Nigel Farage’s proposed bill on leaving the ECHR was defeated in the Commons yesterday
A proposed bill in favour of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was voted down in the Commons yesterday (Wednesday, October 29), by a majority of 154 to 96. The bill, which was proposed by Reform leader and MP for Clacton Nigel Farage, faced substantial opposition in the commons, particularly from the Liberal Democrats.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey told the Commons: “The honorable gentleman (Mr Farage) has made his career by damaging our country and our interests. Remember how he led the campaign for Brexit with his conservative friends? And we know what a total mess that’s turned out to be.”
The vote came weeks after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch revealed her party’s plans to withdraw from the ECHR if they win the next election. With close to 100 MPs voting in favour of the withdrawal, some argue that leaving the ECHR could make it easier for the government to control immigration and cut red tape around deportations, whereas those opposed – including human rights organisations – say it could strip individuals of vital protections.
What actually is the ECHR?
The ECHR is an international treaty, established post-WWII, that safeguards the human rights of its 46 member states, reports the Mirror. Winston Churchill was a key early advocate of the ECHR after the war.
These protections include the rights to life, liberty and security, a fair trial, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and assembly, and freedom of religion and belief. It also prohibits torture and cruel or degrading treatment, slavery and discrimination.
The ECHR enshrined people’s fundamental human rights in law for the first time, and mandates public authorities such as government, schools, local councils and police to act in accordance with the convention. It is separate from the European Union, and a country does not need to be a member state to participate.
What would leaving the ECHR mean?
A new Bill of Rights would almost certainly be necessary, which the Tories would utilise to prevent higher courts from declaring government decisions incompatible with human rights. This could be used to facilitate deportations.
Withdrawing from the ECHR would put the Good Friday Agreement at risk, which ended three decades of violence in Northern Ireland and across Britain. Departing from the ECHR would breach the agreement, requiring a fresh peace settlement to be negotiated.
The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement is also dependent on the ECHR, with the EU stating that if Britain withdrew, it would terminate the agreement, which is currently used to extradite criminal suspects from the EU to stand trial in the UK. Withdrawal could also encourage other nations to leave, and could weaken Britain’s position in safeguarding human rights.
How many deportations have been stopped due to the ECHR?
A new report published by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights found that Britain’s membership of the ECHR impacted a very small percentage of deportation appeals.
A summary of the report states: “Over a five-year period to June 2021, the number of successful human rights-based deportation appeals represented about 3.5 per cent of the total number of deportations – and around 2.5 per cent when looking at appeals based solely on private and family life grounds.” The report then goes on to state that this figure could even be an overestimate, given that some of these cases would have been later overturned.
The report also highlights that criticisms of the ECHR on grounds that it routinely prevents the UK from controlling immigration ‘do not hold up to scrutiny’. It said: “Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK’s immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years.”
Co-author of the report, Professor Başak Çalı, said: “Politicians, journalists and commentators may legitimately hold different views on immigration and human rights. But mischaracterising how the law operates does a disservice to the public. Evidence should be the foundation of any debate, whatever view one takes on the policy questions. This report is intended as a resource to support informed and balanced discussion.”
What have human rights groups said?
Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, warned: “We should all be very cautious of politicians who try to take away the very rights that hold politicians themselves to account. Take this convention away and people will be vulnerable to the political whims of those who seek to undermine and deny them their rights.”
He added: “Scapegoating people fleeing persecution and other migrants as an excuse to gut this country’s human rights protections is not courageous, but cowardly. Stripping ordinary people of these protections will leave us all smaller, more divided, and less safe.”
Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, criticised: “The Conservative Party is putting political interest above the public good. Without the backstop of the ECHR, governments of whatever party will be able to erode our rights with no come-back.”
Looking for more from MyLondon? Subscribe to our daily newsletters here for the latest and greatest updates from across London.
