The Conservative Party, led by Kemi Badenoch, has recently announced significant proposed amendments to UK immigration law, targeting the disapplication of the Human Rights Act for immigration cases. This bold move reflects the party's determination to tighten its grip on border control and redefine the legal frameworks governing deportation challenges.
On March 9, 2025, Badenoch stated, "Migrants should be banned from using human rights laws to fight deportation in the British courts." This announcement marks her most significant policy intervention yet, positioning her party more undoubtedly against immigration, and signalling potential shifts within broader political discussions around human rights.
The proposed changes will be tabled as amendments to the government’s Border Security, Immigration, and Codification Bill, and they suggest ending the application of the Human Rights Act for all aspects of immigration enforcement. If implemented, this will mean British judges will not take the Act's provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when making decisions about immigration cases, pushing any appeals directly to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) situated in Strasbourg.
The suggested amendments arise partly from criticisms about the perceived exploitation of these human rights laws by foreign criminals and illegal migrants, hampering efficient deportation. The ECHR has previously been instrumental in halting deportations deemed unjust under the parameters set forth by the Human Rights Act, creating contention among politicians. Badenoch argued, "It's extremely distorted interpretations of international laws" which restrict effective border management.
Her intervention has already drawn diverse reactions. A Home Office source described the Conservative's suggestion as "totally unworkable," stating, "The Tories left the asylum system in utter chaos." Critics highlighted the party's inability to devise effective immigration strategies during their tenure and cited financial wastage on schemes such as the Rwanda deportation plan, which had yielded minimal results.
On the other hand, Conservative supporters believe this proposal will provide clearer legislative authority surrounding immigration issues. Badenoch insists this shift would "restore control and prioritise national security" by shifting immigration powers from the judiciary directly to Parliament and elected ministers. "Operating in Britain’s national interest means recognising the government’s primary purpose: defending our borders, values, and people," she asserted.
Chris Philp, Shadow Home Secretary, also weighed in, claiming the initiative, if successful, could lead to significant advancements. He stated this is necessary to end the “ever more expansive interpretations of the ECHR” which are alleged to create legal loopholes allowing criminals to evade justice. "Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed," Philp emphasized, advocating for actions to eliminate spurious legal claims thwarting deportations.
Notably, the agreement to disapply the Human Rights Act doesn't imply the UK would opt out of the ECHR as a whole; it merely constrains the application within UK court systems. Currently, there is uncertainty among the public and lawmakers about the practical impact of such legal maneuvers. Politicians must navigate the intersection of national security, human rights, and the obligations bound by international treaties.
The ECHR, set forth post-World War II, has been seen by many as instrumental to the democratic rights granted to citizens across Europe, including the UK. Detractors assert the Act has been misused, leading to alarming scenarios. For example, according to press coverage, judges have granted asylum based on arguments deemed far-fetched at best, which has led to alienation among sectors of the electorate demanding more stringent border policy.
Still, the Labour government, now opposing the newfound direction proposed by the Conservatives, is anticipated to respond critically. Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden remarked how outsourcing compliance to the ECHR "looks like outsourcing immigration decisions," criticizing it as gimmicky and symptomatic of inadequate action to address immigration challenges.
This reflects the polarization of opinions surrounding rights and immigration within UK politics, making the forthcoming discussions over this amendment particularly contentious. With the Conservatives pushing this hardline approach, the response from Labour and other political factions could substantially shape the discourse on human rights and immigration moving forward.
The Conservatives’ potential disapplication of the Human Rights Act brings forth undeniable consequences for the asylum system, requiring the UK to negotiate emergent dependencies from long-established treaties whilst addressing immediate and pressing immigration issues.
Unless substantial consensus is reached among lawmakers, shifts toward revised immigration legislation could lead to divisive conflicts about the pressing need for reform, accountability, and basic human rights provisions.