In mid February, UK dual nationals were alerted by media reports to an imminent change in immigration regulations. This involves the requirement that dual nationals present their UK passport at the overseas airline check-in desk before boarding any flight to the UK, or that they present (alongside their foreign passport) a ‘Certificate of Entitlement’ to Right of Abode in the UK, priced at a whopping £589.

This deeply concerns many of us in Liberal Democrats Overseas, and we expect the Party to speak out loudly and forcefully on this matter. Will Forster MP, our shadow immigration and asylum minister, has rightly condemned the government’s ‘lack of planning and haphazard communication’ and has called for a ‘grace period’ to enable dual nationals to obtain the necessary documentation. But while a grace period would certainly be welcome, it is not enough. This latest kick in the teeth for dual nationals fits a pattern of contempt for Britons with multinational families on the part of both Labour and Tory governments. Liberal Democrats must stand up for the rights and dignity of all British citizens, whatever their family circumstances.

The core issue in this instance is not the timing of the new immigration measures or the poor publicity. It is the imposition of a £589 charge on dual nationals simply so that they can demonstrate their Right of Abode in the UK (without applying for a UK passport). The cost of a full UK passport currently stands at £95. The government has provided no justification for the exorbitant cost of the ‘Certificate’. This is clearly just one more crude attempt to put the squeeze on overseas British nationals with international family ties; another being the expensive and Kafkaesque regulations surrounding spouse visas.

For those dual nationals who do hold a UK passport, the requirement to show it at an airline check-in desk before flying to the UK is potentially perilous. Many UK dual nationals hold the citizenship of and reside in countries where dual nationality is illegal. Compelling those who hold UK passports to show them at the airport check-in desk could expose them to arrest and prosecution – simply for holding a document to which they are entitled under UK law. Consider, for example, the risks faced by a British-Iranian dual national visiting Tehran who would now be required to show their British passport at airport check-in there in order to re-enter the UK.

The Certificate of Entitlement is partly intended to obviate such risks, but government rules create other problems. The requirement that the name on the certificate must exactly match that on the dual national’s overseas passport will cause difficulties for many women who have changed their names after marriage. It will also create problems for dual nationals who hold the citizenship of countries that use non-alphabetic scripts and have naming conventions very different from those in the UK. 

For example, if a British man marries a Japanese woman, their children are likely to be registered in the UK under the fathers’ surname, but in Japan they may choose to use only the wife’s surname (e.g. 佐藤 / ‘Satō’). This is a decision some couples take because using the foreign husband’s name in Japan would mean registering children using the Katakana script in which ‘foreign’ names must be rendered in Japan (e.g. ジョウンズ for ‘Jones’), rather than the kanji conventionally used for Japanese names. A katakana name would instantly mark the children as ‘foreign’ in Japanese eyes (despite their Japanese nationality), making them potential targets for discrimination at school and beyond. 

The UK government’s new rules on entry for dual nationals will effectively compel foreign nationals facing such a situation to register their children in a manner that may expose them to discrimination, as well as putting the affected children through the trauma of suddenly finding themselves branded ‘foreign’ in their home country. The alternative would be for the children to give up their UK citizenship entirely. Is this the outcome that the UK government actually wants – that is, to permanently alienate from Britain a substantial pool of young, multilingual, bicultural British citizens?

Issuing dual nationals with a ‘certificate of entitlement’ that they can use alongside a foreign passport to enter the UK is, in itself, not a bad idea. In effect, other countries already do something similar. For example, Pakistan and India issue ‘certificates of origin’. But the equivalent Pakistani document, for which Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and her family are eligible, costs US$150 – i.e. a fraction of what her Home Office now proposes to charge British dual nationals. Canada offers a similar service to its dual nationals for a negligible charge. A minimum demand is therefore that the cost of any UK ‘certificate of entitlement’ should be reasonable. In principle, it should cost no more than a full UK passport. This would enable dual nationals to prove their eligibility to enter the UK visa-free, without having to endanger themselves by showing another passport to airline officials in countries where dual nationality is banned.

The government’s stated rationale for these rule changes seems weak and confused – involving vague invocations of ‘national security’ and the presumed benefits of bureaucratic ‘streamlining’. Clearly, however, the changes have not been thought through, and no consideration has been given to any implications for the security, convenience or basic rights of British dual nationals resident overseas.

Unfortunately, these latest immigration moves do not come out of nowhere. The Home Office has gained a reputation amongst British nationals overseas for malign incompetence. It is time to call out the government’s contemptuous disregard for dual nationals and overseas citizens more generally. Liberal Democrats must take the lead.

* Edward Vickers is Professor and holder of the UNESCO Chair on Education for Peace, Social Justice and Global Citizenship at Kyushu University, Japan. He is a member of the Executive of Liberal Democrats Overseas.