HL Deb 03 November 1983 vol 444 cc660-77

5.26 p.m.

Lord Scarman rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Easing of Frontier Formalities.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to invite your Lordships' House to take note of the fourth report this Session of the Select Committee upon the European Communities, and to consider the report which goes under that reference. The duty falls to me to invite the House to take notice of this report, because at the time that the report was under preparationI was chairman of Sub-Committee E—that is, the legal sub-committee—of the Select Committee. I should like in my capacity as chairman of that subcommittee to express the gratitude of all who were concerned with the preparation of this report towards those who provided the committee with evidence, both written and at oral sessions of the sub-committee.

In particular, I would draw attention to one feature of the evidence, which I am glad to say is becoming more and more common in the deliberations of the Select Committee. The European Commission agreed that a senior official of the Commission could come to London to assist the sub-committee in its deliberations. Dr. Taschner, of Directorate General III of the European Commission, came to London. Not only was he of great assistance on the substance of the matter, as I think the report abundantly reveals, but he also managed to clarify certain obscurities, perhaps even confusions, with which it would have been easy to have been bedevilled by the terms of the matter under consideration.

The matter under consideration was a proposal made in 1982 by the European Commission with the object of reducing formalities at the internal frontiers of the Community in respect of citizens of member states passing from one member state to another. A modest objective, you may think; but also, you may think, valuable if something can be done to ease for travellers within the Community the delays which can build up to a frustrating degree at airports and seaports. However, although mode it, it soon became clear that the proposal raised difficult questions of policy and principle for the United Kingdom. It is to those questions that I shall direct the few words I shall address to the House tonight.

The proposals for easing these frontier formalities were these; I quote from paragraph of the report that, the Council should pass a resolution that member States will undertake by 31 December 1984 at the latest… to reduce formalities at the internal frontiers of the Community by discontinuing systematic checks as soon as citizenship of a Member State has been established, retaining only the right to make occasional spot checks and, secondly, to introduce special channels for EEC nationals at EEC airports and ports. Your Lordships will notice, first, that what has been proposed was a Council resolution. A Council resolution has no binding legal effect in Community law, but it would be very influential if passed by the Council. It would be extremely difficult—and probably undesirable—if we could allow a resolution to be passed by the Council and to say thereafter that it presents difficulties of principle and policy and that we shall exercise our undoubted right to disregard it. It is therefore on the basis that, if such a resolution were passed this country would have to pay very careful attention to it, that the Committee investigated the implications of this seemingly modest proposal to reduce the formalities facing Common Market travellers at frontiers.

The second preliminary point is the strange reference in the proposal to the internal frontiers of the Community. That conjures up—at least to me—land frontiers between member states, such as one would find between France, Germany and the Low Countries. It does not seem an apt description for the points of entry in the United Kingdom, most of which are either sea ports or airports used by the international community—indeed by all persons from wherever they are coming who wish to enter or leave the United Kingdom. If "internal frontier" means what in plain English it would indicate, there is only one internal land frontier for the United Kingdom and that is the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. But, in the context of frontier formalities, that border presents no problem of any sort. It is within the common travel area constituted by the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and there are no passport checks or other frontier formalities there at all. Security problems associated with Northern Ireland are not dealt with by any system of frontier checks at the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Dr. Taschner, in giving evidence to the subcommittee, explained that internal frontiers included sea ports and airports; that is to say they include points of entry used by the travelling public irrespective of where they were coming from and would be used by many travellers who were not coming from one member state into another.

As soon as it was appreciated that these proposals related to airports and sea ports used by the general travelling public and not limited to travellers from or within the Common Market, one saw at once very serious problems. If we were to dismantle systematic checks for European Community nationals at our ports how would we distinguish between those who were coming from member states and those who were coming from other places? How would we handle the possibility of deception; the use being made of the facilities available to Common Market travellers by others who were not entitled to have them? One realised that we would be faced, if this proposal were to go through, with either having to dismantle our system of checks and to try to deal with our security problems in some other way or retaining the checks, despite the proposals being made by the Commission. Our difficulty is that we are an island.

We rely on systematic checks at our airports and sea ports to control illegal immigration. Other member states with long land frontiers cannot exercise as efficiently as we can a frontier control system, for they have long land frontiers and persons can get across in other places than at sea ports and airports. Therefore other member states have to rely on a system of internal controls, registration, identity cards and the right of the police to demand proof of identity, even where there is no suspicion of any criminal activity. If we are to implement this resolution it means that we shall have to find internal methods for doing that which we now do at our frontiers by means of immigration control. Those internal measures, it seemed to the committee and I would suggest to the House, would run counter to many of our cherished liberties in this country. That was the evidence that was given to us and we were faced with the Home Office view which the Committee accepted after investigation that these internal checks would be necessary if we were to dismantle our systematic checks at frontiers.

That being so it will not surprise your Lordships to hear—I take the matter very shortly—that the Committee came to this conclusion in respect of the proposals. It is to be found in paragraph 34 of the report where the committee say that they are unable to agree with the proposed abolition of systematic checks upon the identity of visitors coming through our airports. the other part of the proposal was that there should be special channels for nationals of member states at our airports and our seaports. That is already done.

The objections which I have outlined and which are to be found in the report concerning the systematic checks of identity at our airports do not apply to the second part of the proposal, that part which relates to the special channels for EEC nationals. In fact, as many noble Lords will know, at Heathrow and at other airports there are three channels: EEC nationals, United Kingdom passport holders, and others. Indeed, that system has been observed by the European Commission and their proposal is largely modelled upon what they have observed to be the practice at Heathrow and at other airports in the United Kingdom. So, for the reasons given in the report, the conclusion was that we could go along with special channels for letting people through airports, through immigration control, but that we must remain firm that we could not dismantle our systematic checks of identity.

Just for the moment, envisage how we do control illegal entry into this country. We do it at points of entry. A visitor has to satisfy the immigration officer, first of all, as to his identity, that he is the person referred to in his passport and in his identity card; and then the immigration officer has to satisfy himself that he is a person who can be allowed to enter. I need not go through the various grounds on which an immigration officer can refuse leave to enter. A visitor from a member state of the Community is in a better position. He has a right to enter this country, to take up employment, to seek opportunities for self-employment and so forth, That right is strictly, I think, in law, not a right because it is subject to a right on the part of the member state to refuse entry on grounds of security, public policy and so forth. So there has to be some sort of examination even in regard to Community visitors. When one comes to United Kingdom passport holders, some of them, so-called patrials, have the right of abode. They can come in as soon as their identity has been established. But there are other United Kingdom passport holders who do not have the right of abode and who must be subject to further inquiries before they can be allowed to enter.

This system, for that is what it is, would have to go if this proposal for the abandoning of systematic checks at our airports were adopted; and this system works pretty well. The report quotes some figures which will give your Lordships an indication as to how it does work. For the year 1981, which was the last year for which figures were available when this report was under consideration, we have: EEC nationals, other than United Kingdom passport holders, refused entry, 975; removals after entry for some reason or another—that is those who fell foul of such internal checks as we have in this country, only 125; foreign visitors refused at point of entry, 7,421; removals after entry as illegal immigrants, 695; Commonwealth travellers, refusals at point of entry, 5,788; removals after entry, 763. One cannot draw anything but broad conclusions from these figures but they indicate what our system is. We rely at the frontiers on our checks and by so relying we avoid, to a large extent, the difficulties and problems in terms of civil liberties of finding out who within the Kingdom should not be there and should be removed.

There is one last point which is made in the report to which I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The price of abandoning our systematic checks at the frontiers has been shown by the report, I hope, and by what I have said, to be high. What advantages, however, would be obtained by discontinuing identity checks at our frontiers in respect of European nationals? The advantages are so slim as to be almost imperceptible. Again I would quote from the report some fascinating figures. It takes immigration control six seconds to pass through a United Kingdom passport holder; it takes the officer 12 to 15 seconds to pass through a European member state national other than a United Kingdom passport holder. For all others, it takes between 45 and 85 seconds. Reducing formalities at the frontier, so far as concerns member state nationals, could only diminish by a second or two the time taken; and would not tackle the real causes of delay at our airports; namely, the time taken to recover one's baggage and, at certain hours of the day, as we all know at Heathrow, the accumulation of traffic with the build-up of people pressing to get through Immigration, Customs and so forth. We are really talking about a very slim advantage to be achieved with, in United Kingdom terms, a very high price to pay.

Those, in summary, are the conclusions and the reasoning of this report. I think that we should agree with the European Commission that it is highly desirable to reduce formalities where one can. Since 1974 steps have been taken to move towards a passport union. This Select Committee reported on that problem some years ago and came out clearly that we could not abolish passport checks; and we know that very soon—in January 1985—a European common format passport will be introduced.

I think that the Select Committee some years ago and the Select Committee today got it right when they said: "We cannot reduce or diminish passport control". I think there is nothing in the attitude which this report adopts towards these proposals that in any way endangers the increase in the use of European passports, and there is nothing that endangers the swift passage of nationals of the Community states through our seaports and airports. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Easing of Frontier Formalities.—(Lord Scarman.)

5.51 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, among the many gifts that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has brought to this House and to the country are so lucid a mind and such an ability, in a speech of some 25 minutes, to take from a fairly long report and much evidence all the salient points that were raised by the sub-committee on which I have the privilege to serve, that anybody who takes 10 minutes after him in order to try to refer to the report and the recommendations is, I believe, being over-generous to himself in regard to the apportionment of time.

I therefore intend to abide by that generalisation and to say only this: for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord has given, not the least of them being the desire in this country to keep our constitutional principles of the freedom of the subject from unnecessary interference in the form of identity checks in the streets, the possession of identity cards, and so on, it is quite obvious that it would be quite wrong for us in our peculiar island position in the family of the EEC to do away with, or indeed to reduce at all, the passport controls and the limitations that we put upon people who pass through our frontier by way of a very short check—a check that takes a matter of seconds, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out.

I think we would all agree that the general principle that has been adumbrated in the EEC is a good one. There is the very first sentence that forms part of this report and gives the history of the thought within the EEC: At the European Summit meeting held in Paris on 9 and 10 December 1974, the Heads of Government called for an examination of the possibility of establishing a passport union, which was to include the introduction of a uniform passport, a progressive harmonisation of legislation affecting aliens and the abolition of passport control within the Community. Some of us when hearing those words will remember a great Foreign Secretary of this country, Ernest Bevin, who regarded it as the aim of the foreign policy of this country, although he realised it would take many years to achieve it, that one would be able to walk anywhere across frontiers without indeed having to have a passport at all. That dream has not yet been achieved and, for the reasons given in this report to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention, there is no suggestion at this stage, from the point of view of security, for the release of the controls that we have.

The noble and learned Lord referred quite properly to the fact that in the course of our endeavours to meet these ideals and to achieve some feeling of real "family" within the European Community, there is to be a common form for a European passport in January 1985. This has caused some concern among people who have heard of this and who feel that they are to give up the very precious national format of their passport. They should be assure that the national particulars and description will certainly be prominently displayed on that common format. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate at least to give a little more information, since the date is not far off, as to what is to happen in January 1985 with this common format.

Are all of us to give up our passports and thereby, one would have thought overburden the poor Passport Office with having to issue new passports in January 1985? Or are we to be allowed to go to the normal permitted extent of the passport period and wait until shortly before the end of that time before asking for the common format? If that is so, many of us will have passports with perhaps nine years still to run, and it may be somewhat peculiar that many of us will be retaining for a number of years the old passports of which we are fond before being issued with the common format.

Before I sit down, there is one matter to which the noble and learned Lord called attention and about which there is very little knowledge indeed. He dealt with it briefly but concisely, as always. I refer to the right of the members of the European Community to reside in various countries within the European Community. I think it is understandable that people do not know about the right of residence. The right to work they know of, and also of the right to open up a business; but the right of residence—is it automatic or is it not? It is something which one finds few people really understand—and I say this with the greatest of respect to the witnesses who appeared before us and who were so helpful. But, as one reads the report, even one very able official of the Home Office expressed matters, not by way of mistake but in a way which he himself thought afterwards ought to be corrected.

I wonder whether, within the few minutes I have allowed myself only because I think it is of general importance, I may be allowed just to quote one or two questions and answers, and the clarification. I think it might be useful. Question No. 45 was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I quote: The requirement to register with the police has been withdrawn, as I understand it, as far as European Community nationals are concerned, but there is a requirement to obtain a Home Office residence permit". The answer was: They do apply for a Home Office permit". Question 46 was as follows: Are they told that as they go through immigration control? Are they told there is a requirement to register with the Home Office? The Home Office official replied as follows: They are told that they can apply. I do not think there is a requirement for them to apply, this is an aspect of EEC law. In fact the EEC national may apply for a residence permit but we cannot require it". The noble Lord, Lord Harris, then said: That seems to be a very extraordinary situation". That matter was clarified later at page 63 of the report. It contains some very interesting figures and in reading that paragraph I shall close my remarks, I promise your Lordships. The answer recorded at paragraph 46 needs some qualification. The position is that EC nationals must obtain a residence permit from the Home Office after they have been in this country for six months if they intend to remain. We suggest this is corrected by a footnote on the following lines, which also includes the further information requested by Lord Harris (paragraph 50)". I quote: Under the Immigration Rules an EC national may remain in the United Kingdom for six months without a residence permit but then must obtain one from the Home Office. A residence permit will be issued if the EC national is in employment; has established himself in business, or in a self-employed capacity, or in accordance with rights relating to the provision and receipt of services; or is a member of the family of such a person. But a residence permit can be refused on grounds of public policy, public security or public health". The interesting figures after that are that in 1981 a total of 48 residence permits were refused and in 1982 the total was 89. Those are rather interesting facts and figures. But, having said that, and the noble and learned Lord having said everything useful about this report, I hope that the House will endorse the recommendations that have been made.

6.1 p.m.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, I an extremely grateful to be able to have an opportunity to comment on this report and, as usual, to congratulate all those involved, not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his fellow-members on the sub-committee, but also those who wrote the report. It is the greatest joy for me to read a good report written in good English. It does not happen very often on the other side of the channel, so I particularly welcome it. I should also like to say as a preliminary remark that I have notified my noble friend Lady Trumpington of one or two questions that I may ask. I hope that if I exceed my quota of questions she will understand, and of course I shall expect a written reply at some later stage and on no account an immediate reply tonight. Clearly, questions of nationality are very confusing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, even the learned officials at the Home Office do not always get it 100 per cent. right and have to send an amendment to their statement.

To begin with, all of us who travel frequently within the Community welcome the idea of easing frontier formalities—this is clear—and as members of the Community we have already benefited. First, we no longer, as we did in 1973, have landing cards to fill in at whichever airport we are going to. I think that the only country in the Community which now has landing cards is Greece, and in a recent reply in the European Parliament the Foreign Minister said that they were now trying to make arrangements so that a landing card would not be required in Greece for EEC nationals. That is a great improvement and we welcome it.

I also welcome very much the measures that have been taken at Heathrow, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, so that we now have a channel for EEC nationals and then a channel for what may be described as "others". We have a channel also for United Kingdom nationals, but, when that column is rather long, those of us who recognise that we are members of the EEC sometimes go through the EEC channel and are treated with the usual courtesy, politeness and efficiency of the passport control officers—something to which we have now become accustomed. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating them and thanking them for the way in which they conduct their business, and for the way in which they check people going through the passport control with such efficiency and courtesy.

The third benefit that we have had, which those who do not travel by car so much may not recognise—and I travel a great deal by car across the internal frontiers to which the noble and learned Lord referred—is the fact that practically never are you asked to produce your passport if you go through in a car with a Community number plate. It is very rare indeed. Of course, there are one or two black spots which are well-known to travellers and I shall not embarrass member states by mentioning them here now. But, certainly, pressure on one or two frontiers would ease traffic congestion and columns waiting for an hour or an hour and a half to go through. It is probably due to a lack of sufficient passport control officers at those frontiers. But, by and large, those who travel by car throughout the Community, crossing internal frontiers from one country to another, are very seldom indeed asked to produce a passport if they are in a Community car, by which I do not mean an official car but an ordinary private car.

Here I should like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the European Parliament, particularly Mr. Basil de Ferranti and my noble friend Lord Bethell, who have done so much to try to ease the passage of individuals travelling throughout the Community; because it is only by pressure on Governments that you achieve even these limited objectives.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has referred to the complex problem of defining an external frontier and an internal frontier. But it is fair to note that in the Council's draft resolution it is stated that the specific measures which are used at external frontiers are to remain, so that, in so far as we have external frontiers—and this is a matter for discussion—the measures that are employed at them are to remain and there is no question of removing them.

But the noble and learned Lord, quite understandably, raised what I think is the crucial element in all this. If this proposal were to go through blank with no amendment, and with no further consideration, the proposal itself would be leapfrogging over Community law. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, there is no right of residence for an EEC national in any other member state—and, of course, in the United Kingdom as well. Then there are the three grounds on which an EEC national can be debarred—grounds of public policy, public health or public security. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will recall only too well the famous Van Duyn case, where an EEC national was stopped from entering the United Kingdom.

But let us be clear. It is very much easier to stop somebody from entering the United Kingdom by way of immigration control, than to try under the very complex rules that we have in this country to deport somebody who has once acquired, rightly or wrongly, entry to this country. At the moment, I cannot conceive, as Community law stands, that the proposal of the Council holds water, because it simply denies the fact that this Community legislation is not prepared to meet the problems which would arise if checking were stopped. So that this would be the practical effect if checking were stopped at points of entry.

Let us also recognise that all member states in the Community—and I am sure that this will come out in discussions between Foreign Ministers—have problems of illegal immigrants and no member state is going to allow complete freedom of entry for every EEC national throughout the Community, without any kind of checking. Let us also be clear that, even if nationals of EEC states are allowed through, there are two countries, at least, which have other forms of checking which are currency control checks. So that even where they let you through without seeing your passport, you may well be checked on grounds of currency control, and there is what might be called a "back-stop" to anybody going through a point of entry. Thanks to the removal of restrictions on exchange control we no longer have that check in this country, but it certainly exists in at least two of the Community countries. Certainly, I would not welcome any relaxation of the checking as it now exists at points of entry in the United Kingdom, and, once again, I congratulate those who have to operate the rules and strongly endorse the way in which they do that.

With regard to the Community passport, that is welcomed by many, partly as a symbol of identity of membership of a community, and partly because it will bring recognition as a member of the European Community not only within the member states but also outside the Community. I should like to raise five points, some of which I have already mentioned to my noble friend. The first is that we want an assurance—this would allay some of the fears of those who dislike the idea of having a Community passport—that the nationality will be on the outside cover of the passport. There is, after all, a principle of international law that a national can turn to his or her state of nationality for protection when abroad, and the passport is nearly always the only evidence of nationality. This would still be necessary, even if travelling in other member states.

We have only to think of those who today may be lingering in gaol in Holland for various activities last night at a football match, to know that they may need aid from their consul or legal representation in a Dutch court. This is a typical example of where you would be able to show your passport, or some document, to prove that you had British nationality and wanted to see the British consul. This is an essential element if there is to be a Community passport. I know that it has been said that this is to be on it, but I should like an assurance from my noble friend that indeed this will be so.

My second point relates to the United Kingdom passport holder. This is only going to be a problem for a limited period of time until the Community passport, if it is introduced, fully replaces the other. As I understand it, under the declaration of December 1982, giving the new definition of "national" (in accordance with the British Nationality Act 1981) as regards the European Community, United Kingdom passport holders who do not have the right of abode in this country would not be included. Perhaps my noble friend could either confirm or deny that particular point. It means that a United Kingdom passport holder who has no right of abode would not be entitled to a Community passport because, in accordance with the definition tabled by the United Kingdom in this recent declaration, he would not be a Community national.

My third point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It relates to the issue of the Community passport in January 1985. As I read the report—which was rather late in the evening so perhaps I did not fully comprehend it—I understood that the Government intend to link the issue of this Community passport with a machine readable passport. However, the report also said that it would be several years before the system could be introduced. Does that mean that the Government do not intend to introduce a Community passport in January 1985? Or do they accept that they will not be able to link it, to begin with, to the machine readable passport and that therefore the bordeaux coloured passport will be issued in January 1985 to those who apply for it? With regard to the colour, perhaps I should say that if we had been fortunate enough when passports were first introduced in 1910 to have had them coloured dark red instead of blue, the emotions which the colour has aroused now would not perhaps be so deep as they appear to be in some minor sections of the population in Britain. I point to the colour of the Benches of your Lordships' House.

I should like to make a comment about one paragraph in the report. In paragraph 24 we read: There would be no effective obstacle to the presentation of forged, borrowed or stolen passports". This I would cover by the euphemistic term "misplaced patriotism". If you look at the way that British visitors' passports are issued and at the way that they are acknowledged and allowed as documents of identity in other member states, the fact is that if Governments of other member states knew how these passports are issued I should be amazed if they ever allowed anybody in. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why people are allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom if that is all that can be given as evidence of having left the United Kingdom.

Today I obtained a form from the post office to find out exactly how easy it is to get one of these passports. The only form you have to produce, although there is a choice, is either a National Health Service medical card or a DHSS retirement pension book. These do not in any way show that you are a British subject. We know that there are many people in this country who are not British subjects but who naturally and quite fairly are entitled to those benefits in this country. Although the application form for a British visitors passport says on the face of it, "For British citizens" there is nothing on the document which asks you to sign that you are a British subject. Indeed, it does not require a signature. As about 1 million of these passports are issued every year I would suggest that the Home Office, which criticises other countries about forgeries, should look at the way these passports are issued and the dangers they may present in enabling illegal immigrants to enter this country without sufficient control.

Finally, may I say a word about non-passport excursions. Many of us have had problems with these recently. I know that it is said that this is no part of the Community passport problem, but in my view it is. These excursions are based on agreements which were bilaterally signed before we entered the Community. I should have thought that the obligation to allow freedom of movement to EEC nationals has superseded those agreements. Therefore, this matter should be looked into. If Community passports were issued to these travellers, no doubt the problems, which have been very unfortunate at certain ports on the north coast of the Continent of Europe, would no longer arise.

I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having exceeded the 10 minutes which he laid down. I did not formally agree to the proposal. I apologise to the House for having spoken four minutes over my time, but I hope that some of the thoughts which I have shared with your Lordships will be answered by my noble friend.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Morris

My Lords, those who know and admire the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will not be in the least surprised by the welcome gravity and the pellucid clarity of this report. In addition, those noble Lords who have attended the whole of this debate must be wondering whether there is anything left for me to say. I am delighted to be able to inform your Lordships that there is very little indeed.

In reading this report, which I found immensely interesting and from which I have learned a great deal, I was rather sad but not really surprised to learn from the evidence that was given by Dr. Taschner, when he answered a question of devastating simplicity put to him by the chairman of Sub-Committee "E", namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that he had let the cat out of the bag quite seriously with regard to the point of delay. It must be immensely sad for the members of these committees, who work so terribly hard in order to influence the decision-making process, to hear that the answer to the question, "What do you see as the objectives that this proposal is designed to achieve?" is: "To make the first step in the direction of passport union". This should be the final objective—not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, but perhaps in the future. This of course is a recipe for doing absolutely nothing at all.

We have all suffered very many examples of the Government doing nothing, for it is fundamentally the easiest answer to all the problems that lie at their door. However, it is my belief, which is not necessarily of any importance whatsoever, that when the European Communities receive reports of this clarity and quality they should be immensely grateful for them and should take great note of them.

The only other point I should like to make is the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, concerning the figures which were quoted to the committee by the Home Office; namely, the time that it takes an immigration official to process a member of the European Communities. It was given as six seconds. I know from my own experience that it is disingenuous to consider this point alone. When you see only two or three immigration officers processing a planeload of some 350 people you know that it takes a great deal longer than six seconds to get through that process. I would suggest that one of the greatest benefits in the easing of frontier formalities would be to increase the number of staff at the frontier points rather than to decrease them. This would make life a great deal easier for inter-Community travellers.

6.20 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for so eloquently bringing to the notice of the House the report of the European Communities Committee on the Easing of Frontier Formalities. I would add that the Government are very grateful for this report on this draft Council resolution.

As your Lordships know, discussion of the proposal is at only a very early stage in Brussels and the committee's analysis will be a great help to us in the continuing negotiations. We have also listened to the very interesting speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friends Lord Morris and Lady Elles. If I omit any points they have raised, I shall be delighted to write to them. I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend for their prior notice.

The committee have pointed out that the resolution proposed by the Commission would have no legally binding effect. We should nevertheless be bound to have regard to it if we had agreed its terms because it would be, in the Commission's words, a "gentleman's agreement". The committee were not sure that the proposal to abolish systematic checks on the entry of EC nationals to this country could be brought about without a change in our domestic law. I believe that changes in domestic law could well be required. The Commission's answer to that is "Very well, change the United Kingdom law". But I do not think it is desirable that the United Kingdom's immigration law should be made for us in this way in an area which has impact outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome. We are, of course, sympathetic to the Commission's wish to create symbols which would give EC nationals a greater sense of belonging to a community of states. And I think that we should all agree that easing the formalities of travel abroad is desirable for its own sake where it can be done without damage. But the Government's ability to respond positively to this sort of proposal has to take account of the practical consequences for our system of immigration control.

As I shall explain shortly, we have good reasons for wanting to retain our present system of immigration control at the ports, which relies on an ability to carry out systematic checks, and we could not accept any proposal which might lessen our ability to do this. In paragraph 9 of the report the committee recommend that the resolution should be considered by the Governments of the member states rather than by the European Council. In the Government's view, such proposals as this would indeed be more appropriately considered in a political forum in which the member states could decide for themselves what is practical and possible.

I am sure I do not need to dwell at length on the reasons why the Commission's proposal for the abolition of systematic checks at ports is unacceptable to us; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has already given some examples of this. As your Lordships know, we are able to take advantage of our position as an island to place the emphasis of our immigration control on checks at the ports. Our EC partners with long land frontiers are not so fortunate and must rely much more on internal checks on the movements of foreign nationals in and out of their countries. Systematic checks at the ports are perhaps not so vital to them as to us and this places the United Kingdom in a difficult position in responding to the Commission.

The draft resolution refers to "internal frontiers" but the Commission have made it clear that they mean any port through which EC nationals pass. I realise that some of this ground has been covered already, but I feel that I should repeat the Government's point of view for the sake of the record. The only realistic way of achieving their objective would be to abolish systematic checks on EC nationals arriving from any part of the world. All that we could demand from them on arrival at a United Kingdon port would be a sight of the front cover of their passport or identity card. Occasional spot checks and questioning would be allowed, but only where the immigration officer believed that there were special reasons.

Your Lordships will appreciate, as the Committee did, the possibilities for abuse which could greatly undermine the effectiveness of our control. There would also be the risk that constant arguments would follow as to what constituted a spot check—and EC nationals who objected if an immigration officer looked into their passports would complain to the Commission and demands for explanations would follow.

I think it is fair to ask whether this proposed change of procedure is really necessary. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I do not think that it is. There was general agreement among those who gave evidence to the committee that it took longer for an EC national to recover his baggage than to pass through immigration control. An EC national can be cleared through immigration control in, on average 12 to 15 seconds; that is, once he arrives at immigration control. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Elles paid tribute to the efficiency of our immigration officers, and I share her view.

There is no suggestion that our present procedures put EC nationals to any real inconvenience—and any advantage to them of abolishing the very short, albeit systematic, check to which they are subjected at present would make very little real difference to the speed of their passage through the airport. What it would do is to hamper immigration officers very considerably in their ability to identify criminals, drug addicts, people on forged papers and people seeking to evade the control by posing as EC nationals and using documents which did not belong to them. The Government's view is that the gains to passengers would be very much outweighed by the loss to the efficiency of the control.

Since the Government have no intention of abolishing their present system of examining passports on entry, there is perhaps little point in my saying much about what we should have to do if we did. The committee agreed, I think, that an internal control involving compulsory identity cards and police powers to examine them would be the only alternative. Some of our EC partners already have such a system. I understand that identity cards are compulsory in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece and Luxembourg. They are not compulsory in France and Italy, although French nationals must be able to produce evidence of identity if challenged. Only Denmark and the Netherlands do not issue them at all. In addition citizens, as well as foreign nationals, in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany have to register their addresses with the police or local authorities.

If the United Kingdom were to adopt a system relying on internal control, it could not be confined to foreign nationals but would have to embrace British citizens as well. The police could not confine their inquiries as to a person's immigration status to foreign nationals because they would first have to establish whether the person was a British citizen or not. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the British people are unlikely to take kindly to any proposal that they should carry identity cards and register their addresses with the police just so as to enable EC nationals to get through immigration control without having their documents checked.

On this particular point, I will finish by saying that I have some difficulties with the committee's conclusion that the Commission's objectives could be better achieved by member states applying identical checks to all EC nationals, drawing no distinction between own nationals and nationals of other member states. It may be that other member states make a greater distinction than we do between own nationals and others, but I think that such a distinction is inevitable and could not be abolished. As your Lordships know, British citizens have a right to enter this country and their passports are only examined at the ports to make sure that the individual in question does indeed have that right. EC nationals, even if they are workers coming here in exercise of their free movement treaty rights, have no such right. They can be refused entry on grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and that is the difference.

Immigration officers have a duty to satisfy themselves that EC nationals presenting themselves at the control can properly be admitted, and that is what accounts for the examination taking a few seconds longer, on average, than it does for British citizens. I do not honestly think that there is any possibility of doing away with the distinction between the way we treat own nationals and other EC nationals, although the immigration service constantly tries to speed up the clearance rate of passengers such as EC nationals.

It could be, however, that the committee was making a point about the way own nationals and EC nationals approach the immigration control, and this brings me on to the second limb of the Commission's proposal relating to separate channels. The Commission has said that its recommendation that there should be separate channels for EC nationals at ports was influenced by the provision of such channels at Heathrow and Dover. I think I am right in saying that we are in the lead in Europe in making special arrangements to speed the efficient means of clearing EC nationals.

Our criteria for deciding on channelling arrangements at the ports is the most efficient means of clearing the passengers. Our approach is essentially a pragmatic one, in that it is designed to permit flexible response to the demands of passenger traffic. We have occasionally tried to have a combined channel for British and other EC nationals, but it can sometimes be more trouble than it is worth and lead to British passengers being slowed down without any compensating benefits for other EC nationals. Essentially therefore we leave it to the Immigration Service to make the most efficient arrangements it can on the spot, and I think that this is right. I can assure your Lordships that we are only too aware of the need to use manpower and space resources as efficiently as possible at the ports and it is something which we keep under constant review. But, as I said, we have provided separate channels for other EC nationals at the ports and airports that handle the bulk of the passenger traffic to and from other member states. We hope that the other member states will be able to follow our lead in this.

Taking the questions put to me by my noble friend Lady Elles, the first one concerned the European Community common format passport. That has been agreed to between member states for introduction on 1st January 1985 or as soon as possible thereafter. It will be smaller than the existing United Kingdom passport, will be burgundy red in colour, and will have "European Community" as well as the name of the member state on the front cover. The Government are committed both to the common format passport and to a machine-readable passport, and a further statement will be made in due course.

Following on that—taking the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—the new common format passport will be issued to persons when they need new passports. It will be a gradual process with the old ones running their course until they expire, and I shall be in the nine-year situation.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to put a supplementary question? I was not quite clear whether she said that the passport would be introduced on 1st January 1985. If she cannot say, I quite understand, but could she say whether it is expected to be introduced on that date?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I do not think I can say specifically that that date has been agreed. Consultations are still proceeding as to the date and I would not wish to tie the Government down to the actual date. Certainly agreement has been reached. I did say '"or as soon as possible thereafter".

My noble friend's second point concerned the issue of common format passports to British citizens. I understand that the intention is to issue the common format passport to all persons who will have been defined as United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes. In practice this means British citizens and British dependent territory citizens who acquire citizenship by virtue of their connection with Gibraltar. The exact format of passports issued to those who are not United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes is yet to be decided. In the case of British dependent citizens this will be by consultation with the authorities in the dependent territories concerned.

Point No. 3 raised by my noble friend concerned the British visitors' passport. The Rayner scrutiny of the Passport Office recommended abolition of the British visitors' passport alongside the computerisation of the Passport Office. No decision has yet been taken and the matter will be further considered in the context of the computerisation of the Passport Office.

The fourth point raised by my noble friend is about no-passport excursions and the free movement provisions for EC nationals. The no-passport excursion arrangements with France are not relevant to the EC Treaty or the free movement of labour provisions. My noble friend is quite correct that the no-passport excursion arrangements have been voluntarily undertaken on a bilateral basis and are concerned with visitors whose admission they are designed to facilitate on the basis of documentation less formal than a passport or identity card. We regret the way in which the scheme has been operated by the French in recent months and are in contact with them about its future operation. We are hoping to have further talks with them later this month.

The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerned the right of residence. EC nationals are usually admitted for six months whatever the purpose of their visit. If they wish to remain longer they are required by the immigration rules to obtain a resident's permit from the Home Office. Those who wish to remain are usually workers, businessmen and their families. After four years these people may apply for settlement and may remain without further immigration conditions.

Finally, it may be interesting to your Lordships if I give some indication of the way matters have progressed in Brussels in the past few months. At the end of their presidency in June the Federal Republic of Germany produced an interim report on progress so far. Essentially the working group had to report that it had not been possible to reach agreement, especially on the question of abandoning systematic checks which was seen to pose security and immigration problems for member states. Several countries have said that they could not abandon them, and all agreed that merely showing an unopened common format passport would not be enough to establish citizenship.

I think that this strengthens my message this evening that there are considerable differences in the member states' various systems of frontier checks, and that any proposals for change will have to deal with some complicated relationships. The presidency proposed that trials would be necessary to assess what further easing of formalities would be feasible, what bilateral arrangements would be necessary and what the cost might be in terms of money and manpower. The date for the next meeting of the working group has not been fixed, but we understand that the focus will now be on some sort of feasibility study. The Government will be happy to collaborate in this, provided that what is proposed will not detract from the present effectiveness of the immigration control.

I hope I have now said enough to leave the House in no doubt as to the Government's welcome for this report and the very useful arguments and analysis which it contains. We shall do what we can—if I may paraphrase the words of its concluding paragraph—to engender a sense of belonging to the European Community without detracting from the safeguards which we regard as essential.

6.38 p.m.

Lord Scarman

My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for the formal expression of views on behalf of the Government which we have just heard, and also the care with which she has dealt with a number of questions arising upon passports—questions which do not strictly arise out of this report.

One matter I should like to mention in reply is the impact of these proposals—or the possible impact of these proposals—if they should become effective, on United Kingdom law. I have no doubt that the committee were quite right in believing that that impact would not be insignificant. Unfortunately, it will be significant in the field of civil rights. That is the underlying danger of dismantling systematic controls in the airports and seaports and substituting for them internal controls.

Every member state of the Community, other than ourselves, and I think the Republic of Ireland, who rely, as they do, on internal checks, being unable to establish satisfactory external frontier checks, have to give and do give a right to the police and other authorities to stop people and demand proof of their identity on the streets, however innocent, saintly and orderly those people are. Those are the legal implications and they are serious.

Summing up, I do not think that our friends in Brussels will be at all surprised either at the course of this debate or at the contents of the report. I think that when Dr. Taschner left this building to return to Brussels he knew—at any rate he could surmise—that so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, discontinuing systematic identity checks at our airports and seaports was a non-runner. I think he also knew that we had a very efficient system—and I am glad that others in this debate have said so—for conducting these checks quickly. I think he also knew that the special channels which we have established, and which are now a model, are the way forward.

There is nothing in this report (and nothing I perceive in this debate) which indicates any lack of will to go forward towards common-form passports and no lack of will to see established at all the busier points of interest special channels for EC nationals. I hope that it will not be interpreted in Brussels and elsewhere that this report—discouraging as it is on one aspect of the proposals—is in any way discouraging ease of movement and travel between member states. That is not the point at all. Our point is something quite different: it is the maintenance of our immigration control in a way which causes the least offence to EC nationals and other innocent visitors—and welcome visitors—to the United Kingdom.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.