Kemi Badenoch says leaving European Convention on Human Rights will be a manifesto pledge, as party unveils uncompromising BORDERS Plan
On the first day of its annual conference today, the Conservative Party announced that it was officially adopting the policy of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and introducing a markedly tougher approach to immigration and asylum than has been seen from any major party in recent decades.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said in her speech: "We must leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Conference, I want you to know that the next Conservative manifesto will contain our commitment to leave. Leaving the Convention is a necessary step."
She said the party had sought detailed legal advice from the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, regarding leaving the ECHR. Wolfson was asked to conduct an analysis to determine whether five 'sovereignty tests' posed by Badenoch could be lawfully met while the UK remained a signatory to the ECHR. The tests covered the deportation of foreign criminals and 'illegal' migrants, protection of veterans, prioritising citizens for public services, controlling disruptive protests, and cutting red tape. Lord Wolfson's advice concluded that leaving the ECHR would be necessary to fully satisfy all five tests.
Lord Wolfson's 195-page legal advice can be downloaded here. In it, he concludes that the "substantial ECHR limitations placed on the Government in the context of immigration and border control" is the area where the most urgent and extensive changes are needed. Wolfson added that attempts to check the "expansive" tendencies of judges when interpreting the ECHR "have so far proved ineffective" and such tendencies "show no sign of abating".
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp announced at the Conservative conference today that the party was going further and publishing a radical new BORDERS Plan on the back of the policy of leaving the ECHR. He said the plan would see many asylum claims banned, the Immigration Tribunal abolished, and legal aid ended for immigration and asylum matters.
Philp summarised the plan in stark terms, saying: "Leave the ECHR. Deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival and all foreign criminals. A new Force to remove 150,000 people year with no right to be here. Abolish the Immigration Tribunal. End Judicial Review and legal aid in immigration cases. And make sure countries take back their own citizens just as we do."
The Shadow Home Secretary Conservative earlier explained: "Enabled by ECHR exit, we will ban all asylum and other claims by illegal immigrants. And this will mean all those arriving illegally – including by small boat – will be immediately deported back to their country of origin if possible or to a third country like Rwanda if not within a week of arrival."
Describing judicial decisions that let foreign offenders avoid deportation as "madness" and accusing judges of accepting "all kinds of nonsensical arguments," the Shadow Home Secretary went on to say: "We will abolish the Immigration Tribunal entirely, with decisions will be taken inside the Home Office. There won't be any immigration judicial review, except on the narrow grounds of statutory power. And we will completely end the immigration legal aid gravy train by abolishing it. People don't need lawyers to make their claims, they just need to tell the truth, and their claim will be fairly decided."
Former Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood told Times Radio that adopting a policy of leaving the ECHR was a grave political and strategic error by the party. He described it as "shocking" that signing up to leave the ECHR has now become a requirement to stand as a Conservative candidate in the next election, warning that the move will push the party further toward the extreme and further away from ever returning to power.
Ellwood said: "I wager that most MPs, let alone candidates, are even unfamiliar with the details of the ECHR. And these clarion calls to leave it suggest that there's a silver bullet to solve illegal migration. Certainly, Article 3, Article 8 needs to be reviewed. Let's review it. Let's join with other countries and update this piece of legislation, this convention that we helped create. But I make it really clear, even if you amended the ECHR or left it completely, you've only done half the homework. You've removed the red tape from the UK side. What still remains there is the what happens when you put them on a plane. Is Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan going to receive these planes? Absolutely not. So this is a soundbite that's being peddled out to simply resolve a very complex issue."
Ellwood strongly urged Kemi Badenoch to reconsider the policy, adding that it was not in Britain's interests.
Alice Donald, Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University, noted in a blog post for Verfassungsblog last week that previously "fringe rhetoric" about leaving the ECHR was now being echoed at the very centre of British politics. While many European centre-right governments have pressured the European Court of Human Rights, Donald observed that most have stopped short of advocating withdrawal, instead pursuing interpretive reforms or clarifications.
Donald stated: "As a non-EU state, it might be expected that the UK would be an outlier among European democracies. Yet it bears repeating that it would be unprecedented for the UK Conservatives, as a centre-right party in a mature democracy … to reach for the straight-to-withdrawal position. To do so would be reckless as to the consequences of pulling out of the ECHR – and hence the Council of Europe – for the people of the UK, and the severe damage that would be caused to the UK's national interest and international reputation. Withdrawal would be a deliberate step into the present club of two – Putin's Russia and Lukashenko's Belarus."
Professor Donald was one of the authors of a report published last month by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford's Faculty of Law that found widespread misrepresentations in UK media coverage of the ECHR and its role in immigration control.
The report warned that misleading portrayals of the ECHR's role in immigration and asylum decisions were contributing to increased calls for the UK to leave the Convention, despite judges making decisions according to rules and exceptions set by Parliament. Donald said that trust in the rule of law is placed at risk if the discussion about the ECHR and immigration is not grounded in accurate reporting.