UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 25A: 25A: Clause 8, page 5, line 41, after ““of”” insert ““biometric”” The noble Lord said: This group of amendments intends to make it clear that the provisions in Clause 8 governing the use and destruction of information apply only to biometric information collected under the biometric registration provisions, rather than biographical information such as a person’s name, address, reason for applying for leave and suchlike. The amendments also make it clear that the destruction provisions of the clause apply only to biometric information held by the Secretary of State. I shall address those two aspects in more detail. Under Clause 8, the regulations must make provision about the use of biometric information. In addition, Clause 8(3)(a) and (b) provides for when both biometric and non-biometric information must be destroyed. The amendments will ensure that the provisions requiring destruction of the information in Clause 8 apply only to biometric information. Biometric information, we recognise, is of a more sensitive nature than biographical information. That is reflected in the previous immigration Acts. The existing immigration legislation has always expressly provided for when this type of information must be destroyed, and it is right that it should. However, the type of biographical information which the Secretary of State will collect under these provisions is of a different nature. The Secretary of State already requires individuals to provide biographical information—such as name, address, reason for applying for leave and suchlike—when a person makes an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. That type of information is protected by current law. The Secretary of State always handles that information carefully and it is always subject to the safeguards of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act of the same year. One of the key principles of the Data Protection Act is that personal data must not be kept longer than is necessary for lawful purposes. A person will have to provide the same type of non-biometric information when he or she applies for a biometric immigration document, because the document will be the way in which the person is authorised to stay in the United Kingdom in future. As previously mentioned, it is likely that a single combined application form will be used for both the application for leave and the application for the biometric immigration document. Just as the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act provide robust protection for this type of information when the person applies for leave, those Acts will provide the same high level of protection for the rights of the person when they apply for a biometric immigration document. We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to make provision for the destruction of biographical information in Clause 8 in addition to the extensive protection provided by current law. Let us look at the second element to the group. The amendments will also mean that the destruction provisions in Clause 8 will apply only to biometric data held by the Secretary of State. Where the Secretary of State shares information with a third party—for example, the police—the sharing of the data will be governed by the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. We also expect that third party to process the information in such a way as to protect the rights of the data subject, where that is provided for in data protection legislation. So, for example, when data are shared with the police for crime prevention purposes, the police are under their own obligation to comply with the Data Protection Act in how they handle and retain that information. They are also obliged to comply with the Human Rights Act, particularly the right to respect for private life. Accordingly, when the Secretary of State has lawfully shared information with, for example, the police, we think that the obligations which govern how the police use that information provide sufficient safeguards, without the need for the Secretary of State to be subject to a separate obligation under Clause 8 to ensure that the data passed to and therefore held by the police are destroyed. I beg to move.