The Home Office has signed off the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (Commencement No. 9) Regulations 2026, made on 25 February, bringing Section 76 (“liability of carriers”) into force on 20 March 2026 across the UK. In practical terms, airlines and ferry operators will be on the hook if they transport anyone who arrives without the required electronic permission to travel. The instrument sits on legislation.gov.uk and is explicitly framed as applying to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Section 76 amends Section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so that carriers’ civil penalties can be imposed where a traveller arrives without a required Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) or other digital permission. The explanatory notes say the policy aim is to make pre‑departure checks routine for all non‑exempt passengers and to provide a statutory excuse where it was not reasonably possible for a carrier to confirm permission (for example, a systems outage). (legislation.gov.uk)

The financial risk is clear. Under current Home Office guidance, the charge for each inadequately documented arrival is £2,000. Extending Section 40 to “no ETA” cases effectively places the same per‑passenger exposure on failures to verify digital permission, alongside existing duties to check identity documents and visas. Guidance also confirms CCTV linkage can be used to attribute a “no document” case to a flight or sailing. (gov.uk)

Enforcement has already tightened at the gate. From 25 February 2026, carriers have been told to deny boarding to non‑visa nationals without a valid ETA, an eVisa or other accepted proof. British and Irish citizens are exempt. The Home Office’s ministerial statement and news release make this explicit and highlight that permission‑to‑travel checks are now a standing requirement. (questions-statements.parliament.uk)

For aviation, this means building hard stops into departure control systems, ensuring ground handlers and codeshare partners apply the same rule set, and training staff to handle edge cases. The Home Office says a 24/7 Carrier Support Hub can confirm digital permission in real time and help carriers judge whether a Section 40 charge is likely in complex cases. (gov.uk)

Sea operators face similar obligations with less controlled boarding environments. Foot passengers and vehicle traffic increase the chance of last‑minute documentation issues, so terminals will need clear pre‑check signage and staffed checkpoints before embarkation. Carriers with Approved Gate Check (AGC) status benefit from limited technical charge waivers, but these are narrow and route‑specific. (gov.uk)

A quick way to size the exposure: at £2,000 per case, one preventable incident per week on a busy route equates to roughly £100,000 a year in penalties before disruption costs. That’s before factoring in reputational damage from denied boarding or arrival refusals. For lean operators, the cheaper option is almost always to invest in systems and training up front.

Two operational details matter for objections and appeals. First, the long‑standing defence that a forgery was not “reasonably apparent” still applies, but the bar assumes a trained representative examining documents carefully, briefly and without specialist kit. Second, the statutory excuse under Section 76 acknowledges occasions when carriers simply cannot verify because a permission is held digitally and the check is impossible through no fault of their own. (mondaq.com)

Timelines are tight. There are 21 days between 28 February and the 20 March commencement, and the Home Office has ruled out further grace periods. Operators should lock in DCS rules for “no permission, no travel”, refresh agent scripts, circulate customer comms about the £16 ETA cost and validity, and rehearse escalation paths to the Carrier Support Hub. (questions-statements.parliament.uk)

Bottom line for boards: this is a regulatory shift with a simple test-can your operation reliably confirm every non‑exempt passenger’s digital permission before wheels‑up or cast‑off? If not, budget for fines and friction. If yes, margins are protected and customer disruption is minimised. The policy intent is unambiguous and the enforcement tools are now live. (gov.uk)