UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 13ZA: 13ZA: Clause 5, page 3, line 12, after ““person”” insert ““aged 16 or over”” The noble Lord said: Since this is the first amendment to the clauses dealing with biometrics, I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that the general heading for Clauses 5 to 15 is ““Biometric registration””. Similarly, the heading for Clause 5 is ““registration regulations””. However, the term ““registration”” does not appear in any of the clauses. I consulted the Public Bill Office about this and was told that the Grand Committee has no power to change those words. If the Government can do so—I assume that they may want to—I suggest to the Minister that the general heading should be ““Biometric information”” and the clause heading should be ““Biometric immigration document””. In both cases, that would be a more accurate description of what the clause—or clauses, as the case may be—are about. The only reference to age in Clauses 5 to 15 is in Clause 6(3), which provides that, where under-16s are to provide biometric information, the relevant regulations must be, "““similar to section 141(3) to (5) and (13) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999””," which deal with procedures for fingerprinting under-16s. This matter was debated in another place. The Minister there said that, "““discussions were taking place at the EU level on the collection of biometric data from children, with a view to deciding whether children from the ages of five or six upwards could have their data taken””.—[Official Report, Commons, UK Borders Bill Committee, 1/3/07; col. 96]." The Public Bill Committee was given evidence by Professor Ross Anderson and others, which showed that collecting biometric data from children is difficult and can produce false results. An EU presidency document of June 2006, on setting a minimum age for recording and storing facial images and fingerprints, reported a study by the Netherlands ministry of the interior, which came to the following conclusion: "““The facial changes taking place up to the age of 12 are so marked that face recognition is not possible without highly sophisticated software and the considerable expense that goes with it””." The document goes on to state that, "““small children … will not normally be suitable subjects for biometric face recognition by means of a photograph””." In relation to fingerprints, it concluded: "““Scientific tests have confirmed that the papillary ridges on the fingers are not sufficiently developed to allow biometric capture and analysis until the age of six. Even then account must be taken of the fact that major changes take place as children grow and this will entail considerable expense in the form of computer programs. When checks are carried out, the software must make allowance for age-related changes, or no match will be possible. The same procedure will be necessary for face recognition””." The Netherlands authority continues: "““Children over the age of six do have measurable fingerprints, but these are subject to particularly marked changes as the child grows, with the result that special algorithms must be used in order to calculate the changes and arrive at a result which is as accurate as for an adult””." Professor Ross Anderson told the Public Bill Committee that, "““fingerprint technology is certainly not good enough if you are matching one population against another, say 90 million people a year arriving at Heathrow versus 60 million people in the UK. You will get absolutely swamped by false matches””." He went on to say that, "““the error rate is very much lower [for iris scans] and as far as we are aware they are the only biometric which is powerful enough to be able to match a population against itself””." On the specific problems of measuring biometric data of children, Professor Anderson answered a question by saying, "““iris codes are stable throughout life, as they are formed in the womb in the second to third month of pregnancy. Fingerprints are more difficult, because children may not have as prominent fingerprints as adults. Even though they may not change, they may have a higher error rate in measurement””." When we were discussing the Identity Cards Bill the Minister—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal—said that the Government, "““have no immediate plans to reduce the age below 16 as the cost of doing so far outweighs any benefits that may arise. This is due to the fact that children have unstable biometrics which would result in them frequently having to re-register””.—[Official Report, 23/11/05; col. 1681.]" It would also be expensive and time consuming for children to travel, with their parent or guardian, to the data collection point, and disruptive to their education. The Refugee Children's Consortium is concerned that the practicalities of taking biometrics from children have not been properly considered. Will the Minister tell the Committee what information the Government have about the costs of the software to calculate age-related changes in biometric information and how this will be funded? At what intervals do they envisage taking biometrics from a child under the age of 16? I remind the Minister, while I am in question mode, that he owes me answers to a good many questions from Monday, on which I very much hope officials are working. I trust that we shall not have to wait until the end of the Grand Committee stage before we know the answers to some of the puzzles that we have already given the Minister. The regulatory impact assessment accompanying the Bill states that one of the key benefits of the compulsory recording of the biometric details of third country nationals is, "““to align with the wider National Identity Scheme to ensure that there are no gaps in the system””." The Identity Cards Act 2006 applies to UK nationals aged 16 and over, but the Government intend the BIDs of foreign nationals to be issued to children who are aged somewhere between five and 16, presumably depending on what is decided at EU level. I would be grateful if we could have an assurance from the Minister that we will not go ahead with any scheme for taking biometrics from under-16s until there is a common EU position on the matter. It would obviously be very inconvenient if we had a different age from the rest of Europe. In another place, the Minister implied that the difference between the Identity Cards Act 2006 and this Bill is that here we must extend the collection of biometrics to all those subject to immigration control, but the BIDs will not be designated as ID cards for under-16s. The Refugee Children's Consortium believes that children seeking asylum must be treated as children first and foremost, and that provisions such as the introduction of biometric identity cards for asylum-seeking children must be aligned with provisions that already exist for biometric identification for children in the UK. This would avoid potential stigma. The issue is not whether the biometric immigration documents will be designated as ID cards but that biometric data will be taken from asylum-seeking children under the age of 16, when that is not the policy for UK nationals under the national identity card scheme because of the costs and instability of data. The Refugee Children's Consortium is concerned generally about extending any provisions for biometric registration documents to under-18s. It points out that Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provide children with the right to respect for their private and family life without unlawful interference. Without full details of how the Government plan to use such a registration scheme, it is not possible to determine in Committee whether its application to under-18s would be in accordance with their rights. If the registration scheme is to be used to regulate access to public services, additional UNCRC rights, such as that defined in Article 24, which grants the right to access healthcare services, would also be engaged. Finally, the Refugee Children’s Consortium is very concerned about the use of biometric immigration documents in order to provide access to public services of all kinds. In the case of children, their welfare needs and entitlement to basic human rights such as food, shelter, education and healthcare must always come before their immigration status. As noted above, children’s biometric data are unstable and will have to be checked through complex and costly computer software that makes allowances for age-related changes. We would be concerned if difficulties in any technological process denied children the right of access to essential services. I beg to move.