We are still outside the Schengen agreement, and while it remains difficult to see how effective policing of Europe's external border could keep this country safe, that is a position we propose to preserve.
The second package of amendments is important because it provides an extra layer of protection for biometric information. That was the intention of the original clause, but it was not clear enough. There are already protections in place for biographical information, principally the Human Rights Act, especially article 8, and the Data Protection Act 1998. There are parliamentary precedents for additional protection for biometric information—specifically the need to set out when destruction of biometric information should be undertaken. Our plan is to set out regulations on the retention and destruction of information in this area. There is a carve-out for cases where biometric information is shared with agencies such as the police. In such cases, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act provide the requisite protection. It would be difficult for the Secretary of State to be responsible for the destruction by the police of biometric information shared with them.
These largely tidying-up amendments are designed to give a clearer expression to our original intentions, and I commend them to the House.
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Liam Byrne
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 29 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
465 c541-2 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:06:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_420245
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_420245
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_420245