Group 4 is on the protection of the identity of pupils receiving free school lunches. Amendment 27, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is the only amendment in the group.

Section 8 will place a duty on local authorities to introduce anonymised systems to protect the identity of pupils who receive free school lunches. The bill does not specify what kind of anonymised systems should be put in place, but it is clear that many schools, in seeking to fulfil the duty, will opt for biometric systems, which are already in place in some schools for a range of purposes. It is clear that there will be an increase—possibly a substantial one—in the use of biometric systems.

In the Communities Committee at stage 2 and before that in the Parliament, I raised questions about how the systems ought to operate. I feel instinctively that biometric systems are probably unnecessary and not very welcome in schools, but if schools decide that they want to go along that route, that is well and good and we should consider how the systems will operate. The principles that I asked about were on issues such as parental consent and whether biometric data would be kept centrally in a database or on site in schools' local systems.

I have raised a range of issues, but the crucial one is parental consent. The Executive has said repeatedly that parental consent is an essential prerequisite if schools are to collect biometric data. However, having probed that a little further, it seems that consent is in no way essential and is not really a prerequisite. Instead, it seems to be an optional extra—it is regarded as a matter of good practice for schools to obtain parental consent before they take children's fingerprints. To me, that is not enough, which is why I suggested at stage 2 that we write into legislation a requirement on schools to obtain parental consent. The Communities Committee and the Executive took the opposite view.

Another approach that I suggested was that ministers should issue guidance on how biometric systems ought to operate and what the boundaries should be for their use. Again, I was not successful in persuading the committee on that. My suggestion at stage 3 is that we take a smaller step in the same direction: I am asking for a code of conduct, which, unlike regulations, would not be binding, although it would give a clear steer from the Executive on issues such as parental consent.

The minister might be able to answer a question that I asked at stage 2 and to which I did not receive an answer. The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency is currently working on guidance for United Kingdom ministers on how biometric systems will operate in schools and the boundaries for them. Will the minister say whether those guidelines will apply in Scotland and, if not, whether the Executive is minded to produce guidelines, in which case there would perhaps be room for negotiation or compromise? However, if no such guidelines are being worked on in Scotland, it is reasonable to ask the Executive to produce a code of conduct, which is what amendment 27 does.

I move amendment 27.

Amendment 27 is reasonable. The Executive was right to produce measures on anonymity and protecting the identity of those who receive free school meals. However, the measures have raised concerns about the type of information that can be captured and how it will be used. It is therefore appropriate that a code of conduct is produced. The issue could usefully be discussed by the new parent forums in schools. It is exactly the sort of item that the forums should have on their agendas, to allow parents to discuss what they find acceptable or unacceptable in relation to the information that is kept about their children and how it is captured. Patrick Harvie makes a reasonable request.

I am interested in the minister's response to Patrick Harvie's question about what work the Government is doing to produce guidance on biometric information issues generally. Amendment 27 would provide a reasonable compromise, as we need an understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable and of the reasons why information is kept and how it is kept. In that spirit, I hope that the minister will agree to amendment 27.

Throughout the bill's passage, I have had concerns about biometrics and anonymised systems. The minister has not yet persuaded me that the serious issues that surround the collection of biometric information from children have been addressed. Patrick Harvie's amendment 27 would be a step toward achieving coherence among the very many systems that might be up and running in future. Before any systems get up and running, we need guidance or guidelines to be put in place. I urge the minister to respond positively to Patrick Harvie and to accept amendment 27, as it is necessary.

We want authorities and schools to introduce anonymised systems to help ensure that pupils who are entitled to free school meals get the benefit of them. If stigma is a barrier, we want to remove it. Section 8 will tackle that. However, as Patrick Harvie is aware, the bill will not require local authorities to introduce or use any particular system in protecting the identity of those who receive free school meals and nor will it require authorities to collect biometric information. The decision about which anonymised system to use will be for schools and authorities, therefore it is not appropriate to amend the bill to put duties on ministers to publish a code about biometric data when the bill will not require authorities to collect such data.

In any case, amendment 27 is completely unnecessary, as the normal rules of data protection—in particular, those in the Data Protection Act 1998—provide safeguards on the collection and use of personal data. The amendment would impose a different set of rules for biometric data that are collected for a particular purpose, even though the existing provisions are adequate and well established.

Will the minister confirm that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not require parents to be consulted on the issue or require their consent for their children to be fingerprinted? Does he acknowledge that, for some parents, it is deeply disturbing and worrying for their children to come home and simply tell them that such information has been gathered? Would it not be reasonable for Executive ministers, as their colleagues at Westminster have done, to set boundaries within which the systems should operate?

I would be alarmed if the situation that Patrick Harvie describes actually occurred. If he writes to me setting out a specific incident, I will investigate it. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides safeguards on the collection and use of personal data.

On Patrick Harvie's earlier point about how a biometric system would operate at UK level, the guidelines for any system that has UK-wide application would apply here, too. However, if the guidelines are purely for a system in England and Wales, that is a matter for them and we will make our decisions here, which is what devolution is all about, as I am sure Patrick Harvie would agree.

When we debated the issue at stage 2, I set out our views on biometric systems and consent, but I will state them again for the record. Our position is that, if an authority decides to use a biometric system, as a matter of good practice, parental consent will be an essential prerequisite before schools collect any biometric information. Children who do not use the system—either because they or their parents do not consent or for any other reason—should not be disadvantaged.

As I said, Patrick Harvie's amendment 27 is not necessary. Section 8 is not about biometric data; it is about protecting the identity of pupils who receive free school meals. Some schools might decide to adopt biometric systems to help them to comply with their duties, but others will adopt different methods.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No thanks.

Biometric systems have broader applications than simply protecting identity. I understand Patrick Harvie's views on such systems, but I question whether the bill is the appropriate context for a debate on how the systems should be used. I oppose Patrick Harvie's amendment 27.

I have been fairly consistent throughout our debates in giving ministers an opportunity to address this issue in a different context from the bill, and I am deeply disappointed that ministers have continued to suggest that there is no need to address it.

The minister is incredibly unclear on the Becta guidelines. In essence, he has told us that, if the guidelines apply at United Kingdom level, they will apply in Scotland, and that if they do not, they will not. That is not an answer to the question, "Do they?", and it is not an answer to the question, "Will they?" The minister is unable to tell us whether the guidelines that are currently being devised by UK ministers will apply here. That leaves us in complete limbo. We are unclear whether any boundaries will be placed on the operation of systems, beyond the boundaries in the existing data protection legislation. As I have made clear, that legislation does not lay down any essential prerequisites. To describe consent as an "essential prerequisite" is surely to imply either that it is Government policy to be enforced in some way or that it is in legislation, but neither is the case.

In a moment, I will press amendment 27, although I know that it will not be supported by the majority of members. However, I ask even members who oppose my amendment to agree that, in the next session of Parliament, there must be scope for a wide debate on the use of surveillance technologies in schools. Such technologies have the potential to threaten and undermine the school environment as well as individual pupils' civil liberties.

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 19

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 disagreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 20

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Because the clock has beaten us, I am required to use my power, under rule 9.8.4A(a), to extend the time limit to allow members who will be moving amendments in the fifth group of amendments, and the minister, to speak. No one else will be able to speak.