Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the impact of the UK’s electronic travel authorisation rules on British citizens who are also dual nationals.

I thank the hon. Member for her urgent question. The introduction of electronic travel authorisations—ETAs, as they are known—is part of plans to modernise and digitise the UK’s border and immigration system by providing a much clearer picture of who intends to travel to the UK for short periods. ETAs will enable a more targeted approach to border control, strengthening security and ensuring a smoother travel experience.

From today, carriers will check that eligible passengers hold an ETA before travelling to the UK and will deny boarding to those who do not hold the correct permissions. British citizens, including those who hold dual nationality, do not need and are not eligible for an ETA. They must travel with a valid British passport or another passport endorsed with a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode, known as a COE.

Since the outset of the scheme, the Home Office has embedded clear messaging for dual nationals across the ETA communications campaign and published comprehensive guidance on gov.uk setting out clearly what dual citizens need to do. Since 2024, we have provided explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies. Since the start of the year, we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold usable contact details.

In order to support British nationals overseas—particularly those who have not held a passport for some time or have never held one—the Home Office has put in place temporary mitigating measures, which include issuing temporary operational guidance to carriers confirming that they may at their discretion accept an expired UK passport issued in 1989 or later alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport. Carriers may also choose to accept alternative evidence and can contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport system.

It is not the intention of the ETA scheme to penalise our citizens who choose to live abroad. That is why we have given as much time as possible to allow passengers in such a position to make the necessary arrangements and why we have now put in place additional short-term measures to assist our nationals when travelling to the UK.

I finish by noting that the approach we have taken is comparable to that taken by many of our closest international partners, including the USA, Canada and Australia, who have already introduced similar systems—for example, the electronic system for travel authorisation for visitors to the United States—and we expect the EU to launch its own version. We are doing these checks to ensure that illegal migrants and foreign criminals cannot set foot here through our ports and borders by screening them before they travel. I am delivering a more secure, modern border.

I begin by declaring my interests as a British dual national and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights. From today, British citizens are at risk of being prevented from returning to their own country because of the Government’s mishandling of the electronic travel authorisation scheme. British dual nationals cannot apply for an ETA, and they do not have a visa, so unless they hold a valid British passport they must produce a certificate of entitlement costing £589 simply to prove they are British, compared to £16 for a tourist. Carriers face £2,000 fines, so it is no good that that is left to their discretion. The result is chaos for law-abiding British citizens, and families will be separated.

Communication has been wholly inadequate. Putting guidance on a website is not a communications strategy. I understand that the people who recently naturalised were not warned in their grant letters or at their ceremonies, and there have been no clear messages at the border. When Canada introduced a similar scheme, it delayed enforcement and created a low-cost, temporary authorisation—and it worked. Why has this Government refused to adopt the same common-sense approach?

I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government postpone enforcement to prevent British citizens from being wrongly denied boarding? Will the Government introduce a low-cost, one-off travel authorisation, like Canada did, for dual nationals whose citizenship can easily be verified? Will the Government ensure urgent help through consulates, high commissions and the UK Visas and Immigration helpline? These are British citizens who have followed the rules. They deserve better than confusion, silence and a £589 bill simply to come home.

I thank the hon. Member for her response to my answer. I am clear that there has been no mishandling from the Home Office on this important issue. As I said in my speech, this has been on the Government website since 2024. We have also spent significant sums of money on getting the message out there, including through the relevant media and through communications to those who have naturalised over the last decade. Communications, as we all know in this place, can be difficult and some people can be missed. I have worked as hard as I can to get the message out there, including on Australian television.

The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is no eligibility for an ETA. That is due to the Home Secretary’s power to grant an ETA deriving from the immigration rules, which do not apply to British citizens. A passport costs £100. The turnaround times that we are seeing after the increase in demand are well within the expected limits, taking four weeks for those applying from outside the country, with the average at around nine days. That is fast. They can also apply for an emergency travel document in extreme circumstances and the turnaround times for that can be as quick as two days. There are also transitional methods in place, such as using expired passports that were issued after 1989. There has been significant communication and advice to carriers, including my meeting many of them to ensure that they fully understand the new measures in place. The carrier support line is also active, through which anyone encountering issues can make contact.

It is important that we introduce these measures. They are modernising, they are making our border more secure and they are very much in line with what other nations are doing. I have sympathy for those who may be encountering issues. On Monday next week, I will hold drop-in sessions that all Members of Parliament with specific cases—I do not want to go into too much detail on the Floor of the House—can visit.

I was contacted in the early hours of this morning by two constituents who became proud British citizens in December. They did not have time to apply for British passports—they are from other EU countries with passports from there—because they were off on an extended honeymoon in south-east Asia. They now feel that they cannot get back into the UK from their honeymoon. They are absolutely stranded. I can pass on the details of the case to the Minister’s officials, but what would he advise? My constituents need to get back into this country as soon as possible. They should not have to pay a fortune for the privilege.

My suggestion at this point is that my hon. Friend’s constituents visit the Government website and call the support line to see what advice can be offered. I cannot go into specific details right now about that case, but if she comes to my drop-in session on Monday, where there will also be officials, we can deal with that. I am also happy to speak after this urgent question.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for his response.

The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed.

The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable.

The change does not remove rights. It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice.

Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient? I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral.

I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.

Agreement across the House on much of this is welcome, despite the mess that we inherited from the previous Government on immigration.

On the question of consular services, yes, they are in place but they are limited. They are for the most extreme cases such as bereavements and funerals or urgent medical care. On the use of social media, this morning I posted a tweet on X, which I am surprised that the hon. Member is not monitoring; I suggest she puts me on alerts. On the advice to airlines around the passports issued after 1989, that is the advice that has been issued but we cannot control exactly what each carrier does. It is important that members of our military—I speak as a proud veteran—are served correctly by the Government, and of course they will have no issues returning to the country.

The Minister will know that I wrote to the Home Secretary in a letter co-signed by 30 Labour MPs raising serious concerns about the new rules and how they will impact British dual nationals. The reality is that British citizens will be left stranded abroad and many will be priced out of returning home, adding them to a growing list of people who are effectively classed as second-class citizens. The Minister will also know that hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by these ill-thought-out, rushed reforms that lack any parliamentary scrutiny. I gently ask the Minister to please pause the rules to allow for meaningful consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny and to please remove the outrageous £589 charge for the certificate of entitlement.

I reject some of the framing. This has been public knowledge since 2023, it has been on the Government website since 2024 and we have spent significant funds on media. Communication is always difficult, and if this were extended for another year there would still be people who might not know about it. Travelling to this country on a British passport if someone is a British citizen, is not controversial. We have built in transitional arrangements to make it easier for anybody who has missed the messaging to come back to the country. This has not been rushed. There are many nations around the world that have an equivalent scheme, which ensures a more secure and modern border.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home.

Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?

I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.

The Minister says this has not been mishandled, but I am sure even he would accept there are elements that could have been done better. One of those is to do with babies. I have two constituents—a three-month-old little boy stuck in Italy, and a little girl stuck in Uruguay who was born in Whipps Cross hospital in Walthamstow—whose mothers have dual citizenship and who both want to be back in the United Kingdom within the next month. If they come home with their families, under the current policy they face being turned away or separated from their mothers on arrival. Alternatively, families who have just taken on the biggest cost of all—having a baby—will have to find hundreds of pounds to pay for a certificate that will take months to arrive. In those circumstances, will the Minister at least accept there should be a waiver on the fees for babies so that they can come back home to their country?

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point on babies. There is no exemption at this time; I am happy to meet and talk about that further. At the moment, the average turnaround time is nine days, so the four weeks should not be a problem. If there are any problems, please do approach me. We will not separate any families at the border.

I cannot be the only Member of this House with constituents who are dual nationals for whom the information and data requirements are making it difficult to get hold of passports overseas. In the light of those difficulties, might the Minister consider an interim measure, perhaps allowing those individuals to use an electronic travel authorisation for a limited amount of time, while they sort out getting hold of the passports?