Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting mini-debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, whose expertise and endeavour on this question of dual passports I have experienced and dealt with previously. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that good ideas in this House do survive and prosper. On a number of occasions during my 10 years here, legislation has been improved by individual Cross-Bench Members and individual Members of all parties putting forward compelling amendments, which have, perhaps not at the first attempt, persuaded the Government to adopt the policy. I should like to assure noble Lords that this is not a proposal that we have not looked at. However, while at first glance it seems to have attractions, examination reveals that there are significant problems with it in terms of its effect and its enforcement. We must be clear that a legitimate passport is but one documentary proof of an individual’s identity. As has been said, a person may legitimately hold passports of different nationalities, but those passports all do the same thing: they confirm the person’s identity. In criminal investigations, including those relating to terrorism, what is important is knowing the identity of a person of interest to the authorities. Passports and other travel documents help with this, but they are by no means the only way of fixing a person’s identity. Details of persons of interest to UKBA and the law enforcement agencies are held centrally. These check lists, containing names and known aliases, are used in a range of circumstances. When people are travelling, passenger details are checked in advance against these check lists using our e-Borders system. In this way, an individual of interest can be detected, regardless of how many passports he may legitimately hold, and appropriate action can be taken. Furthermore, it is not clear that this amendment would be enforceable. A passenger of dual nationality cannot be forced to show a passport of a particular nationality at a border. If he legitimately holds passports of different nationalities, he is free to choose which one he wishes to use to prove his identity. As a number of noble Lords have said, this proposal perhaps requires a little more investigation, construction and consultation before the Government would be prepared to consider it. We are not relying on the royal prerogative in defence of our position; I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on that. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on the effectiveness of passport interviews, which were introduced in 2007 at regional offices throughout the UK. I do not have the statistics that he seeks, but I will ensure that he gets them. In the mean time, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, which at this stage is being resisted as unnecessary and unenforceable.