‘Doomed’ plan to reform ECHR slammed as criminals wriggle out of deportation | Politics | News
They want more “weight” to put on the criminal’s offences, rather than their “social, cultural and family ties”.
And diplomats believe “the scope of inhuman and degrading treatment” under Article 3 – the right to protection from torture – should be “constrained to the most serious cases” amid fears it is abused by criminals and failed asylum seekers and overinterpreted by judges.
But critics warned that attempts at reform would fail, leading to further abuses of the UK asylum system.
It came after Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy travelled to Strasbourg to meet European justice ministers.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “Attempts to reform the ECHR are as doomed as David Cameron’s attempt to reform the EU.
“As even the Attorney General has conceded, the suggestion that you can meaningfully change the ECHR any time soon is a ‘political trick’.
“We don’t have the time to wait for Europe to get its act together when our borders are broken today.
“We need to leave the ECHR immediately so we can finally put the interests of the British people first.”
Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson of Tredegar said: “The prospect of reforming the ECHR is superficially attractive but the unfortunate reality is that multiple rounds of reforms have been attempted and have failed to achieve much in the way of meaningful improvements. At one stage, the UK led this process and documents were produced which involved many hours of work by government lawyers and civil servants but have had little impact on the ‘mission creep’ of the ECHR.
“This conference did not even look at the substance of Convention rights, and only a small proportion of members signed the Joint Statement, which shows the challenge of reaching agreement between 46 countries. The political statements so far seem more interested in countering electoral challenges to current governments, than in achieving meaningful reform. This could backfire badly if voters’ sense that face-saving tinkering is being offered instead of genuine action.”
Chris Philp MP, Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Across Europe a consensus has been reached that the ECHR has been stretched far beyond its original purpose and now shields foreign criminals, dangerous offenders, and illegal arrivals from removal. Lord Wolfson’s report makes this clear. Activist lawyers use the ECHR to block deportations that should be straightforward, yet Labour’s answer is to pretend they can renegotiate articles with 45 other countries. A fantasy that fools no one.
“The right balance can only be achieved through third-country removal routes, precisely the approach the Conservatives pursued, and Labour tore up. Labour voted against our Rwanda plan, opposed every tightening of removal powers, and then scrapped the very tools this statement says Europe needs. Labour cannot claim to support these principles while dismantling them at home.
The European Court of Human Rights was also told to stop blocking countries from striking Rwanda-style deals for offshore migrant processing centres.
In response to the declaration, a summit of justice ministers from the Council of Europe’s 46 members promised further discussions on possible reforms.
It is understood that, rather than attempting to rewrite the ECHR, Britain is focusing on preventing it from being interpreted in a way that can block deportations. The convention underpins the UK’s Human Rights Act.
A joint statement, signed by 27 nations, declared: “The clear starting point is that a state party can expel foreigners convicted of serious crimes even though they have acquired ties to their host country, e.g. if they have established a family life there.
“In line with the principles in this statement, it is vital that the balance between individual rights and legitimate aims as per Article 8 of the Convention is adjusted so that more weight is put on the nature and seriousness of the offence committed and less weight is put on the foreign criminal’s social, cultural, and family ties with the host Country and with the Country of destination.
“The purpose of such a rebalancing is to ensure that we no longer see instances where foreigners convicted of serious crime, including serious violent crime, sexual assault, organised crime and human and drug trafficking, cannot be expelled.
“The scope of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ under Article 3, which is an absolute right, should be constrained to the most serious issues in a manner which does not prevent State Parties from taking proportionate decisions on the expulsion of foreign criminals, or in removal or extradition cases, including in cases raising issues concerning healthcare and prison conditions.”
The joint statement also warned against “hostile” governments’ funnelling migrants to borders to heap pressure on member states.
Currently, Italy has an agreement with Albania to process migrants, which has faced legal difficulties. Denmark has a deal with Rwanda, which it has shelved until legal barriers are removed.
Labour, unlike the Tories and Reform UK, is committed to remaining within the ECHR, which was drawn up in the aftermath of the Second World War.
In a Guardian column, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Danish PM Mette Frederiksen acknowledged the “current asylum framework was created for another era”, adding: “In a world with mass mobility, yesterday’s answers do not work.
“We will always protect those fleeing war and terror – but the world has changed, and asylum systems must change with it.”
