LTKA and other parents' and civil liberties groups have consulted with a number of leading barristers and others about the legality of taking childrens' biometrics and the storage of data derived from them without parental consent.

It is the opinion of counsel that even under existing legislation schools that take biometrics such as fingerprints from children without seeking prior express informed written parental consent are already skating on very thin ice.

LTKA intend to vigorously pursue our campaign to ensure that new legislation leaves absolutely no doubt that such actions would be illegal.

The advice received to date includes but is not limited to the following:

1. It may be illegal on several grounds. "Absent a specific power allowing schools to fingerprint, I'd say they have no power to do it... The notion you can do it because it's a neat way of keeping track of books doesn't cut it as a justification." Stephen Groesz, a partner with the law firm Bindmans.

2. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (1998) states that everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right. Fingerprinting children just for a few library books seems an unjustified, disproportionate and unnecessary invasion of this fundamental right.

3. Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that "no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy..."

4. For the last 20 years, the law has only recognised one, and only one set of circumstances where it is legal to carry out a procedure involving a child under 16 WITHOUT parental consent. There must be a dispute between the parent and child, the procedure must be in the child's best interest, and to date this judgement has ONLY applied in medical circumstances. Clearly none of the above are applicable in this case. You can read more about this aspect of the law here.

5. An important element to stress in assessing the competence of an under 16 to give consent is the question of whether s/he refuses parental involvement. Unless the young person actively chooses not to consult parents, the ordinary common-law position of parental responsibility for under 16s applies.

6. According to the DfES, "[Schools] should inform parents and get consent unless the child is of 'sufficient maturity that s/he can give consent her/himself'." But who gets to say whether a particular child is capable of consenting to their biometrics being taken - whether a child understands the implications of what they are being asked to do, or whether the decision should be deferred to the parent? And standing publicly in front of 30 classmates is hardly the right environment for a child to have to make such an important decision.