Passport prices to increase yet again from next month.

[Elwyn]

I remember in the 1970s Swiss passports didn’t have an expiry date. You could carry on using it till it was full or so dilapidated you needed to replace it. Since then there have been various international agreements on standardising passport issue (necessary for example to ensure that all are machine readable and contain data in an agreed standardised format). Other rules about validity etc are presumably covered there.

Many countries will in practice allow their citizens back in with an expired passport. Crossing land borders makes that fairly straight forward but if flying, airlines may decline to let you travel. It may have changed, but when I worked in this area it was possible to phone the immigration authorities at the airport of arrival and fax through a copy of the expired document. They would often issue a waiver allowing the person to travel to the airline check-in staff. (Happened a lot with sudden bereavements or cases where one child out of a family would otherwise be left behind). But it all requires time to organise. Not a particularly quick solution.

The main cases where expiry date really matters are folk travelling on refugee or stateless documents whereby the issuing country is only obliged to accept them back until document’s expiry date. So you can see why 6 months spare is necessary for them. Otherwise the person may be trapped in the country they were visiting.

 

[bahnause]

Are you sure that there actually any countries where having an ID card is mandatory? I know that in many countries it is mandatory to posess a legal form of ID but i have always understood that this meant you could choose to get either a passport or ID card. If you hold a passport then i would have thought that there is no requirement to also get an ID card as well. A passport is basically an alternative to an ID card so surely just a passport alone is sufficient?

In Switzerland, I don't need to have an ID card if I have a passport. However, since the ID card is much more practical and there's a discount when ordering a passport and ID card together, most people probably have both.

There isn't a (real) reason for it is there. Its just a way for the EU to project their frustration at us. Bitter and twisted comes to mind. Along with pathetic, pointless, sour grapes..... I'd just like to think that we retaliate in such a pathetic way too, and that the pointless idea is reciprocal. Probably not, as we're scared of the EU.

The world doesn't revolve around the UK. There are certainly other countries out there. All these third countries — and it was your decision to become one — are subject to the same rules. So nothing has changed out of spite to the UK's detriment. Nothing happened that wasn't well known in advance.

 

[S101]

In Switzerland, I don't need to have an ID card if I have a passport. However, since the ID card is much more practical and there's a discount when ordering a passport and ID card together, most people probably have both.

The world doesn't revolve around the UK. There are certainly other countries out there. All these third countries — and it was your decision to become one — are subject to the same rules. So nothing has changed out of spite to the UK's detriment. Nothing happened that wasn't well known in advance.

But the fact remains. There isn't a (real) reason for it is there. By the way, I don't recall saying that, or making out that everything revolves around the UK.

 

[The exile]

The main cases where expiry date really matters are folk travelling on refugee or stateless documents whereby the issuing country is only obliged to accept them back until document’s expiry date. So you can see why 6 months spare is necessary for them. Otherwise the person may be trapped in the country they were visiting.

With a secondary case being where return to the country of issue requires travel via a third country. Your own country is going to let you in on the last day of validity but a third country almost certainly isn’t.

 

[gswindale]

I recently renewed and was surprised to find that the cost of having the photographs taken in a supermarket booth had doubled in just under 10 years, from £5 to £10.

That was £10 wasted then! I renewed mine and the little one's 2 years ago. Did it all online with the aid of my mobile phone.

 

[AlterEgo]

But the fact remains. There isn't a (real) reason for it is there. By the way, I don't recall saying that, or making out that everything revolves around the UK.

You did say the policy was

just a way for the EU to project their frustration at us. Bitter and twisted comes to mind. Along with pathetic, pointless, sour grapes

which is nonsense. The UK voted to become a third country and hence automatically be treated as one. It isn't that deep. Nobody in the EU decided to project frustration. We voluntarily subjected ourselves to it.

 

[Cdd89]

I have a lot of sympathy with the OP's argument.

The £10/year argument would be valid if the government let you pay for your passport in annual instalments. In practice you're required to stump up for it in one go. For someone on a lower income, the fact they're getting 10 years is irrelevant to them; they're looking at the cost proposition of going on a trip, and that turns a trip from one they could just afford to one that is too much of a stretch. I think instalments are not feasible but therefore I think we should be holding the costs down as much as possible.

I would argue that the expense should relate solely to producing the physical document, because that is the incremental cost of obtaining or replacing a passport (and that in turn should also be cheaper than it is, they should be mostly digital, although to be fair this is not just the UK's fault). International consular services and the cost of checking people at the border are clearly things that should be funded out of general taxation or, potentially, paid ad-hoc (eg a user fee surcharge on air travel, like the US). Otherwise very frequent travellers are being subsidised by those who travel very infrequently (even more so than a passport already does).

 

[RT4038]

You also have the new rules requiring you to enter on your British passports meaning that people with multiple citizenships have even higher costs as they are now forced to get multiple passports to travel when one would have previously been sufficent.

Might I suggest this is a pretty niche activity (Dual Citizenship) and the 'plight' of Dual Citizens having to produce a UK Passport on entry to the UK is hardly going to get sympathy from single citizenship British Citizens. I expect most of those would consider it ridiculous that the UK has allowed this hitherto.

I hold dual citizenship, and the country of my other citizenship certainly does not allow such a thing.

 

[John R]

International consular services and the cost of checking people at the border are clearly things that should be funded out of general taxation

What evidence do you have that suggests that the costs attributed to production of a passport (which if you recall from above are around a third higher than the amount recovered in passport application fees) include border posts and consular services?

 

[GB]

What evidence do you have that suggests that the costs attributed to production of a passport (which if you recall from above are around a third higher than the amount recovered in passport application fees) include border posts and consular services?

It's on the government website

The new fees will help the Home Office to continue to move towards a system that meets its costs through those who use it, reducing reliance on funding from general taxation. The government does not make any profit from the cost of passport applications.

The fees contribute to the cost of processing passport applications, consular support overseas, including for lost or stolen passports, and the cost of processing British citizens at UK borders.

Changes to passport application fees

The government will introduce new fees for passport applications on 10 April 2025.

www.gov.uk

 

[WelshBluebird]

This is one of the few areas that would benefit from a Tory-style privatisation. Various privately-run passport-issuers would compete on price and/or quality of service. There might be a bargain-basement outfit offering flimsy low-quality passports and a premium operator producing luxury leather-bound passports. You could pay a lot less if you were happy to wait a few weeks or an awful lot more for a guaranteed next-day service. As things stand it's a take-it-or-leave-it monopoly.

God no. Imagine how expensive it would get considering the current system doesnt cover the costs, let alone a profit. Say goodbye to the good service you currently get!

 

[RT4038]

I have a lot of sympathy with the OP's argument.

The £10/year argument would be valid if the government let you pay for your passport in annual instalments. In practice you're required to stump up for it in one go. For someone on a lower income, the fact they're getting 10 years is irrelevant to them; they're looking at the cost proposition of going on a trip, and that turns a trip from one they could just afford to one that is too much of a stretch. I think instalments are not feasible but therefore I think we should be holding the costs down as much as possible.

Someone on a lower income just has to wait a little longer for their foreign trip, to save up for their passport. Same as those who would like a Landrover Defender (substitute anything else that is wanted but cannot be afforded) have to wait longer to save up.

I would argue that the expense should relate solely to producing the physical document, because that is the incremental cost of obtaining or replacing a passport (and that in turn should also be cheaper than it is, they should be mostly digital, although to be fair this is not just the UK's fault). International consular services and the cost of checking people at the border are clearly things that should be funded out of general taxation or, potentially, paid ad-hoc (eg a user fee surcharge on air travel, like the US). Otherwise very frequent travellers are being subsidised by those who travel very infrequently (even more so than a passport already does).

Why should the consular services and the cost of checking people at the border be borne by General Taxation? How fair is that on the people (probably mostly on low incomes) who never go abroad? The cost of checking foreigners at the borders should be covered by visa fees, and the cost of consular services (visa applications, expatriate applications etc) covered by application fees. So the remainder (cost of citizen help when they get locked up, and everybody now thinking that consuls/ government should operate a 'get you home' service to both tourists and expats when things go wrong) , should be borne by all people who go abroad. This could be covered by a departure tax on UK citizens, plus a 'standing charge' contribution from passport issuance, minus cost recovery after the service rendered. Accept that these are blunt instruments (expats pay once to depart and are away for many months/years, only paying the standing charge when their passport requires renewal / people going to the near EU are less likely to require consulate assistance than an expat or tourist in Iran or North Korea or DRC etc) , but then all taxation is unfair somewhere in its application.

 

[sannox]

We've recently done Canadian passports and it is $260 Canadian or nearly £200 for the 10 year Canadian passport. They have different fees for inside and outside the country applications which makes it £80 or so more expensive to issue abroad - presumably shipping costs.

I can also say having done both UK and Canada passports, the UK application is better and more efficient.

 

[bleeder4]

£102 for something that will last you for 10 years is quite reasonable in my opinion. I would not begrudge paying that.

 

[Cdd89]

To the people who say that it's quite a reasonable cost once annualised, can I assume you would have no objection to a passport costing £1000?

After all, £100 a year is nothing if you do even a moderate amount of travel, like a couple of trips a year. And it's always good to relieve the general taxpayer of financial burdens, there are lots of other international costs that could be hypothecated.

Personally I would reject both of these and reiterate that the cost should be solely linked to that of producing the document. It's regressive enough that the document costs the same whether you travel 1 time or 100 times on it, if we want to tax travellers for the costs they might incur (and I'm not even sure we do) then do it on a per-trip basis because that's more progressive.

 

[87 027]

The cost of checking foreigners at the borders should be covered by visa fees, and the cost of consular services (visa applications, expatriate applications etc) covered by application fees.

The auditors report I linked to upthread says that government deliberately sets out to make a surplus on visa and immigration fees. See Figure 1 on page 7 - costs £1.245bn, revenue £2.626bn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

Digital ID has nothing to do with passports.

Nevertheless given that the origin of this thread is the cost of government-backed documents, I do not consider it irrelevant to reflect that there are different political choices in that (i) digital ID is proposed to be free, (ii) passports recover their actual costs and (iii) visas have a target to recover 212% of their costs (Figure 11 Note 4 of the above referenced report)

 

[J-2739]

Might I suggest this is a pretty niche activity (Dual Citizenship) and the 'plight' of Dual Citizens having to produce a UK Passport on entry to the UK is hardly going to get sympathy from single citizenship British Citizens. I expect most of those would consider it ridiculous that the UK has allowed this hitherto.

I hold dual citizenship, and the country of my other citizenship certainly does not allow such a thing.

Out of interest, is the other country the United States?

 

[Cloud Strife]

I hold dual citizenship, and the country of my other citizenship certainly does not allow such a thing.

I'm required to enter/leave Poland using a Polish travel document, but the big difference is that I can use my ID card which is absolutely free. I don't even carry my Polish passport on almost all trips where a passport is needed, simply because I've paid enough for my British one!

 

[sor]

As I understand it, passport price increases have historically been justified by the cost of providing consular services. It is then a bit unfair on those who have a passport because they can't get any other form of government issued ID, even if they don't do much or any international travel, though that is for another thread.

Thank yourself lucky you’re not Australian, an Australian passport costs AUD 422, which is £222

and the quality is even worse than ours. Lots of reports of the pages curling and people swapping tips on how to try to keep it straight

I recently renewed and was surprised to find that the cost of having the photographs taken in a supermarket booth had doubled in just under 10 years, from £5 to £10.

I wonder if this is partially related to the fact that the government has slightly relaxed its rules on photos. It used to be that it had to be professionally produced, though I always DIY'd and printed on photo paper. Now it's fine to use your smartphone and upload a photo taken from it provided it still meets the spirit of the rules (eg decent enough lighting and no shadows)

This is one of the few areas that would benefit from a Tory-style privatisation. Various privately-run passport-issuers would compete on price and/or quality of service. There might be a bargain-basement outfit offering flimsy low-quality passports and a premium operator producing luxury leather-bound passports. You could pay a lot less if you were happy to wait a few weeks or an awful lot more for a guaranteed next-day service. As things stand it's a take-it-or-leave-it monopoly.

We had reasonably priced and relatively well made passports prior to the change of supplier and offshoring of production work. The Tories certainly pursued their usual strategy of cheapest supplier wins.

There is already an option to pay more for faster processing.

Might I suggest this is a pretty niche activity (Dual Citizenship) and the 'plight' of Dual Citizens having to produce a UK Passport on entry to the UK is hardly going to get sympathy from single citizenship British Citizens. I expect most of those would consider it ridiculous that the UK has allowed this hitherto.

I hold dual citizenship, and the country of my other citizenship certainly does not allow such a thing.

It was mildly amusing to see Australians in particular complain about the recent change, I guess because it's a major country for being a British dual citizen by birth (Ireland probably being first, as well as people in NI who choose not to identify as British, but Irish citizens using an Irish passport are the only exception to the rule). Australia already required its own citizens to do the same thing when entering their country, but apparently it is outrageous that the UK now expects the same.

Also when people complained about the cost of a "certificate of entitlement" which is essentially a way for dual citizens of certain countries to evade that country's ban on holding multiple citizenships by not needing to be in possession of a British passport. It seems reasonable that we get a bit of money for doing so!

 

[jfollows]

Out of interest, is the other country the United States?

The US allows dual citizenship but requires US citizens to enter the country on their US passports, if that’s what you mean.
My husband is such. No big deal because he has UK and US passports. We went to Hong Kong and Japan, he used his UK passport. Leaving Japan for the US he used his US passport, and the Japanese system couldn’t cope, but with a little manual intervention all was OK.

 

[zero]

It was mildly amusing to see Australians in particular complain about the recent change, I guess because it's a major country for being a British dual citizen by birth (Ireland probably being first, as well as people in NI who choose not to identify as British, but Irish citizens using an Irish passport are the only exception to the rule). Australia already required its own citizens to do the same thing when entering their country, but apparently it is outrageous that the UK now expects the same.

Also when people complained about the cost of a "certificate of entitlement" which is essentially a way for dual citizens of certain countries to evade that country's ban on holding multiple citizenships by not needing to be in possession of a British passport. It seems reasonable that we get a bit of money for doing so!

The Australians complaining are mostly those with a UK-born parent who qualified to pass British citizenship on automatically. (Only fathers married to the mother passed it on automatically until 1983, all mothers passed it on from 1983, and unmarried fathers from 2006.)

These people would have spent all or most of their lives in Australia and regard the UK as a foreign country. When they've previously visited the UK, the UK accepted them as foreign tourists. Now they discover the UK had imposed a citizenship on them that they do not want.

Because of the scaremongering that they would be denied entry on future trips, those who want to do the right thing and follow a "foreign" government's rules must now spend additional money and time just to go on holiday. Not just the passport fee but maybe also obtaining parents' documents, posting them to the UK, paying to delay booked trips etc.

In practice what we are seeing is that if you lie on the UK ETA application by not declaring you are British, your ETA will be approved anyway. This seemed obvious to me as the UK doesn't even know the citizenship status of Brits born in the UK until the first time they apply for a passport. People were claiming there would be mass revocation of ETAs on 25 Feb but how would the UK know that someone born in Australia 70 years ago had a qualifying British parent (based on rules that wouldn't even be written until that person was in their 20s)?

Of course if you've recently held a UK passport then it may be possible to detect and reject an ETA application, but I have heard from reliable sources that even after ETA enforcement began, people with current valid UK passports are still being approved for ETAs on their non-UK passports.

Worst of all are whining Brits on social media who think it's obvious having a UK-born parent makes you British. It's perfectly reasonable for Australians to not think this, because it's not the case for Australia. If an Australian-born parent has a child born in the UK, that child is never an Australian citizen automatically. They are (usually) eligible to become Australian citizens but must take positive action to apply. If they don't apply, they can visit Australia on their British passport indefinitely. This doesn't prevent them from obtaining Australian citizenship later in life, after which they obviously do need to use an Aussie passport to travel to Australia.

One other effect of UK ETA enforcement is on people who are or could be Irish citizens. The British government is effectively saying that a foreign (Australian) person who has a connection to another foreign country (Ireland) must obtain that foreign country's passport to visit the UK.

 

[The exile]

I have always thought that is such a stupid rule. Surely all that matters is that your passport is valid for your stay. You should even be allowed to travel on the final day of validity if you are going for a day trip. Some countries only require your passport to be valid for your stay so i have no idea why some others have this ridiculous six months validity rule.

To try to ensure that when the time comes to leave you will be able to. You can’t visit Schengen for 6 months without some kind of Visa. In theory they could drop it to 3 as that’s the limit for Visa free travel but I imagine they’re allowing for unlikely (but not impossible) siryy it actions like hospitalisation on the day you were planning to return home. Equally, a return to many non EU countries may require transit through a third country.

 

[robbob700]

In theory they could drop it to 3 as that’s the limit for Visa free travel

For Schengen countries passports need to be valid for 3 months after the date you plan to leave. This is clearly stated on the FCO Travel Advice pages. There seems to be an urban myth that passports have to be valid for an extra 6 months for all countries.

 

[RT4038]

The Australians complaining are mostly those with a UK-born parent who qualified to pass British citizenship on automatically. (Only fathers married to the mother passed it on automatically until 1983, all mothers passed it on from 1983, and unmarried fathers from 2006.)

These people would have spent all or most of their lives in Australia and regard the UK as a foreign country. When they've previously visited the UK, the UK accepted them as foreign tourists. Now they discover the UK had imposed a citizenship on them that they do not want.

Because of the scaremongering that they would be denied entry on future trips, those who want to do the right thing and follow a "foreign" government's rules must now spend additional money and time just to go on holiday. Not just the passport fee but maybe also obtaining parents' documents, posting them to the UK, paying to delay booked trips etc.

In practice what we are seeing is that if you lie on the UK ETA application by not declaring you are British, your ETA will be approved anyway. This seemed obvious to me as the UK doesn't even know the citizenship status of Brits born in the UK until the first time they apply for a passport. People were claiming there would be mass revocation of ETAs on 25 Feb but how would the UK know that someone born in Australia 70 years ago had a qualifying British parent (based on rules that wouldn't even be written until that person was in their 20s)?

Of course if you've recently held a UK passport then it may be possible to detect and reject an ETA application, but I have heard from reliable sources that even after ETA enforcement began, people with current valid UK passports are still being approved for ETAs on their non-UK passports.

Worst of all are whining Brits on social media who think it's obvious having a UK-born parent makes you British. It's perfectly reasonable for Australians to not think this, because it's not the case for Australia. If an Australian-born parent has a child born in the UK, that child is never an Australian citizen automatically. They are (usually) eligible to become Australian citizens but must take positive action to apply. If they don't apply, they can visit Australia on their British passport indefinitely. This doesn't prevent them from obtaining Australian citizenship later in life, after which they obviously do need to use an Aussie passport to travel to Australia.

One other effect of UK ETA enforcement is on people who are or could be Irish citizens. The British government is effectively saying that a foreign (Australian) person who has a connection to another foreign country (Ireland) must obtain that foreign country's passport to visit the UK.

Seems like a load of scaremongering to me. Probably started by a citizenship/passport acquisition agency. Certainly not something which the vast majority of British public should be concerning themselves with, or, for that matter, citizens of foreign countries with British Citizen/Irish citizen antecedents.
I am sure the new UK rule is not intended for foreign nationals who may, if they applied, qualify for British Citizenship, or Irish Citizenship or whatever. This is for foreign citizens who have acquired British citizenship but have not taken out a British passport, and for clever di*k British citizens who enter and/or leave the UK showing a foreign passport they have acquired through taking out/claiming a foreign citizenship.

 

[The exile]

For Schengen countries passports need to be valid for 3 months after the date you plan to leave. This is clearly stated on the FCO Travel Advice pages. There seems to be an urban myth that passports have to be valid for an extra 6 months for all countries.

Since it is effectively impossible to prove when you intend to leave (a return flight booking is only a strong indication - not proof - although it’s going to be enough in “real life”), if push comes to shove that therefore means “3 months beyond the maximum time you can legally stay after entry” - which without a visa is 3 months (less any time you’ve already spent in the Schengen zone in the last 6 months). Hence 6.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It was mildly amusing to see Australians in particular complain about the recent change, I guess because it's a major country for being a British dual citizen by birth (Ireland probably being first, as well as people in NI who choose not to identify as British, but Irish citizens using an Irish passport are the only exception to the rule). Australia already required its own citizens to do the same thing when entering their country, but apparently it is outrageous that the UK now expects the same.

Also when people complained about the cost of a "certificate of entitlement" which is essentially a way for dual citizens of certain countries to evade that country's ban on holding multiple citizenships by not needing to be in possession of a British passport. It seems reasonable that we get a bit of money for doing so!

Seems like a load of scaremongering to me. Probably started by a citizenship/passport acquisition agency. Certainly not something which the vast majority of British public should be concerning themselves with, or, for that matter, citizens of foreign countries with British Citizen/Irish citizen antecedents.

The crucial difference is that Australian citizenship is not automatically passed on by descent, however British citizenship is automatically passed on by descent.

So we have the situation with some countries- most notably Australia but also Canada- where people have automatic British citizenship by descent even though they don't live in Britain and don't really use (or even particularly want) their British citizenship. They've always been able to travel on their home passport but now they're told they have to spend a couple of hundred quid on a British passport or even more on a certificate of entitlement. And the change was brought in with very very little warning.

Why the certificate of entitlement has been priced at over £500 is quite beyond me; presumably it is a way for the government to signal that they're tough on forrins or something. We'd not be having any of this conversation if the certificate of entitlement cost the same as an ETA. There's no reason why it shouldn't cost the same as an ETA.

I'm a British-Australian dual national and I had to specifically apply to Australia for my children to obtain Australian citizenship by descent. THis means they need to enter Australia on an Australian passport. Fine- that's the choice I made for them. But if I hadn't applied for the citizenship then they wouldn't be Australian and therefore would be eligible for an ETA to enter Australia. That's not the same with the UK- you're automatically British and that's that.

It's worth noting that not being in a possession of a British passport doesn't prevent someone from falling foul of other countries' prohibition on dual nationality. You don't have to be in possession of the passport to be a dual national. And, even if you are in possession of the passport, the other country doesn't have to accept you as a dual national- the Chinese don't.

There's actually been a lot of issues in Australia in the last couple of years around this exact issue.

Are you a dual citizen? You might have lost your Australian rights without knowing it

A recent case has highlighted the plight of those caught in legal limbo because they lost their citizenship. So how did we get here, when can citizenship be stripped under the law, and what are some solutions?

www.abc.net.au

Many people living, voting and paying tax in Australia may have technically been stripped of their citizenship and not even realise it.

It's because of the now-repealed section 17 of the 1948 Citizenship Act.

Between 1948 and April 4, 2002, Australian adults who got a second citizenship automatically lost their Australian citizenship.

And between November 1984 and April 2002, they didn't even have to be outside Australia when they took up their second citizenship to trigger the loss of their Australian rights.

 

[RT4038]

The crucial difference is that Australian citizenship is not automatically passed on by descent, however British citizenship is automatically passed on by descent.

So we have the situation with some countries- most notably Australia but also Canada- where people have automatic British citizenship by descent even though they don't live in Britain and don't really use (or even particularly want) their British citizenship. They've always been able to travel on their home passport but now they're told they have to spend a couple of hundred quid on a British passport or even more on a certificate of entitlement. And the change was brought in with very very little warning.

Why the certificate of entitlement has been priced at over £500 is quite beyond me; presumably it is a way for the government to signal that they're tough on forrins or something. We'd not be having any of this conversation if the certificate of entitlement cost the same as an ETA. There's no reason why it shouldn't cost the same as an ETA.

I'm a British-Australian dual national and I had to specifically apply to Australia for my children to obtain Australian citizenship by descent. THis means they need to enter Australia on an Australian passport. Fine- that's the choice I made for them. But if I hadn't applied for the citizenship then they wouldn't be Australian and therefore would be eligible for an ETA to enter Australia. That's not the same with the UK- you're automatically British and that's that.

It's worth noting that not being in a possession of a British passport doesn't prevent someone from falling foul of other countries' prohibition on dual nationality. You don't have to be in possession of the passport to be a dual national. And, even if you are in possession of the passport, the other country doesn't have to accept you as a dual national- the Chinese don't.

There's actually been a lot of issues in Australia in the last couple of years around this exact issue.

Are you a dual citizen? You might have lost your Australian rights without knowing it

A recent case has highlighted the plight of those caught in legal limbo because they lost their citizenship. So how did we get here, when can citizenship be stripped under the law, and what are some solutions?

www.abc.net.au

If really the UK authorities are checking into the possibility of someone automatically being Citizenship by descent (which seems rather doubtful - if you've never lived in the UK, how would UK Authorities know you existed and your relationship with other UK citizens not present in the UK?), and then demanding a British Passport on entry, then a cheaper option might well be to renounce the British citizenship: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/682ef808e9440506ee95397f/Guide+RN+-+May+2025.pdf

 

[sannox]

I suspect if you were born abroad and lived there and travel on a foreign passport with ETA even if you are technically dual through a British parent it is probably pretty low chance of this being discovered or an issue.

Surely they have zero time to look at this at the border?

 

[zero]

If really the UK authorities are checking into the possibility of someone automatically being Citizenship by descent (which seems rather doubtful - if you've never lived in the UK, how would UK Authorities know you existed and your relationship with other UK citizens not present in the UK?)

I said this in my above post. @Tetchytyke has responded to your other points.

I suspect if you were born abroad and lived there and travel on a foreign passport with ETA even if you are technically dual through a British parent it is probably pretty low chance of this being discovered or an issue.

I also said this in my above post.

Surely they have zero time to look at this at the border?

The problem is not at the border. If you arrive in the UK and UKBF decides you are a British citizen, they must let you in regardless of what passport you present. There's also no problem if they don't realise you are a British citizen and accept you as a foreigner.

People were prompted by all the scaremongering in the media to look up British nationality law and the rules surrounding the ETA. Some of them discovered for the first time that they are British citizens. The rules say that citizens must now use a British passport to enter the UK and that British citizens are not allowed to get an ETA.

If you didn't bother to look up the rules and didn't realise you are a British citizen, yes it is likely that you would get away with obtaining an ETA. But the ETA application asks you to disclose your other citizenships.

Most people would be uncomfortable about lying on a government form and after learning they are citizens they would want to comply with the rules. I am sure the Home Office knows they cannot easily detect everyone born abroad who is potentially a citizen, but they are hardly going to make an official statement that you can break the rules if you think they won't find out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

then a cheaper option might well be to renounce the British citizenship

Children cannot renounce their British citizenship- it is on page 3 of the document you linked to- and the issue is predominantly affecting children. Renunciation also isn't cheap- the current fee is £482- and you have to provide all the same original supporting documentation to renounce citizenship as you would to get a passport or a certificate of entitlement.

I suspect if you were born abroad and lived there and travel on a foreign passport with ETA even if you are technically dual through a British parent it is probably pretty low chance of this being discovered or an issue.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not sure that lying on a visa application is particularly wise, however.

Having looked at it a bit more, the issue seems to be that the certificate of entitlement isn't really meant for British citizens at all (dual or otherwise), it is really meant for other nationalities- primarily from a very limited number of Commonwealth countries- to prove they have the a right of abode in the UK. That's why it is priced as it is.

But applying for a UK passport from overseas is not a straightforward process and is not a quick one, especially if it is your first passport application and you have to prove your automatic citizenship by descent by sending off original documents. So there are lots of people who have been caught up in issues because the government shifted the goalposts at the very last minute.

In a year or so it won't be so much of an issue as everyone will have got their passports, although it will still present challenges for people wanting to travel to the UK with babies given how long it will take to apply for two new passports. But until then, it's a mess.