UK Borders Bill

Amendment No. 14A would limit the non-biometric information recorded on or in the biometric immigration document. Limiting the information which can be recorded on the document in this way would mean that the United Kingdom could not use the biometric immigration document provisions to comply with the requirements of a forthcoming European Commission regulation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to that. That regulation will require the United Kingdom and other member states to include certain non-biometric information on a biometric document when a person is allowed to stay in the United Kingdom, other than that listed in the amendment. At present, the information recorded on existing non-biometric vignette-type residence permits is set out in an EC regulation which we must comply with. The vignettes already include information which is not on the list in the proposed amendment including nationality and sex of the holder, country issuing the document, details of when the document was issued and when it expires, and various security features. In the near future, a draft EC regulation will also require the documents which we issue to authorise a person to stay in the United Kingdom to contain biometric information including fingerprints and a photograph, and some other additional non-biometric features such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation symbol for a machine readable document with a microchip. Discussions as to what non-biometric information will be required are continuing at EU level. Clause 5(2)(d) allows us the flexibility to take account of discussions in the European Union on what non-biometric information should be included on the forthcoming biometric residence permit. It is almost certain that the draft EC regulation will require other information which is not included in the proposed amendments. We cannot agree to the amendment because it would take away the flexibility to make regulations which ensure that we comply with requirements of the draft EC regulation. The noble Baroness drew Amendment No. 26 into the debate, for which I am grateful. This amendment would undermine the operation of the biometric registration provisions for many categories of those who apply for leave, and would prevent us using the biometric immigration document to comply with the regulation to which I referred. Sensitive personal data include information about a person’s nationality, their religious and political beliefs, sexuality or criminal convictions. When a person applies for leave to remain as, for example, a refugee, a minister of religion, a spouse or a civil partner, they already provide ““sensitive”” personal data as an essential part of their application. The Borders and Immigration Agency is well used to processing this type of information fully in accordance with the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act. In time, a person who applies for leave to remain will have to apply at the same time for a biometric immigration document. The document will be the way in which their leave is granted. The applicant will have to fill in a combined application form including details about their leave application. The amendment would mean that the combined application form could not contain any reference to the leave application if it was in a category which necessarily disclosed the person’s sensitive information, for example an application made on the basis of marriage. This would prevent BIDs being issued to individuals in these categories, even though EC law will require us to issue them with a biometric card wherever we grant them leave. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State asking the person for details of their previous criminal convictions as part of a combined application for leave to remain and for a biometric immigration document. That would prevent the Secretary of State from assessing whether it was appropriate to grant leave, and so issue the BID, in the light of the applicant’s previous convictions. This could potentially have very serious implications for public safety, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands. I reassure her that the Data Protection Act 1998 and Article 8 of the ECHR provide safeguards for those who are required to provide sensitive personal information. For that reason we argue that the amendments are unnecessary.