Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate.

George Orwell said:

“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

I am not mad when I say that the debate on leaving the ECHR is nothing to do with immigration; I am telling the truth, which is something I hope the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) will finally come to realise. The convention is not designed to interfere with immigration policy; it says nothing about immigration, and the Court has long acknowledged the right of states to control their borders. That is why Oxford University data shows that only 3.5% of deportations of foreign criminals were successfully appealed on human rights grounds. That is the truth.

The fundamental purpose of the ECHR is to protect people from Governments of all colours. It stopped the Georgian Government arbitrarily detaining people. The Polish state has had to compensate thousands of citizens who had property taken away. Children in the Czech Republic were given rights to school. The failures of the French Government to tackle modern slavery were addressed. That is why apologists for authoritarian Governments such as the Russians hate it, and why they use immigration as a cover for their attacks. Now people want us to make the same mistake again—of walking away, not being in the room and isolating ourselves, as we did in Europe through Brexit—by walking away from the protection the ECHR offers our citizens: the protection that helped the Hillsborough families get justice, the protection that helped the victims of the black-cab rapist John Worboys, the protection that secured human rights and abortion access in Northern Ireland.

Even if people do not care about victims of crime or of miscarriages of justice, or about those who have been forced out of our armed forces for being gay, they might care about taxes. In February this year, the Court forced the Italians to stop a series of tax raids on companies because it was against their human rights. All of that—those basic rights—are at stake. And that is before we even get to the fact that it is the foundation of our trade agreements, and why other countries want to do business with us, that we follow the rule of law and hold ourselves accountable to a shared standard. That is why the ECHR is the foundation of the Good Friday agreement and is written into the EU trade and co-operation agreement, especially the deals on crime and policing.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Creasy]

My apologies, but I will not.

The Court also recognises the jurisdiction of nations. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) that if he has problems with how the ECHR is interpreted, we can pass domestic laws to address that. I know that some in this room want the Court to be a bogeyman, but the truth is that it actually respects our rights, including democracy. That is why we were able to vote on the issue of prisoner voting.

What is not true is that any Government writing their own Bill of Rights would offer the same protection to our constituents. Any fool can see that a Government who set out what rights we have one day can take them away the next. A Bill of Rights without someone external to ensure that it is enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. That is why the international rule of law matters. Leaving the ECHR would give a future Government the power to weaken the rights of our constituents. It would bring us back to the chaos of Brexit. It would be an attack on our freedoms, not an advance of them. The truth may hurt, but it also sets you free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate, and other Members—most of them, at least—for their contributions.

The Council of Europe is one of the post-war generation’s quiet triumphs. It was Winston Churchill, speaking in Zurich in 1946, who called for the creation of a Council of Europe to safeguard peace and freedom across our continent. Just three years later, the UK became one of its 10 founding members, and from the outset it represented something profoundly British: a belief that democracy, human rights and the rule of law should not stop at our own shores; they are international values.

Of course, the Council’s crowning achievement is the European convention on human rights. For decades, the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces it, have protected the rights of millions, including our own citizens—defending free speech and fair trials, advancing equality for women, securing justice for our military veterans, the LGBT community and those with disabilities, and holding Governments of every colour to account.

Today, the Council of Europe, membership of which is predicated on ECHR adherence, helps us to combat terrorism, cyber-crime, corruption and money laundering, as well as human trafficking and other forms of organised crime, yet there are some in this House who would turn their back on that legacy and those instruments. They would align us with Russia, a nation expelled from the Council of Europe in 2022 after its unlawful invasion of our close ally Ukraine. Russia, our clearest adversary—that is the company that some would have us keep.

[Sarah Russell]

The only other country that has willingly left the ECHR is Greece, under the fascist military dictatorship in 1969. Of course, once the dictatorship was overthrown, it rejoined. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not company that we wish to be in?

[Dr Pinkerton]

It is truly shameful company for us to maintain, and there is nothing virtuous or patriotic about calling for our withdrawal.

Indeed, those calling for withdrawal, in pursuit of a single policy objective—ending illegal migration—should heed a deeper warning. In “A Man for All Seasons”, the playwright Robert Bolt, through the character of Sir Thomas More, observes of England:

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down…do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

If we cut down the laws that shield even the unpopular or the accused, we will soon find that there is no shelter left for any of us.

As authoritarianism rises and war returns to our continent, the Council’s role has never been more vital. Its expulsion of Russia was an act not of punishment, but of principle—a reminder that tyranny cannot co-exist with liberty. What becomes of Britain’s claim to moral leadership if we abandon the very human rights system we helped to build? What becomes of the rule of law, at home and abroad, if the United Kingdom decides that it no longer needs to be bound by it? Our rights—our particular British rights—have been formed over a millennium of conflict, struggle and reform. We surrender them at our peril.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes some incredibly powerful and strong points, with which I concur. She highlights the very serious consequences that could come were we to leave the ECHR.

Before I turn to some of the other specific points, I want to compliment the wider work of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly in expelling Russia following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, supporting Ukraine and seeking to hold Russia to account for the atrocities it has committed. I also compliment its work on the register of damage, the international claims commissions and the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine established under the auspices of the Council. Those, along with the activities that my hon. Friend just raised, all matter to the British public and to British public life.

Of course, the ECHR plays a crucial role in our constitutional framework. It is an important pillar of the devolution settlements, it underpins the guarantees in the Good Friday agreement, and it supports the safety and security of British citizens by facilitating cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The ECHR is often presented as some sort of foreign imposition that does nothing to help British people. That literally could not be further from the truth. It has contributed significantly to the protection and enforcement of human rights and equality standards in the UK. We are very proud that a Labour Government incorporated the ECHR into domestic law—that was, of course, a decision of Westminster—by introducing the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force 25 years ago last month.

The ECHR has had a massive impact. ECHR rulings in 1982 led to the end of corporal punishment in schools in the UK and to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. As has been referenced, in 1999, following a landmark case brought by two British servicepeople dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay, an ECHR ruling led to the law being changed to allow members of the armed forces to be open about their sexuality. Another very powerful example concerns the impact of the Hillsborough disaster, which the Prime Minister has done much to lead on in recent months. The families of the 97 who lost their lives relied on the ECHR’s right to life provision when they campaigned for the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) spoke powerfully in this debate, including about the case of John Warboys. The benefits are not just historical; they affect live and significant cases that affect British people today.

Last, I turn to the question of reform. The strength of the convention is that, while the ECHR explicitly safeguards those at risk of harm, exclusion or discrimination, helps ordinary people to challenge unfair laws, and pushes Governments to respect rights, it is also entirely reasonable and appropriate for Governments consistently to consider whether the law, including the ECHR, is evolving to meet modern-day challenges, including on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice. The ECHR was never designed to be set in stone and frozen forever in the time that it was created. That is why we are working with and engaging with European partners to look at ways in which reform can go forward, and why we are reviewing the way in which the ECHR is interpreted in UK domestic law.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not, because I want to give time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge to wind up.

We need to ensure that we retain public confidence in our policies related to the ECHR, so we must look at where we can reform and evolve. Last week, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe was clear that he was open to discuss potential changes or adaptations—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised that important point. Other Council of Europe member states share the UK’s view that the ECHR needs to evolve. We are talking to them about what might be possible, but we will not leave the ECHR. We recognise the hugely important role that it plays, and the hugely important role that the Council of Europe plays for people in this country. This is something that Britain was involved in at the start. It is not a foreign imposition; it plays an important role in the life of the British people. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.