Kemi Badenoch vows to set UK freed from European Convention on Human Rights ‘straitjacket’ in bid to regain management of Britain’s borders

Kemi Badenoch today declares it is time for Britain to leave the ‘straitjacket’ of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In what she admits is a ‘big change’ in party policy, the Tory leader says the move is necessary to regain control of Britain’s borders and make Parliament sovereign once more.

She made the decision after a review she commissioned concluded that remaining signed up to the human rights pact would put ‘significant constraints’ on five key policies she would want to implement if she becomes prime minister.

Mrs Badenoch was told by her Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson KC that continued membership of the ECHR would hinder her plan to deport foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to their homelands or third countries such as Rwanda.

It would also get in the way of her pledges to stop military veterans being ‘pursued by vexatious legal attacks’, to put British citizens first in the queue for council houses, to ensure tough prison sentences and to avoid endless challenges to the planning system.

She was reassured by the barrister that quitting the ECHR would not breach the Good Friday Agreement or the Windsor Framework, risking chaos in Northern Ireland, despite the fears of some.

Mrs Badenoch presented the findings of his ‘Lawfare Commission’ to her Shadow Cabinet yesterday and will set out the new policy tomorrow in her first conference speech as party leader in Manchester.

It is understood that no dissent was voiced in the meeting, after opposition to the ECHR has hardened across much of Westminster over the past year. Even the Labour Government is now seeking to restrict the notorious Article 8 right to a family life commonly used by foreign criminals to avoid deportation.

One senior Tory told ConservativeHome they were ‘one happy family’, while another said it was a ‘serious and considered discussion’ with ‘no opposition’.

However, some party grandees are likely to speak out against the move, as they did following Mrs Badenoch’s vow this week to scrap one of the UK’s main climate laws.

Writing in the Daily Mail, Mrs Badenoch admits: ‘The road ahead will not be simple. Lord Wolfson is clear that leaving the ECHR does create technical and political challenges.’ 

But she goes on: ‘We can no longer pretend that we can act in the interest of the prosperity and security of this country without taking those challenges on. 

‘Once we are out of the straitjacket of ECHR membership, a Conservative government will be able to enact the policies the British people rightfully expect – control of our borders, and a strengthening of our economy.’

Mrs Badenoch had previously said leaving the ECHR would not be a ‘silver bullet’ and during last year’s leadership contest warned that her rival Robert Jenrick’s pledge to do so would ‘divide our party’.

In Lord Wolfson’s letter to her, published last night, he wrote: ‘My overall view and advice is that should you wish to take the decision that it be Conservative Party policy that the UK should withdraw from the ECHR, such a policy would be perfectly possible both legally and practically.’

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: ‘The ECHR has been stretched by the courts to the point it is enabling foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in the UK.’

How scandal of grooming gangs was the tipping point for me

by Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition 

It is time for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have not taken this decision lightly. I have always been clear that we should leave the ECHR if we need to, but I was also concerned about the arguments that had been raised in opposition to leaving.

The moment my mind was changed was earlier this year, during my campaign for a national inquiry into the grooming gangs.

Hearing survivors’ horrific stories first-hand, and watching as the men who had raped young girls in Britain avoided deportation by using the ECHR, hardened my resolve that it was time to gather the legal evidence for leaving.

So, before the summer, I commissioned distinguished KC Lord Wolfson, to advise me definitively on whether five key policies that a Conservative government I lead would want to implement could be delivered as a member of the ECHR.

First, could we take back control of our asylum system and lawfully remove foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to their home country or a third country such as Rwanda? Second, could we stop our veterans being endlessly pursued by vexatious legal attacks, and make sure our military can fight a future war without one hand tied behind their backs?

Third, could we put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and public services because we believe that charity begins at home and those who have paid in should come first? Fourth, could we make sure prison sentences actually reflect Parliament’s intentions? And fifth, could we stop courts treating climate change as a human right and allowing endless legal challenges to frustrate the changes we need to make to our planning system?

What all these questions really come down to is: who makes the laws that govern the United Kingdom? I am clear that it should be our sovereign Parliament, democratically accountable to the British people, that decides.

This week Lord Wolfson delivered his advice. He found that in all the five policy areas I outlined above, the ECHR places significant constraints on the Government’s ability to address the key issue.

When it comes to the removal of illegal immigrants and protecting veterans, ECHR membership makes it impossible to do what I believe is necessary.

In the areas of public services, prison sentences and climate change constraints, the changes I want to make to our laws would be subject to the sort of debilitating legal challenges that lead to government policies getting delayed and ultimately killed in the courts.

Lord Wolfson’s advice also indicates that alternative options, such as re-negotiation, derogation or repealing only the Human Rights Act, are either unrealistic or ineffective.

So, after consultation with my Shadow Cabinet, I have decided that the next Conservative government will withdraw from the ECHR. This is a big change in Conservative Party policy, but a necessary one.

There will be some, such as our human rights lawyer Prime Minister, who will howl that by doing so we are turning our backs on the international community. But Britain has never needed supranational agreements and oversight by foreign courts to protect the rights and freedoms of our people.

We will return to common law and statutory protections, focused on democratic legitimacy and ensuring a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. Leaving the ECHR will prevent the courts in the UK and in Strasbourg using ever-widening interpretations of its articles to frustrate sensible border control.

The road ahead will not be simple. Lord Wolfson is clear that leaving the ECHR does create technical and political challenges. But we can no longer pretend that we can act in the interest of the prosperity and security of this country without taking those challenges on.

And Lord Wolfson advises that withdrawing from the ECHR alone is not enough. If we are fully to control our borders and end illegal migration, there must be further action.

We will be saying more shortly about what other changes we need to end the scourge of illegal immigration.

But I am now very clear that, once we are out of the straitjacket of ECHR membership, a Conservative government will be able to enact the policies the British people rightfully expect – control of our borders, and a strengthening of our economy.