Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Before we start proceedings, I want to say two things. First, this debate is oversubscribed, so not everyone will get to speak. I hope to call 10 Back- Bench Members to contribute for three minutes each. If Members take interventions, they will not get extra time because this is an hour-long debate. Secondly, we expect Divisions in the House shortly. The procedure will be to suspend the debate for 15 minutes for the first Division and approximately 10 minutes for each subsequent Division.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 6.30 pm.

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) is one of the longest-serving delegates. She sits on the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, fighting for gender equality, combating violence against women and girls and defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. She is a rapporteur for the committee and has overseen a report on the ban of so-called conversion practices, which will hopefully be passed at the next plenary in January. That report will provide model legislation for all 46 member states to pass and end that awful practice. Let us hope that this House is ready to enact those recommendations, as promised in our manifesto and the King’s Speech. As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I have worked with colleagues on youth democracy, artificial intelligence, ethics in sport and media freedom.

The Council of Europe develops recommendations on issues affecting all member states, including the UK. We may be an island, but sharing best practice and developing common conventions strengthens rights, freedoms and democratic values across the continent. The Council of Europe continues to lead globally, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting democratic transitions and exposing human rights abuses. It expelled Russia from the Council, declaring it a terrorist state, and Belarus for its support for Russian aggression. This summer, I witnessed history being made in Strasbourg as President Zelensky signed a bilateral agreement with the Council of Europe to bring a trial against Russia for crimes of aggression against Ukraine.

But what has the ECHR ever done for us? Well, it has ensured that the Good Friday agreement has lasted this long. The incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Irish law means that the people of Northern Ireland have an independent arbiter to trust in disputes over fault during the troubles, and that is no small thing. It is vital to peace, societal rebuilding and the end of sectarianism. Maintained rights can create faith in people and shine light out of darkness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend has made a really important point. The convention covers so many parts of our life and we must maintain it.

Currently, our politics is consumed by the issue of small boats. Despite representing less than 2% of all immigration into the UK, the boats are suddenly the reason why we must abandon the convention and place our collective human rights at the mercy of Government. In many ways, the attempted attacks on our freedoms under the guise of liberation remind me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but I do not want to find myself looking from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, and finding that I cannot tell which is which.

Of course, even the conflation of small boat arrivals with the ECHR is a lie. Mr Mundell, did you know that the ECHR has nothing written down relating to immigration or asylum? There is no right to asylum in the ECHR. Did you also know that, since the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Court’s rulings against the UK have fallen dramatically? It used to average 17 a year; now it is fewer than four. Indeed, it ruled against the UK only once in 2024—when, in a very nice piece of irony, the ECHR protected the rights of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to freedom of expression. Even the convention’s harshest critics come running to it for protection when they are under threat from big government.

The University of Oxford recently published a Bonavero report titled “The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate”, which centres on misinformation, over-reporting and outright lies in the press that poison the debate around the ECHR. I highly recommend it to all Members who are wavering on whether the UK should stay in the convention or leave it because of immigration.

There are two articles of the ECHR that have been tied to immigration. Article 3 is applied so that we do not send individuals back to torture or death—I would like to believe that we can all agree on that. Article 8, the right to family life, is projected by the ECHR’s critics as the real villain of the piece. They argue that it stops deportations of foreign criminals, sex offenders and individuals who arrived in the UK via small boats. There really is a lot of rubbish written in the papers and online relating to article 8, using examples of how the ECHR is being used to stop deportations and erode national security and identity.

The most notorious example was in February this year, when an Albanian criminal was apparently granted appeal to deportation because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The ruling was made because the criminal’s younger child had sensory issues, food sensitivities and emotional difficulties, but the upper tribunal rejected the appeal as not strong enough to be considered unduly harsh, and the case is still under review. For the record, article 8 is primarily used for reunification of British citizens with family members who are foreign nationals.

Let us step away from that story and look at some statistics. From 2015 to 2021, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK, and in that period 1,000 foreign criminals managed to halt deportation on ECHR grounds, roughly 3% of the overall figure. Less than 1% of those cases were ultimately successful, so the ECHR is hardly the immovable object blocking the UK’s will in removing offenders from its shores.

Furthermore, the Court has ruled only three times that the UK’s immigration rules have violated the ECHR in the past 45 years, but political and media pressure appears to be bearing down on our relationship with the ECHR. There have been noises about tweaking the convention and about opening discussions, the thought of which fills me with dread.

Why concede the argument that the ECHR is to blame for our impotence, when that squarely does not match the reality? Why put the EHCR directly in the limelight of the political will of the day? Why cost businesses an estimated £1.6 billion at a time when they are already struggling? Why abandon the soft power that our place in the convention and institution affords us?

If I may say so, this reminds me of David Cameron’s renegotiation with the EU prior to the referendum. He put Britain’s relationship with the EU at the forefront of the agenda and worked tirelessly to get a better deal for Britain, believing that if he could show that Britain can renegotiate, the crocodiles in his party and on the fringes would let up—but in the end he lost it all. I make a plea to the Minister and to the Government: “Let’s draw a line in the sand. Stand up and fight for the convention and our place in it. Do not concede. Do not think that you can find a middle course that will satisfy all parties and stem the anti-politics sentiment that is so prevalent in the UK today. Let’s be bold and argue for the UK’s role in the Council of Europe and the ECHR.”

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Paul Kohler. You have three minutes.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

I am pleased to speak about the ECHR and the UK’s membership of the Council of Europe. Across the political spectrum, parties are flirting with withdrawal. It feels like Brexit déjà vu, with the same hollow promises of taking back control, the same disregard for facts and the same blindness to consequence. The siren voices who said leaving the EU would be easy are now saying the same about leaving the ECHR, and thereby the Council of Europe.

Lord Wolfson’s recent report to the Conservative leader, for example, offers a threadbare fig leaf, based on an extremely narrow reading of the law that downplays the legal obstacles and, by his own admission, ignores the political ones. As Lord Wolfson knows, withdrawal would not be a technical exercise in legislative drafting, but a rupture in the constitutional fabric that binds these islands together. Reform, not rupture, should be our guiding principle; the convention can be updated to serve a modern democracy without sacrificing its founding principles.

Two practical measures would command broad support. First, the UK could lead efforts to clarify the scope of key provisions, particularly article 8, so that domestic courts can apply them with greater predictability and closer regard to parliamentary intent. Secondly, rather than withdrawing, we could work with other Council of Europe members to update the living instrument doctrine, ensuring that the Court’s interpretation better reflects democratic consent and contemporary realities. Those would be acts not of retreat, but leadership, strengthening Britain’s international role as a principled champion of the rule of law.

Despite what Lord Wolfson says, there are serious legal barriers to withdrawal. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Northern Ireland, I must warn of the profound risks to peace at home. The ECHR is embedded in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 2017, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement. Removing it would require overhauling devolution and entail legislative chaos. Turning to Northern Ireland, withdrawal would breach our international commitments, destabilise all communities, betray those who built peace and force renegotiation of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.

I say this to the Tories, Reform and the Labour leadership: flirting with populism for political convenience endangers both our unity at home and our reputation abroad. As Brexit has shown, dismantling international commitments might sound easy and liberating—but, as we know to our cost, it is neither. It is a hugely damaging, expensive diversion that will only make our problems worse.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Well done for sticking to time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend has listed a number of very good examples of what has been achieved as a result of the ECHR. Does he agree that we need to work together to highlight its benefits, as opposed to seeking to tear it down or tear it apart?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman conclude in 30 seconds, because there is no additional time for interventions?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will conclude by saying that, on this 75th anniversary, 300 organisations—from Liberty to Mind, Shelter to Amnesty—rightly defend the convention. It is up to this Government to demonstrate to the public that we can have both border control and compassion. Let us celebrate 75 years of freedom, and 75 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

rose—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not taking that intervention, so let us continue.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Members may disagree with what he is saying, but we will conduct this debate in an orderly way.

[Rupert Lowe]

What about the human rights of the British people? They have the right not to be raped, stabbed and killed by foreigners who should never have been in our country to begin with. Please spare me the continued moral outrage.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I already know that is not a point of order in relation to the content of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Rupert Lowe]

Please spare me the continued moral outrage. I am bored of it. The British people are bored of it. It is not cruel to deport criminals, and it is not inhumane to defend our own citizens. What is cruel and inhumane is allowing foreign killers and sex offenders to walk among us in the name of the human rights they should have forfeited the moment they committed their crimes. Hon. Members can sit here and persuade themselves otherwise, but one simple fact remains: the British people want those people gone—not some of them, not most of them, but all of them. What happens on their return to their own country is quite simply not our problem.

The solution is to take three straightforward steps. Step one: we should leave the ECHR and remove all other legal obstacles to mass deportation—Restore Britain’s new 100-plus page policy document proves it can be done. Step two—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. You have had your three minutes.

[Rupert Lowe]

The interventions held me up, Mr Mundell.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

You did not take any interventions.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this important debate. As a fellow delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can personally attest to her dedication in this area.

I want to bring a Cornish perspective to the importance of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights—one that shines a light on our membership. First, the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, although less well known than the European convention on human rights, is one of the most comprehensive treaties to protect the rights of national minorities, including the Cornish people. Leaving the European convention on human rights would call into question our membership of the Council of Europe. Those who wish for that departure either have not considered the implications for Cornish national minority status, or they have considered those implications and do not care about the Cornish.

There is also the European charter for regional or minority languages, which protects, supports and encourages minority languages such as Cornish, or Kernewek. These are important commitments to which the UK is a signatory. They are too often considered secondary, but they bring tangible social and cultural benefits to the people of Cornwall. If we lived in a world governed by the parties that wish to leave the European convention on human rights, we would risk leaving the Council of Europe altogether. Any move to withdraw from the European convention on human rights would likely cause us to leave the Council of Europe, putting at risk the protections and benefits on which Cornish people rely under those other conventions.

In his ten-minute rule Bill last week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is regrettably not here today—I notified him that I was going to raise this—described leaving the European convention on human rights as “unfinished business.” Having played a key role in the economic damage caused by Brexit, it seems that he is back for more, determined to sever another vital limb of our international partnerships as he attempts to steer the country on to the rocks of isolationism.

Some voices on the right argue that basic human rights hold us back. I believe they do quite the opposite. The hon. Member for Clacton will not talk about the other guarantees under the European convention on human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture and the right to liberty. As has been mentioned, bodies such as the Bonavero Institute at Oxford University have rightly said that some of the commentary on the European convention on human rights is misleading, often based on incendiary anecdotes involving chicken nuggets and pet cats. In reality, court rulings are far more complicated.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Moon.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

When politicians such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Conservative Members or, indeed, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) want us to leave the European convention on human rights, it tells us something quite reassuring, which is that the ECHR is doing precisely the job it was designed to do to protect all of us from the whims of tinpot populists like the hon. Member for Clacton. When parties such as Reform, and indeed the Conservative party, rail against the ECHR, it tells us everything we need to know about why it is so desperately required.

Those politicians want to remove our basic rights in order to leave the disadvantaged unprotected and their authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. It is in situations like this, when our human rights are most under attack, that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they are preserved. Let us remind ourselves of the company that the hon. Member for Clacton wants to keep: Russia and Belarus—perhaps that should not surprise us either. He spends half his time as an apologist for the Kremlin, and he has the slight inconvenience of his party’s treasurer in Wales having been found guilty of taking bribes from Russian interests.

Let us remind ourselves what this is all about. The ECHR was created from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities of that dark time could never be repeated. It enshrines our freedoms of speech, to assemble, to worship, to protest and to live our private lives free from interference, and it is a living instrument that evolves as our society evolves. It is everything that the populists despise. Most of the time, we are not aware of the ECHR—most of our constituents probably do not know what is actually in the document—but it is always there, guaranteeing our freedoms and our rights. It does not seek attention; it simply ensures that the Government—any Government—act in a way that respects our rights. It is our silent guardian.

Leaving the ECHR will not stop the boats or allow the Government to deport masses of our fellow citizens, but it will tear holes in our domestic law. Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in just 13 cases, only four of them concerning family life. But those politicians do not just want to leave the ECHR; they want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 as well. They would seek to abolish its 16 core protections, leaving the UK as about the only country with no chapter on human rights.

I say this to Labour Members: instead of fully defending the ECHR, the Government accept the premise that there is something wrong with it—that it needs to be amended and made compliant with Government interests. They talk about article 8 as being redefined—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Wishart.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Sincere apologies to everyone I was not able to call. We now come to the Lib Dem spokesman, who has five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not, because time is very limited.

Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe:

“We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.”

I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability.

Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed:

“No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements.

We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world.

Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation.

This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, the proceedings are due to conclude at 6.30 pm. You may wish to give Ms Eccles a few moments to wind up the debate.