Prime Minister Keir Starmer edited a 1999 guide to interpreting the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a copy of which has been obtained by media outlets, as ministers face renewed scrutiny over legal barriers to deporting people who cross the Channel in small boats.
The disclosure comes as the government’s attorney general, Lord Richard Hermer KC, told peers on the House of Lords Constitution Committee that ministers will not withdraw the United Kingdom from the ECHR and that doing so would be "entirely counterproductive" to efforts to tackle illegal migration. Lord Hermer also said a Home Office review will examine how Article 8 of the convention — the right to respect for private and family life — is applied in UK courts and argued that states enjoy an "enormous margin of appreciation" on immigration matters.
The manual, prepared when Sir Keir was a human rights lawyer, includes passages praising the Human Rights Act as a "new way of thinking about law, politics and the relationship between public authorities and individuals," and stating: "Its potential is enormous; its effectiveness depends on the combined willingness of all of us to approach decision-making from a human rights perspective." The passage has been cited by opposition figures and critics who say the act and the ECHR constrain government action on immigration.
Lord Hermer rejected proposals from some Conservative and right-wing politicians to leave the ECHR, saying the UK would become more like countries such as Russia or Belarus if it quit the convention and international agreements that limit sending people to states where they face a real risk of torture or death. He told peers that ministers would "leave no stone unturned" in addressing illegal migration but that withdrawal from the convention would be "completely contrary to the national interest".
The comments came amid debates over recent Channel crossings, which have continued to provoke political pressure. French authorities reported that two children were among three people who died in the English Channel overnight in a recent incident, underscoring the humanitarian risks that accompany small-boat migration.
Those advocating withdrawal argue that ECHR jurisprudence and domestic human rights law constrain the government’s ability to remove migrants to third countries. Conservative former home secretary Suella Braverman, together with former Cabinet minister Lord Frost and Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice, is set to publish what they describe as a comprehensive legal, diplomatic and political plan for leaving the ECHR. Their document, according to the organisers, will outline how the UK could quit the convention while protecting veterans, securing borders, revising elements of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and abolishing the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements they call the Irish Sea border.
The report’s framers say the ECHR has "mutated from a shield against tyranny into a sword against sovereignty," claiming it is used to frustrate democratic government and impede policymaking on sensitive issues including border control. Lord Hermer dismissed as "just wrong" the suggestion that the Belfast Agreement could remain unchanged if the UK left the ECHR, saying the legal implications of withdrawal would be complex for peace‑process arrangements.
Opposition voices seized on the contents of the Starmer‑edited manual. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the prime minister had been a key figure in establishing the Human Rights Act and the ECHR as dominant forces in British law, and accused him of having written a "how‑to" manual for using human rights protections. Conservative justice spokesman Robert Jenrick described small-boat crossings as a "national security emergency" and criticised the attorney general for blocking what he called "bold action".
Lord Hermer told the committee that while ministers are examining the domestic application of Article 8, leaving the ECHR would undercut the UK’s ability to cooperate with European partners on migration. He argued practical, cooperative measures with European states would be hampered by withdrawal and that legal compliance with international obligations is necessary to pursue effective returns and relocation arrangements.
The dispute illustrates wider tensions in British politics between the rule-of-law obligations that bind the UK and the political imperative to reduce irregular migration. Since the Human Rights Act incorporated much ECHR jurisprudence into domestic law, successive governments have clashed with courts and international bodies over the scope of protections such as the right to family life and the prohibition on returning someone to a country where they face a real risk of ill‑treatment.
Starmer’s earlier work as a human rights lawyer has been scrutinised in recent days because ministers and critics are seeking legal and political ways to limit judicial or treaty constraints on deportation and removal policies. Government ministers have repeatedly said they are seeking reforms to human rights application and are reviewing operational and legal options, but Lord Hermer’s comments indicate that full withdrawal from the ECHR is not on the current agenda.
Legal and diplomatic challenges would follow any attempt to leave the convention, according to lawyers and former officials, particularly given the UK’s wider treaty commitments and the role of the ECHR in northern Ireland’s peace arrangements. Any reform of domestic human rights law or the convention’s domestic effect would also raise questions about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the mechanisms by which the UK would maintain international obligations while seeking to alter domestic remedies.
The government has not indicated an imminent legislative change to the Human Rights Act, and Downing Street has declined to comment beyond reiterating that ministers are pursuing measures to strengthen border security within existing legal frameworks. Campaigners for migrants’ rights, legal organisations and human rights groups have urged that any changes respect the UK’s international obligations and protect vulnerable people fleeing persecution.
The resurfacing of Sir Keir’s manual has intensified political argument at a sensitive moment for the government, which faces pressure to demonstrate progress on migration while navigating legal constraints and international relationships that shape how returns and removals can be carried out.