8/3/2019 Written Evidence From John Campbell

1/1

FOI 20

Written evidence from John Campbell

1. For a two-year period I sought to use the FOI Act to shed light on key aspects of the

British asylum system which are unaccessible to outsiders, including academic researchers.

2. During the period 2007-9, I made about 15-20 FOI requests, the vast bulk of which were tothe Home Office/UKBA but the remainder were to the Ministry of Justice. Many of the

requests were not adequately dealt with by officials who often refused me access to key

information. I had repeatedly to appeal initial refusals to obtain evidence on key policies and

the implementation of key policies, on public expenditure in key areas, on the nature of legal

aid, on how The Home Office implemented its policy of language analysis, on information

about Home Office Presenting Units, and about how the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal

operated (specifically the way it listed cases for country guidance). In nearly all instances

officials sought to frustrate access to information; several times they not only took exception

to my requests -- as evidenced clearly in their replies -- but in one case a request for research

access to the Immigration Asylum Tribunal was specifically refused because the Deputy

President was aware of my FOI Request and objected to it.

3. As an academic, a tax payer and a citizen I feel it is right that government should meet all

reasonable FOI requests because many areas of government are cloaked in a degree of

secrecy and/or because officials do not like to be made accountable for their decisions. It is

my understanding that the Home Office has refused the decision of the Information

Commissioner to provide information requested under the Act on a number of occasions; it

has certainly refused to comply with a decision by the IC in relation to a request by me.

4. Based in part on my FOI requests I have published an academic paper which looks into one

area of Home Office policy. The evidence before me clearly indicated that officials had

extended a policy for which there was no evidence that the policy worked; their actions had

probably also violated British law. I attach that paper for your information.

5.My paper on UKBA policy which is based primarily on material obtained under the FOI

Act was subject to considerable delay and obfuscation by the Home Office/UKBA who: (a)

repeatedly delayed replying to my requests, (b) sought to limit the information released by

imposing a more limited definition on the material I requested; (c) and who ultimately

refused to release information. I was forced to appeal to the unit in the Home Office, to no

avail, and ultimately to the Information Commissioner who ruled that the information should

be released. It has been over 12 months since that ruling and the Home Office has refused to

release the information.

6. I hope that ILPA has made a submission to you regarding their reliance on FOI requests

on behalf of the asylum appeals of their clients. It is often the case that the Home Office and

other officials make unreasonable decisions or claim to take a decision on the basis of an

policy when in fact no such policy exists. Far better that the FOI operates than for the

government to face an even larger bill in the courts in the face of mounting Judicial Review

applications taken out against officials for their unreasonable decisions.

7. I would like to see the government's rationale for limiting or ending the FOI Act. Cost

cannot be a factor when official decision-making and unannounced policies are relied upon to

deal with a problem which officials want to go away but which instead should be the subjectof publicly disclosed information.