In September, FactCheckNI published a fact check of claims made by DUP MLA Edwin Poots. Some aspects of this claim were rated as “unsubstantiated” due to a lack of publicly-available data.
As a result of this, on 10 September we submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office asking for information that could help clarify the accuracy of these parts of Mr Poots’ claim.
The Home Office’s responded to us in early November to say they were declining to answer our question, citing “an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where its disclosure could endanger the safety of individuals.”
FactCheckNI have decided to appeal this decision because we feel the Home Office’s reasons in favour of withholding the information do not reflect the questions we actually asked given that we have not asked for the disclosure of any “details relating to individual asylum accommodation locations” and are only seeking data regarding an entire postcode district.
- The letter
Thank you for your enquiry of 10 September 2025, in which you requested information in respect of asylum accommodation. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- Information Requested
The Home Office published its latest quarterly immigration statistics, including figures on asylum, on 21 August. The figures contained therein are correct at 30 June 2025.
My request concerns more granular information than is contained in the published data. At the date mentioned above (30 June 2025):
- How many asylum seekers were being accommodated in the BT12 postcode of Belfast?
- What percentage of the total number of asylum seekers accommodated in Northern Ireland at that time does this represent?
- What is the breakdown of all the asylum seekers in BT12 on that date, according to the delineation available in the Home Office figures published on 21 August? For clarity, the delineation in question three refers to categorisation by those under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme, those under the Afghan Resettlement Programme (including dedicated figures for the subcategories of those in transitional accommodation, those settled in LA housing, and those settled in PRS housing), and those in the rest of the Supported Asylum population (including dedicated figures for the subcategories of those in initial accommodation, in dispersal accommodation, in contingency accommodation, in other accommodation and those only in receipt of subsistence help).
Hopefully this request is clear. If you have any queries or need any clarifications, please ask.
- Response
When dealing with requests for more detailed information on more specific localities or individual sites, it is our long-standing practice to treat that information as exempt from disclosure under Section 38(2) of the FOIA.
This provides an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where its disclosure could endanger the safety of individuals. Section 38(2) is a qualified exemption and accordingly, arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest test for that exemption can be found in the Annex below.
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 [email protected], quoting reference FOI2025/12276. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
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 will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
A link to the Home Office Information Rights Privacy Notice can be found in the following link. This explains how we process your personal information: – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-rights-privacy-notice
The Annex to the letter (as mentioned above):
PIT Argument
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for and against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. We must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in response to a request for information.
In carrying out a PIT, we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public. The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’, and in providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone.
Considerations in favour of disclosing the information
There may be a general public interest in disclosing the information to ensure maximum transparency over where asylum seekers are housed.
Considerations in favour of withholding the information
To disclose details relating to individual asylum accommodation locations would risk endangering the health and safety of the individuals staying there and the staff working there, given the risk that it would make those locations targets for violence, threats or harassment. Any such violence would also risk resulting in injury and harm to members of the emergency services, and members of the local community.
Conclusion
The Home Office routinely publishes data on the number of asylum seekers located in each local authority around the country, and there is an ongoing dialogue with local authorities, local representatives, the police, and other local stakeholders over each asylum hotel that is currently in operation, to discuss issues ranging from overall public safety to the impact on local amenities and services.
That existing approach provides a level of transparency which serves the interests of local communities in a responsible way, without publicising details that could be misused by some individuals in a way that could risk harm and injury. We have therefore concluded that the balance of the public interest lies in favour of not releasing the specific locations where asylum-seekers are housed.
