Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, earlier we were discussing the tidal flow of information that the Home Office was arranging to collect in order to allegedly protect our citizens. In this amendment, we are discussing the shortage of information that is essential, in my view, to enable the Government to protect the realm. It seems extraordinary that this amendment should be necessary at all. I have talked to a number of colleagues on all sides of the House about it. To paraphrase their view, they said that it is common sense that the UK passport authorities should have full details of any other passport held by an applicant for UK citizenship and that any UK passport holder should be required to inform the UK passport authorities if they subsequently acquire the passport of another country. An obvious sanction to ensure compliance, as included in my amendment, is the risk to a dual passport holder of having their UK passport cancelled and withdrawn if they have concealed the possession of the passport of another country. I raised a number of points on the inadequacy of the administration of the passport system at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord West, replied: ""I am listening. There are some difficult areas there. I think that overall the UK Passport Agency does well, but some issues need to be looked at closely".—[Official Report, 11/2/09; col. 1208.]" I have heard nothing more from the Minister. My plan was to seek in Committee to amend the Bill to cover various points on passports that I raised at Second Reading, such as the need for the Registrar-General on the recording of a death to tell the Identity and Passport Service so that the passport can be cancelled; the need for sensible fees for people who lose their passports, have them stolen or sell them; and the need to deal with the complicated problem of some members of Her Majesty’s forces holding dual nationality. However, I was advised that passports are issued under the royal prerogative and that this limits the power of Parliament to legislate on their administration. I hope that the Minister will comment on that suggestion. In my view, this is precisely the sort of thing that Parliament should be able to legislate on. Whatever consultations the Home Office may have had since I raised these points six weeks ago at Second Reading—I suspect there may have been none—I have consulted widely with colleagues of all parties. This amendment avoids the problem of the royal prerogative limitations and, I submit, would on its own, even with its limited obligations and sanctions, strengthen our border defences. The danger of would-be terrorists and other criminals, such as money launderers, travelling in and out of the United Kingdom on one passport and then using a second passport for other nefarious journeys has been well demonstrated. It is therefore crucial that details of any passports held are on the database of the Identity and Passport Service. I have been told by persons in the intelligence community that our security services are much concerned about certain gaps in our control over dual passports and their use. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who has much expertise in these matters, explained to me this morning that she had to be at a conference on terrorism this evening but that she strongly supports my amendment. We are constantly told of the risks of terrorism from Pakistan, in particular, and my amendment could help to guard against that. I have been looking through the Government’s strategy for countering international terrorism—Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare—which was published yesterday. The section on UK border security on page 108 is amazingly woolly. There is no reference to the Identity and Passport Service, although there is much about the famous £1.2 billion e-Borders system, which will not come into full force for years. There is nothing to suggest that information on dual nationality, which is so clearly needed, will be collected. Sadly, but I suppose predictably, this massive 174-page Home Office document is far more about presentation and aspiration than substance. It contains lots of lovely photographs. There is a photograph of the Prime Minister, which was clearly taken on the day he was told he had been made Chancellor; it shows none of the woes and cares that he has on his face today. There is another photograph of the Home Secretary. There are a lot of other interesting photographs that might be of some interest to my grandchildren; I do not know quite why they are in the report. There is a double-page spread of a police car speeding through the roads of London, another double-page spread on St Paul’s Cathedral and the London Eye, and another double-page spread of just a crowd, with no explanation. There is another double-page spread, which may have some relevance, of people queuing up at the UK Border Agency. I am not very surprised, but nor am I very impressed so far with that document. I refer to the rather sad Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord West, on 9 February, which stated: ""Although applicants for British passports are asked for details of any other passports held at the time of application, any system of recording passports obtained or renewed during the validity would be costly and difficult to enforce where a person with dual nationality chose not to notify the acquisition of a passport in their other nationality".—[Official Report, 9/2/08; col. WA 167.]" That demonstrates why this amendment is needed. It would be nice to feel that the Home Office could add to its much needed objective of becoming fit for purpose by replacing its costly and difficult philosophy with a "can do, will do" philosophy. I hope that one day a strong Minister will be able to impose such changes. Meanwhile, I seek to help the Government by moving this amendment. I beg to move.