Human Rights Act should no longer be applied to immigration decisions, say the Conservatives
9 March 2025, 09:56 | Updated: 9 March 2025, 11:08
The Conservatives have said that the Human Rights Act should not be applied when making decisions about immigration.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The legal change would mean that those facing deportation would be unable to challenge their removal on grounds of human rights in UK courts.
A previous Labour government passed The Human Rights Act.
The law brings the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into law in Britain.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has spoken in the past about the risk of allowing the Human Rights Act to be used in deportation cases, saying that some illegal migrants and foreign criminals are relying on the act to evade deportation.
Read more: Kemi Badenoch calls for investigation into BBC Gaza documentary featuring grandson of Hamas founder
Some members of the Conservative Party want the UK to pull out of the ECHR, causing friction within the party.
The ECHR, which the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg oversees, defines the rights and freedoms granted to individuals in the 46 signatory nations.
The BBC reports that a source from the Home Office said: "The Tories left the asylum system in utter chaos.
"They had 14 years to make changes and instead spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the failed Rwanda scheme, as small boat crossings hit a record high.
"This amendment is totally unworkable.
"Instead of dealing with mad proposals that will never work, the Labour government is getting a grip of the asylum system, increasing removals of those with no right to be here, saving millions on asylum hotels and looking at ways of tightening the application of Article 8 to ensure the system works more effectively."
Tom Swarbrick condemns Kemi Badenoch for failing to flesh out her plan for migrants.
Ms Badenoch has not suggested leaving the ECHR but believes that the law has been abused by migrants and foreign criminals in the UK as a means of evading deportation.
She has also suggested that the act might be interpreted 'generously' by judges ruling against deportation.
Conservatives are calling for an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is at the committee stage.
Their proposed amendment would reportedly remove the ECHR from immigration cases.
Migrants may still be eligible to appeal against deportation to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg under the ECHR.
Ms Badenoch said the change she is proposing would be "critical to shift immigration powers from the courts to Parliament and elected ministers, enabling more effective control over our borders".
She continued: "Operating in Britain's national interest means recognising the government's primary purpose: defending our borders, values, and people. Our amendment aims to restore control and prioritise national security."
Speaking to LBC's Lewis Goodall on Sunday, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: "The problem with the ECHR is that it's very vaguely worded. Article eight, for example, says a right to a private and family life."
He continued: "Over the last few years, in particular, UK judges have stretched and stretched the definition".
In response to Mr Philp, Lewis argued: "You'd end up with more cases at the ECHR ... because if you don't apply here, the cases will just be prosecuted to Strasbourg, and they take so long to decide these things that the backlog will just go up".
Mr Philp said: "People could still apply to Strasbourg ... but we are able to actually remove people to their country of origin pending that Strasbourg appeal.
"What it would do is stop UK judges applying these expansive interpretations that often go beyond what even a judge in Strasbourg would do."
