INTERNAL CONTROLS
76. Government policy for many years has been based on the
assumption that controls at ports of entry is the only effective
way to control the flow of illegal immigrants. Under the Schengen
Convention, France has no control over those who enter across
its land borders with other EU countries. It has to rely on those
EU countries with an external border with non EU countries to
control access to the EU Schengen area. This seems acceptable
to the French presumably because access to government services
and employment in France is partly dependent on possession of
identity documents. People without such documents - "sans
papiers" - are tolerated. For such people, we understand
that access to work is only possible for those with a social security
number; that schools demand only proof of residence; and that
access to healthcare depends on the ability to pay.
| "you can live in the United Kingdom pretty easily, even if you are here illegally, particularly if you have an employer ... who does not ask too many questions. Schools do not enquire as to the legal status of the parents, so there is no constraint there. The United Kingdom, perhaps, in comparison to other countries, is a relatively unpoliced society." Home Office evidence Q100-101
|
77. Proof of nationality status does not seem to be required
for access to most public services in the UK. The main internal
identity number - the national insurance number - can be issued
to an adult without a photograph or an address on the basis of
evidence of life history. A driving licence does require a photograph,
address and passport or birth certificate. An NHS medical card
can be obtained with only a check on the database of the Office
for National Statistics (ONS). Employment outside the public sector
rarely requires any identity check. Birth, death and marriage
certificates can be obtained without an identity check on the
basis of evidence of the event. We were told that in Denmark access
to schools or doctors involves checking national identity numbers.[65]
(For asylum-seekers, health and education in Denmark are provided
by the Red Cross rather than the state). Access to free health
treatment in the UK is based on lawful residence rather than on
immigration status. Patients who have not lived in the UK for
the previous twelve months may be liable to pay for their treatment.
|
"we believe ... that there should not be, for EU passengers, controls at UK ports. We believe that we should be part of the Schengen agreement and that the Schengen agreement has worked well and exchanges information and has its own strengths." British Ports Association Q 141
|
| "the Schengen system is in fact built around a dual framework in which a strict external frontier control is complemented by co-operation among national law enforcement agencies. This system embodies the recognition that frontier control alone cannot bear the full weight of ensuring internal security without choking off trade and human contacts." House of Lords European Union Committee HL 110
|
78. It has become clear to us during the course of this inquiry
that the flow of clandestine immigrants cannot be stopped by border
controls alone. They need to be supplemented by internal checks
on access to work and public services. This is, in theory, the
way other EU countries operate within the Schengen Convention.
We asked the Home Secretary about strengthening internal controls
as a way of making up for weaknesses in border controls. His main
argument against this was the possible effect on community relations
of a compulsory identify card:
"If you wanted to go down the Schengen road
which, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not, and neither does
the Government and lift border controls, then you would
have to have a strong system of internal controls and that would
lead you, inevitably, into a system of compulsory identification
cards".[66]
79. We accept that if the UK were to join the Schengen Convention
and lift border controls, there would be no alternative to a system
of compulsory identity cards. However, no one has argued persuasively
to us that the UK should join the Schengen Convention or that
border controls should be dismantled. On the contrary, we believe
that the case has been made for more effective border controls.
80. The issue of identity cards was examined by this Committee
in 1996, following the publication of a Green Paper by the then
Government.[67] That
was the time when a new photographic driving licence and a benefit
payments card were planned, the British Visitor's Passport was
being withdrawn and smart card technology was being developed
for consumers. The Committee considered the issue of illegal immigration
and concluded: "It is likely that only an identity card which
was either compulsory or which carried details of immigration
status would have an impact on preventing illegal immigration".[68]
81. These questions raise huge issues of civil liberties and
human rights. All governments have been opposed to the reintroduction
of identity cards since they were abolished nearly half a century
ago. We believe there would be widespread repugnance at the prospect
of the police or other officials being empowered to stop someone
in the street and demand the production of an identity card. We
believe, also, that if any compulsory identity card system were
introduced solely to enable greater internal immigration control,
there is a grave risk that this could foster racial harassment
and cause setbacks in good race relations.
82. The questions which then arise are whether there should
be more effective internal checks as a supplement but not
an alternative to border controls; and, if so, whether these additional
internal measures might beneficially include entitlement cards
giving access to public services.
83. Whatever the reality, the perception in ethnic minority
communities might be that even a voluntary entitlement card system
was discriminatory. On the other hand, a card which made it easier
for all those entitled to public services to gain access to them
might have its advantages.
84. In the UK, a large majority of the population carry and
use entitlement cards on a daily basis - to buy goods on credit,
to travel on public transport, to access places of work, to travel
abroad, to drink in a pub or to drive a car. Another example of
where individuals might carry cards for their own advantage is
where smart card technology enables full medical details to be
carried for use in an emergency. These are all ways in which people
carry cards for their personal convenience and advantage. A single
entitlement card which combined these features with access to
public services - whether a library or a regular benefit payment
- need not have any sinister connotations in terms of civil liberties.
85. Moreover, an entitlement card could play important roles
in addressing benefit fraud; ensuring that only those entitled
to free public services obtain those services; and in preventing
workers - including immigrant workers - from exploitation by unscrupulous
employers. In the case of social security benefits, an entitlement
card system could ensure that benefits were paid efficiently to
those entitled to them and reduce wastage on administration and
fraud. What we have in mind is a card which the bearer would be
expected to produce only when exercising a right or gaining
access to a service.
86. This is not the place to make recommendations on contentious
issues which range across many Governmental Departments and raise
fundamental questions of both principle as well as practicalities.
We have not taken evidence on whether a voluntary entitlement
card would have an impact on the number of illegal entrants. It
is possible that people who are not genuine asylum-seekers are
attracted to the UK by the perception that access to public services
in this country is easier than in, say, France. If the UK adopted
an entitlement card systems, it is possible that that perception
would diminish over time.
87. We therefore suggest that the Government consider a fundamental
review - across all Departments - of the case for and against
the introduction of an entitlement card system. Any such review
should specifically address the issue as to whether there are
potential benefits which could accrue from the introduction of
some sort of entitlement card system without undermining
either individual liberty or good race relations. It would need
to consult a whole range of organisations, including those involved
with community and race relations as well as individual liberty,
for the reasons outlined above. It should also be borne in mind
that criminal gangs involved in illegal immigration would no doubt
try to produce fake or bogus cards.
58 
