Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs) of the Select Committee on the European Union considered these proposals at a meeting on 5 November.

  The Committee welcomed in principle the proposal to improve the security of visas and residence permits by bringing forward the implementation date for incorporating photographs into the document and by incorporating biometric identifiers. But there are a number of points on which we would welcome further clarification.

  We were particularly concerned by the Commission's comments in its Explanatory Memorandum about the under-resourcing of national supervisory bodies on data protection. You did not comment on this point in relation to the UK in your Explanatory Memorandum, and we would be glad to know whether you consider that the Commission's strictures apply to the Information Commissioner; and what his own views are on the matter. We have also taken account of criticisms of the proposals made by Statewatch and, although we do not agree with all of them, we would be grateful for your comments on their claim that these proposals are a step on the road to widespread use of biometric indicators across the EU and on what safeguards are available to prevent this data being used for other purposes.

  We were surprised that the Commission was unable to give any information about the likely costs of these proposals. We do not believe that the regulations should be agreed without a proper costing exercise, and we look forward to receiving a detailed estimate in due course.

  We noted that the Commission had rejected the use of iris recognition as a biometric identifier. We understand, however, that trials of iris recognition technology are being carried out at some UK airports. How do the current proposals dovetail with these pilot projects?

  We would also be interested to know how the proposed scheme will handle photographs of heavily veiled Muslim women; and more generally, what the attitude of immigration authorities is to such photographs in passports issued by Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia.

  Finally, on a point raised by the reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to UK residence permits, although not directly relevant to the draft regulations, we noted that the United Kingdom has recently started to issue residence permits for the first time, in the form of vignettes. We would be interested to know who will qualify for residence permits. Will it be all those given leave to remain in a capacity other than as a visitor or only those granted permanent residence? How many different categories of people will there be with and without residence permits; and what will the cost be to the applicant?

  We would be grateful for your comments on these points and also to be informed as soon as the Government decides whether to opt into the proposal. In the meantime we shall hold the document under scrutiny.

6 November 2003

  Thank you for your letter of 6 November, outlining the Select Committee's response to the draft EU proposals for changes to the uniform format for visas and residence permits and seeking further clarification on a number of points.

  The Committee expresses concern about the Commission's comments on resourcing of supervisory bodies on data protection. We do not know whether the Commission considers that its comments apply to the United Kingdom but we anticipate that it will clarify its views in the course of its forthcoming bilateral with the Government to follow up its report on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive. Home Office officials will shortly be writing direct to the Information Commissioner to seek his views and will also be keeping in touch with the Department of Constitutional Affairs who have the lead responsibility for Data Protection issues.

  Concern has also been expressed over the "Statewatch" criticism that these proposals are a step on the road to widespread use of biometric indicators across the EU. The Government is concerned to ensure that the use of biometric indicators is both effective and subject to sufficient data protection safeguards. I can understand the concerns that organisations such as Statewatch may have and the detailed implementation of the EU proposals remains subject to further discussion amongst Member States. However, if the UK does opt-in, the Commission proposals will have to be operated under the relevant domestic and EU data protection legislation which specifically allows for personal data to be used for national security purposes and in the investigation of crime.

  Early work on costs suggest that the impact of these proposals may be significant. It is important that we are clear about the link between this and other UK initiatives so work to clarify costs is continuing. The scrutiny committee will, of course, receive further information in due course.

  The Committee has also asked about existing pilot projects at UK airports on the use of iris recognition as a biometric identifier. The Commission text has now been amended to incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow the addition of a third biometric in due course. This will ensure that the use of iris recognition can be considered at a later date. The amended text of the EU proposals is now therefore consistent with the UK's on-going initiatives in this area.

  The Committee also asks about how the proposed system will deal with photographs of veiled Muslim women. This issue has already arisen in the context of obtaining photographs for the Application Registration Card (ARC) for asylum applications. IND currently photographs asylum applicants for the production of the ARC. Under current procedures, Muslim women who present themselves at ports of entry are requested to accompany a female officer to a separate room or private area. This enables them to unveil for identity verification in the presence of a female official for only the time it takes for the image to be captured. I am confident that a similar level of cultural sensitivity can be applied to the EU proposals.

  On the Committee's final point about the introduction of the European Uniform Residence Permits in the UK, these are to be issued to all those granted permission to remain in the UK for longer than 6 months. The cost of the permit is subsumed within the charge for an application for further leave to remain; this is currently £155 for postal applications.

26 November 2003

  Thank you for your letter of 26 November about these proposals, which Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) of the Select Committee on the European Union considered at a meeting on 10 December.

  We were grateful for your response to our queries and await further information on the resourcing of the Information Commissioner's office, the estimated costs of the proposals and the decision on whether the UK will opt into them. In the meantime we will continue to hold the document under scrutiny.

  As regards the iris recognition pilot projects, you say that the text of the proposals has been amended so that they are consistent with the UK's "ongoing initiatives in this area". It would be helpful to know what these initiatives consist of. We were interested in what you said about obtaining photographs of veiled Muslim women for the application registration card for asylum applications. But we were unclear whether phographs of Muslim women would be taken unveiled for the purposes of uniform visas and residence permits. What is the current practice of the Saudi authorities, for example, in issuing passports?

10 December 2003