I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and to my noble friend Lord Judd for starting the debate. The amendment could lead to the clause being interpreted in such a way that the Border and Immigration Agency could not use biometric information collected under regulations made under Clause 5 for non-immigration purposes. Leaving the clause open to interpretation in this way would be undesirable because it would prevent the Border and Immigration Agency using this information for other important purposes, such as to check a fingerprint provided by the police against our databases in order to try to identify and trace an offender. For those reasons and on the grounds of good law enforcement, we must resist the amendment.
On the other hand, government Amendments Nos. 23A and 25F—the latter is a consequential amendment—are very much in the spirit of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Our amendments seek to specify the non-immigration purposes for which biometrics information can be used. Careful consideration has been given to exactly what those purposes might be. For example, Amendment No. 23A ensures that where the police have a fingerprint from a crime scene and ask the Secretary of State to check that fingerprint against fingerprints she holds in order to trace a suspected offender, the Secretary of State can do that. It also allows for biometric information to be checked before a British passport is issued to certain types of British nationals.
I should also make it clear that this amendment ensures that the Border and Immigration Agency can share biometric information by relying on its existing data sharing powers, as long as the regulations provide for this. So Amendment No. 23A also allows the Secretary of State to specify additional uses for the information if these are identified in the future in regulations which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I want to assure noble Lords that any use of the information collected under these provisions must be in accordance with the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act, because those are fundamental protections. We are right to rely on them because they provide the public with a degree of reassurance. I beg to move.
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c179-80GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408829
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408829
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408829