Labour will consider "robust" changes to the way British courts interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the attorney general told members of the House of Lords on Wednesday, saying a Home Office review would examine how Article 8 — the right to respect for private and family life — is being used in immigration and deportation decisions.
Lord Richard Hermer KC told the Lords Constitution Committee that Strasbourg case law had become more permissive in recent years and afforded states a wide "margin of appreciation" in asylum and immigration matters. He said the review would look at caseworker guidance, immigration rules, primary legislation and the government's litigation strategy, adding that ministers were "kicking the tyres hard at every level."
Hermer's comments come amid political pressure from parties and former ministers who argue the ECHR is being used by some foreign nationals to frustrate deportation. The Reform UK party has said it would leave the convention to make deportations easier, and the Conservatives have signalled support for similar moves. Former Labour home secretaries Jack Straw and Lord Blunkett have also urged the UK to "decouple" from the treaty.
Despite those calls, Hermer insisted the prime minister had been "absolutely crystal clear" that the UK will not leave the ECHR, saying withdrawal would be "completely contrary to the national interest." He rejected analysis by the Policy Exchange think-tank that leaving the convention would not breach the Good Friday Agreement, calling that view incorrect and warning that exit would risk breaching international obligations and harm Northern Ireland.
Hermer said the review is intended to ensure domestic law and practice have kept pace with developments in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence over the past five or six years. He told peers that some Council of Europe members had mechanisms that were both compliant with Article 8 and more effective in dealing with immigration issues, and suggested the UK should study those approaches.
The attorney general also said the government would pursue a "very proactive litigation strategy" as part of its examination of how Article 8 is applied. He acknowledged past controversy, saying he had apologised in May after likening criticism of the ECHR to conditions in 1930s Germany.
Members of the committee and media reports pointed to a number of high-profile cases in which Article 8 has been invoked to resist deportation orders. Those cases include a man in his 70s, reported as a heroin dealer, who successfully argued deportation to Turkey would breach his family life rights; and Fatmir Bleta, who fled Albania in 1998 after being accused of a shooting, later sought asylum in the UK claiming to be Kosovan, and was subsequently naturalised. Bleta was convicted in relation to passport fraud and other dishonesty offences and served further prison sentences; attempts by the Home Office to deport him were resisted on the basis that removal would be disproportionately harsh on his wife and four children, who joined him in the UK.
Hermer stressed that any changes under consideration would focus on interpretation and application of the convention within the UK legal framework rather than withdrawing from the ECHR itself. He said the government must balance protecting the public and the integrity of the immigration system with the country's international legal obligations.
The attorney general's remarks are likely to intensify debate across Westminster about the future interaction between domestic immigration policies and human rights protections. Parliamentarians and legal groups have previously urged caution, noting that Article 8 covers a broad range of family and private life claims and that changes to interpretation could have wide-ranging effects on settled rights and international commitments.
The Home Office review has not published a timetable for proposed changes, and ministers have yet to set out detailed legislative measures. Lawmakers on both sides of the Commons said they would watch the review closely as the government develops its approach to cases where human rights arguments are used in deportation challenges.