Huge flaws emerged in the government’s proposal to use visa restrictions to pressure states that refuse to take back nationals removed from the UK, with ministers and officials saying the measures would in practice be implemented only by Britain and not jointly by Five Eyes partners.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told reporters she had “reached an agreement” with counterparts from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance — the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — on boosting the return of foreign nationals who “have no legal basis to remain in any of the partner countries.” But the Home Office later acknowledged it could not point to reciprocal commitments by other Five Eyes members to impose visa curbs and said the summit would lead to “much closer working” without specifying concrete, joint actions.
The powers Mahmood referenced trace back to legislation introduced by the previous government. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 created a mechanism for a “visa penalty provision” that would allow the UK to restrict or deny visas to nationals of states judged uncooperative over returns. Downing Street and the Home Office say the UK could use those domestic powers to deter countries that do not accept deportation removals. Officials did not identify any new international treaty or shared legal framework obliging Five Eyes partners to do the same.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp criticised the announcement as “shameless spin,” arguing the visa sanctions “have nothing whatsoever to do with the Five Eyes partnership.” The lack of a clear, multilateral enforcement mechanism prompted concern that targeted countries might respond with reciprocal measures, potentially affecting trade relations and the recruitment of international students to British universities.
Labour backbenchers have already opposed some of the separate visa measures proposed by the party, and some warned they could rebel if restrictions prevent foreign-born constituents from bringing relatives to Britain. The Home Office did not publish final text of any agreement at the close of the two-day summit, saying that would follow later.
Mahmood, who was joined at the meeting in central London by United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree, Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and New Zealand attorney-general Judith Collins, reiterated that the government would not seek to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights to tackle irregular migration.
“For us, that means possibly the cutting of visas in the future, just to say we do expect countries to play ball,” Mahmood said. She said the government would instead propose changes to “tighten up the rules” on how the convention is implemented in UK law, arguing the balance between human rights and border security “isn’t in the right place at the moment.”
The announcement came amid rising numbers of small-boat crossings. The government said more than 30,000 people have crossed the Channel so far this year, a 37% increase on the same point last year, and reported 1,097 arrivals on Saturday. Labour ministers previously agreed a bilateral “one in, one out” returns mechanism with France nearly two months ago, but the first removal under that deal had not taken place by the time of the summit. Reports said a proposed change in French law to allow police to stop boats further out to sea had stalled amid political turmoil in Paris.
Mahmood also declined to confirm whether the government would introduce compulsory identity cards as part of measures to deter irregular migration. She said her “long-term personal political view has always been in favour of ID cards” and that ministers were examining options including digital identification and a wider programme of work on pull factors, but she gave no timetable for any specific proposals.
The Home Office described the Five Eyes meeting as a step toward closer cooperation on returns and border security, but with key details unresolved and no immediate multilateral visa sanctions forthcoming. Political opponents and some commentators said the domestic legal route to visa penalties leaves open questions about efficacy, reciprocity and potential unintended consequences for trade, education and consular relations.