you. They do not include considering whether any information is exempt from disclosure, overheads such as heating or lighting, or disbursements such as photocopying or postage. We have estimated that to gather and collate the information you have requested would substantially exceed the 600 cost threshold. If you refine your request, so that it is more likely to fall under the cost limit, we will consider it again. However, it would be unlikely in this case. Please note that if you simply break your request down into a series of similar smaller requests, we might still decline to answer it if the total cost exceeds 600. Q4) Does the SMS (Sponsor Management System) hold the client address for COS classified as "On client contract"? The Sponsor Management System (SMS) records details of the client contract a migrant is working on and the migrant s main work address. Q5) How often does the Home Office audit the sponsors at client location (when on client contract)? Please share no of audit done in FY2014 (Jan - Dec) Q6) Is it necessary (as per guidance) for COS marked as "Not on Client Contract" to always work out of premises of sponsor? Can the individual work out of client location as well? Please see the relevant published guidance which is found at the following links: The number of audits completed during the period January to December 2014 can be found at the following link: Q7) How many violations have been found when auditing the top 25 sponsors (FY 2014)? The term "violation" has been used in a generic way related to nonconformance of expected duties of Sponsor. As explained in answer to question 3 the Home Office is not obliged to comply with an information request where to do so would exceed the cost limit. To provide the information requested would necessitate building four separate reports and copious data matching, incurring disproportionate cost. I hope this is of help to you. 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 If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

8 Information Access Team Home Office 3rd Floor, Peel Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff 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 S Birkinshaw

9 Annex C full text of the internal review request Dear Home Office, Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'Tier 2 Sponsor Audit'. case ref I believe that some of the information refused (quoting cost as the reason) is actually not revealing the data when available - Pls review. If possible let me know what amount of data can revealed and suggest alternatives. A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: Yours faithfully, Aditi

10 Annex D complaints procedure 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