Protection of Freedoms Bill

Memorandum submitted by Biostore Limited (PF 33)

A Summary of our submission:-

Biostore does not object to the modified Coalition Manifesto pledge to ‘outlaw the use of fingerprinting without parental consent’, now changed to require ‘that parents should give permission for any biometrics to be recorded by a school’. The details of how this is to be implemented do require further consideration.

We have proposed a series of suggestions that would allow schools to adopt the spirit and letter of the bill. These are as follows:

· We accept the modified coalition government policy of seeking parental approval for the use of all biometric systems in schools.

· We are happy to continue to implement alternatives to biometrics where required.

· Our belief is that a single signed form from one responsible parent representing a family should be deemed adequate, for any form of biometric the school management deems appropriate.

· If either parent or the student objects to the use of Biometrics they should be able to write to the school and have their wishes acted on.

· Where a school uses CCTV to identify children, there must be 100% written approval from parents or CCTV systems should be removed.

· Once a student reaches the age of 16, they should be able to decide themselves to give informed consent.

· The legislation should be implemented over a period of 4 years, allowing schools and suppliers to phase in the required changes to systems without requiring significant capital investment in new catering, library or other vital management systems.

Our Submission:-

1. Biostore Ltd welcomes the invitation to submit evidence to the Public Bill Committee concerning the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

2. Biostore is a commercial organisation which is the main supplier identity management systems to secondary schools. Most of our clients use biometrics to confirm the identity of students and staff using services and facilities within a school or college. A number of schools use Smart cards.

3. Our client base includes over 1000 Secondary Schools, and estimate that well over 1 million students use our finger based biometrics daily. In total perhaps 3000 schools use finger based biometrics, with more than 2 million students using school services with biometrics. Nearly all schools in the country will record additional biometric data, as defined by this Bill, such as photographs, or CCTV images.

4. BioStore has always recommended to clients that they carry out a consultation with Staff, Governors and Parents before introducing biometrics. Our software has alternative methods of identity management built in, allowing students to use Identity Cards, or Pin Numbers. Our schools follow this advice.

5. Our experience is that only 2 users per 1000 decline to use biometrics. A 99.8% uptake of a voluntary process reflects the views of most of the public on this subject. There is no evidence that we know of, beyond sensationalist press headlines, that students are compelled to register biometrics.

6. The Coalition Manifesto pledged to require parental consent before children were fingerprinted in schools. This was a very narrow and somewhat emotional focus. Such ‘fingerprinting’ bears no relationship whatsoever to criminal fingerprinting. The manifesto pledge, limited to fingerprints alone would have been impossible to implement without schools turning immediately to alternative biometrics.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Bill changes the Manifesto pledge to include the requirement for written dual parental permission for all biometrics used in schools.

8. This is a highly significant change of policy.

9. There has not been proper consultation or clear thinking about the consequences of this new policy. We would respectfully suggest that the committee reviews the implications of this policy change.

10. Biometric identification is based on fingers, veins, palm scans, voice biometrics, face recognition, typing patterns, gait analysis, and potentially new undiscovered individual characteristics.

11. What are some of the challenges posed by the change of policy?

12. Digitally stored photographs are a biometric identifier currently in place in nearly all schools. All those schools currently storing digital photos, which are used to identify children, will need to seek written permission from 2 parents. This is a peculiarly onerous challenge. Without this permission, schools will not be able to store photographs. Many schools will have permission from 1 parent, but this will not be adequate in future. Existing administration systems that depend on identifying students by photographs will have to be closed down, or will only be usable by a part of the population.

13. According to this Bill all schools using smart cards with photographs will need to reissue cards unless they have written approval from 2 parents. Without dual written parental approval, cards will have to be reprinted without photographs on. Existing systems that depend on smart cards with photos will have to be modified or closed down. Smart cards without photos are considerably less effective.

14. Schools that use CCTV will need to have the approval of all parents in the school. If 1 parent objects the system will have be stopped, as CCTV is indiscriminate in recording biometric features. CCTV cannot be set to exclude recording those who have opted out.

15. A number of Administration systems ( such as Cashless catering, Library, access control, print and copy management etc) are built around Identity Management systems using photos, cards, or biometrics that have been approved of by 1 parent. If this permission is declined in future, or cannot be obtained from 2 parents, schools may have to purchase new admin systems at significant capital cost to meet the diverse requirements of the current parents in a school. New cohorts of parents may request the school to implement new forms of identification, leading to constant process of change and new investment. Schools will lose the ability to manage themselves.

16. Given the high levels of uptake of biometrics including the almost universal use of digital images in schools and colleges, the costs and administrative burden of retrospectively obtaining written consent from 2 separate parents are going to be very high. A simple estimate suggests that communications alone to obtain written retrospective permission from two parents for photos would cost schools £8m. This far exceeds the costs outlined in the impact assessment prepared to accompany this Bill. At best this will identify the 2 users per 1000 who already have already exercised their voluntary opt out. Seeking dual parental permission, whilst expensive still remains a cheaper option than replacing biometrics with identity cards.

17. If all schools with biometric systems have to replace these with cards, they will incur additional costs of up to £19m per annum to introduce and maintain a card based solution. This is far in excess of the costs outlined in the impact assessment prepared to accompany this Bill.

18. Time scales for introduction of legislation.

We approve of parental permission being required, but to be proportional, this should be acquired over time from 1 parent who represents the family. This common practice should certainly apply to existing students, so that Schools can continue to use management systems in which they have invested heavily in over recent years to improve educational outcomes. It has taken 5 or more years to implement the number of Identity Management systems in place. For very practical reasons, there is not sufficient technical capacity in schools or the industry to make the compliance changes to school systems in less than 4 years without very substantial investment. Schools could easily be caught out in trying to implement new policies, but being unable to do so in a reasonable time scale.

19. Parental permission can be sought more easily for new students, or new installations. According to the wishes of parents, as school or college can make the best decision about how to invest in administrative systems, before they make their initial purchase

20. The Proposers of the Bill need to be aware that individual schools may have to work with many different forms of identification – cards, finger biometrics, facial recognition, and vein recognition according to the diverse wishes of parents and pupils. This will be onerous, inefficient and costly.

21. Inertia, inefficiency, and lack of attention to detail will ensure that not all parents bother to complete the forms needed. Pupils will be able to disrupt school administration by exercising a legal right to change preferred forms of identity on a regular basis.

22. Children can choose their religion at the age of 15, choose to marry at 16, drive at 17, but the proposed legislation requires that they cannot give biometric data without parental approval until they are 18. The Impact Assessment to accompany this bill considered the ages of 12 and 18, as times when children might give consent. Our view is that once children are 16 they should be able to decide themselves whether to use Biometrics. This change would reduce the burdens on 6th form colleges and Colleges of Further Education where parental approval is harder to obtain.

23. Card based systems are very expensive to operate, with a high rate of card loss, admin time to replace cards, cards being stolen or lost, leading to theft of funds, or denial of service because children cannot obtain replacements at critical times. By forcing schools to use card systems, sponsors of this Bill are potentially requiring schools to face high ongoing costs. Smart Cards alone cost up to £3.50 per pupil, and losses amount to over 20% per annum. Admin staff time required to administer cards can require the half the time of a staff member. A secondary school can incur costs of £15,000 per annum to maintain and administer a card based system.

24. Those of a cynical nature will observe that a company that lives by selling biometrics will defend its position and justify biometrics. However, when we sell biometric to a school, we make one sale. The biometrics element of a solution will incur a one off capital cost to the school between £500 and £3000 depending on the software in use. We then charge a modest annual support charge – perhaps £150 per application. The savings to the school in time materials and administrative effort are substantial. Our systems are popular with schools, students and parents because they work, save substantial admin time and are trusted.

25. Our Identity Management Systems work just as well with cards. Installing a card system would make us more money - earned from providing card printers, an ongoing supply of cards, printing inks, support and core software. The annual cost to each school for our services would be in the region of £ 5000.

26. To repeat the summary:-

Biostore does not object to the modified Coalition Manifesto pledge ‘to outlaw the use of fingerprinting without parental consent’, but instead ‘that parents should give permission for any biometrics to be recorded by a school’. The details of how this is to be implemented do require further consideration.

We have proposed a series of suggestions that would allow schools to adopt the spirit and letter of the Manifesto and Bill. These are as follows:

· We accept the modified coalition policy of seeking parental approval for the use of biometric systems in schools.

· We are happy to continue to implement alternatives to biometrics where required.

· Our belief is that a single signed form from one responsible parent representing a family should be deemed adequate, for any form of biometric the school management deems appropriate.

· If either parent or the student objects to the use of Biometrics they should be able to write to the school and have their wishes acted on.

· Where a school uses CCTV to identify children, there must be 100% written approval from parents or systems should be disabled.

· Once a Student reaches the age of 16, they should be able to decide themselves to give informed consent.

· The legislation should be implemented over a period of 4 years, allowing schools and suppliers to phase in the required changes to systems without requiring significant capital investment in new catering, library or other vital management systems.

Biostore hopes this is a constructive proposal for the Committee to consider. We would be happy to enter into a more detailed dialogue if required.

March 2011