Use of Human Rights Act in immigration cases ‘out of control’, Conservatives say

The use of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in immigration cases is “out of control”, the shadow home secretary has said, as the Conservative Party will push for it not to apply in immigration decisions.

Chris Philp said Parliament has been “circumvented” by the ECHR and those presiding over tribunals were not using enough “common sense”.

The Conservative Party announced it would table an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which would ensure the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR, cannot be used to appeal deportation or other immigration decisions.

Party leader Kemi Badenoch said: “Our ability to manage immigration is hindered by extremely distorted interpretations of international laws.”

Mr Philp told Trevor Phillips on Sky News: “We think that the way UK judges are applying the ECHR in our domestic UK courts has become out of control. They’ve stretched these definitions so far.

“Some of these ECHR articles are very vaguely worded. Things like a ‘right to a family life’ or ‘freedom from degrading treatment’. Now, what do those mean in practice? Well, they mean whatever a judge says they mean.

“If judges interpret those reasonably, that’s fine, but what we’ve seen in the last few years in the UK courts is judges have expanded these definitions wider and wider.”

Mr Philp added: “The Human Rights Act allows judges in the UK to apply their interpretation of these very vague ECHR articles and they’ve stretched these definitions so far that in some cases it just defies common sense.

“We don’t think UK judges should do that any longer for immigration cases. Instead, those judges should just apply the UK law passed by Parliament, so we can restore some common sense.”

The Conservatives said it wants to ensure the Act does not interfere with the Government’s ability to deport illegal migrants.

They added their amendment would not disapply those rules to non-immigration matters such as free speech.

If this amendment passes, the UK will still be in the ECHR, but last month Mrs Badenoch suggested the UK would “probably” have to leave if it stops the country from doing “what is right”.

The explanatory statement to the amendment laid to the legislation says it will ensure “this Bill and other borders legislation and immigration decisions will not be frustrated by UK judges using the Human Rights Act to hand down judgments based on expansive interpretations of the ECHR, or interim measures of the Strasbourg court”.

Mr Philp told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: “I think it’s for Parliament, the democratically-elected Parliament, to set laws and for the courts then to interpret them.

“But because the ECHR is so vaguely worded, it means Parliament essentially can’t legislate precisely to say what should and should not kind of count as a right, and who should and should not be allowed to remain.

“Parliament has essentially been circumvented and trumped, as it were, by the way these ECHR rights are being interpreted.”

A senior minister has said the Conservatives’ push to disapply the Human Rights Act to immigration decisions “looks like an outsourcing plan”.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: “They had 14 years to do something about this and didn’t.

“Secondly, it looks like an outsourcing plan so that instead of these cases appealing to the British courts, it would all […] appeal to the court in Strasbourg.”

He said he does not think it “really deals with the issue” and accused it of being “symptomatic” of “gimmicks without action”.

A Home Office source said: “The Tories’ nonsense amendment means completely bypassing British courts and handling all decision-making on asylum cases to Europe.

“They left the asylum system in utter chaos, and now, instead of putting forward viable plans to clear up the mess they made, they’re proposing outsourcing control of our asylum system to EU courts.”