Children's Biometrics in the House of Lords

The Protection of Freedoms Bill had it's second reading in the House of Lords last week and some peers spoke in a positive manner about gaining consent of parents before schools take and process children's biometrics.

Lord Henley -

"it is right that parents should be asked to make an informed decision about whether to accede to the processing of such information. It is also proper that pupils should have a say."

The Lord Bishop of Bristol -

"I back the protection of biometric information on children in schools, with parental consent being required for processing information"

Lord Kennedy of Southwark -

 "Proposals regarding the express parental consent for the use of children's fingerprints are welcome"

The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) tweeted that "Pleased to see Lord Lucas supporting ASCL's objections to restricting biometrics in schools in yday's Lord's debate. http://t.co/TlxwoxxR"

As the ASCL rightly state there was one peer, Lord Lucas, who indeed spoke of the section on biometrics in school as a "daffy overreaction".  (daffy?)  Lord Lucas also commented that biometrics in schools...

"...have great benefits. They improve safety. They improve privacy. They greatly improve efficiency."

If biometrics in schools do have such above beneficial effects what has the ASCL or Lord Lucas to be frightened about gaining parental consent.  Surely given the above claims, parents should willingly embrace this technology and thereby give consent.  Schools gain consent for all manner of activities, it is a process they are familiar with.

I would be interested to see validation of Lord Lucas's claims.  Claims that remind me of the previous Labour Government waffle justifying using childrens biometrics in schools for mundane tasks, and of course, claims made by companies selling access, registration and security systems to schools.

Stop Fingerprinting children in schools? at Prime Minister's Questions but no Prime Ministers Answers, unsurprisingly...

Prime Minister's Questions - Wednesday 6th Feb 2007

The 100% complete dodging round the issue of fingerprint systems in school by the PM yesterday is self explanitory below.

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): This week’s bugging controversy should not come as a surprise to the Prime Minister. After all, it is this Government who have turned the British public into the most spied upon on the planet: 1,000 surveillance requests every day; 1 million innocent people on the Government’s DNA database; and 5,000 schools now fingerprinting our children at school. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke so stirringly a few months ago about the great British tradition of liberty?

The Prime Minister: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal authorities support CCTV. I take it that they support the intercept action that is taken when it is necessary for national security. I take it that he accepts that only 1,500 intercepts have been commissioned by Ministers as a result of urgent security needs. Does he accept these things or not?

Mr. Clegg: The Prime Minister seems to see no limits. He is creating a surveillance state. Why has he consistently refused requests for more power to be given to the Information Commissioner? Why does he not do what is already done in Scotland and remove the DNA of innocent people from the database? Why will he not act immediately to stop the scandalous fingerprinting of our children at school?

The Prime Minister: People in this country are reassured by the presence of CCTV; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to remove it. That is one very important part of the investigatory and surveillance powers that we give the police to carry out their work. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and see the protections that have been put in place where there is surveillance and where there are intercepts. They include authorisation by a senior officer, the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, and a commissioner for surveillance who looks at matters and reports annually. We are taking the steps to protect the liberties of the citizens; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support that.