Downing Street ‘welcomes' ECHR debate as Badenoch launches exit probe
A Number 10 spokesman said on Friday it is 'important' there is discussion on how the system works, after Alain Berset, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said in a rare interview there should be 'no taboo' about changing the rules of the agreement.
It comes as Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the ECHR had become a 'sword used to attack democratic decisions' and launched a review into whether she would commit to leaving the agreement.
Asked about Mr Berset's remarks, a Number 10 spokesman said on Friday: 'Border security is vital to national security, and we welcome efforts to ensure the European Convention on Human Rights is being applied correctly and allowing countries to protect their borders.
'It's important there is discussion on how the ECHR operates to ensure it can safeguard human rights while meeting the needs of democracies. The Prime Minister has been clear on this, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration and government that makes the policy.'
On Friday, Mrs Badenoch announced a review to be spearheaded by her shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson, to look into whether the UK should withdraw from the treaty which underpins human rights law.
'The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors,' she told a Westminster event.
'It should be a shield to protect, instead, it's become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense.
'This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn't just damaging our security, it's also damaging our prosperity.'
She said she was tasking her shadow minister Lord Wolfson with examining 'what the unintended consequences might be' if the UK were to leave the ECHR.
'Because it is clear that the ECHR is a major issue, I'm not asking Lord Wolfson if we should leave, that's a political not a legal question,' she said.
'I'm asking him to set out how we would leave and to consider what the unintended consequences might be, not least in Northern Ireland, if we decide to go down this route, we must do so knowingly.'
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp suggested earlier on Friday that the ECHR could not be reformed.
He told the BBC: 'I don't really take that very seriously. There have been previous attempts to do it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves can raise taxes as much as she likes, but it won't bring in any more money
The IMF has warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that she must make tough choices to cut the UK's deficit, potentially including some combination of raising taxes on working people, abandoning the pensions triple lock or charging for the NHS. The first of these options – raising taxes – is considered politically the most likely. After all, Labour MPs didn't even agree to cuts to winter fuel payments. It's impossible to imagine them agreeing to cut the NHS, and abandoning the triple lock seems like political suicide. Yet it's highly doubtful whether raising tax rates further will produce any more tax revenue out of the UK economy. Even as matters stand, taxes are scheduled to go higher than they've ever been since World War II, and to be around 37½ percent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament. But that considerably understates the situation. Prior to 2021/22 they'd only ever once been above 35 percent of GDP since the 1950s, in 1969/70, and then for only one year before falling back sharply. Thereafter, until the 2020s, it was rare for them to be above 33½ per cent of GDP. We aren't merely at a record. We are at an out-of-the-park record scheduled to be sustained for an absolutely unprecedented period of time. The chances of the UK economy delivering even the tax levels already scheduled are slim, let alone imagining taxes could be raised a lot further. Yet despite these astonishing record-high taxes, the economy is still running a large deficit of over 5 per cent of GDP. Remember the 'Maastricht Convergence Criteria' requiring budget deficits to be no higher than 3 per cent of GDP? Well, we're way above that. When the deficit exceeded 6 per cent of GDP in the 1990s we had a significant fiscal consolidation under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke. Yet at that time the UK's national debt was under 40 per cent of GDP. Now it's over 100 per cent. Our situation is way worse than it was in the early 1990s. We need a fiscal consolidation to address that 5 per cent deficit. But the current thinking appears to be that all of that deficit cut will come from tax rises. Indeed, possibly more than all of it, because spending will probably go up further. To balance the books we'd need to rise from that record 37½ per cent of GDP spending to over 42½ per cent. Add in a percentage point for further spending rises and we'd be over 43½ per cent or fully 10 percentage points of tax higher than the UK has ever produced on a sustained basis in well over 80 years. One key reason tax takes top out at some point relative to GDP is that they destroy growth. Over the long-term having a high share of tax in GDP damages long-term growth – each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent – which in the UK's case would mean reducing its sustainable growth rate to zero. In the short-term, raising taxes often triggers recessions, bringing down tax revenues. That loss of tax revenues as growth peters out, or outright recession ensues, means that tax-based fiscal consolidations typically don't work. If you have a high deficit, raising taxes is almost never a way to cut that deficit – even if it were a Good Thing to have higher tax in itself, it simply doesn't work in that situation. The normal advice the IMF and similar bodies used to provide in fiscal consolidations was that they should be predominantly spending cuts-based. The IMF often used a rule of thumb of about two thirds spending cuts to one third tax rises. The EU used much the same rule of thumb in the Eurozone crisis era austerity programmes. However, the most successful consolidations – the ones where the deficit falls and stays down, with debt dropping away relative to GDP over time – tend to have higher ratios of spending cuts, of around 75 to 80 per cent to 20 to 25 per cent tax rises. We need at least that ratio in the UK now, if not higher. But that is not what Labour backbench MPs will ever agree to.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tens of thousands at risk of poverty despite Labour's benefit U-turn, MPs warn
About 50,000 people who become disabled or chronically ill will be pushed into poverty by the end of the decade because of cuts to incapacity benefit, despite ministers dropping the bulk of its welfare reform plans, MPs have warned. The work and pensions select committee report welcomed ministers' decision earlier this month to drop some of the most controversial aspects of its disability reforms in the face of a parliamentary revolt by over 100 Labour backbenchers. These included the wholesale scrapping of proposed major changes to personal independence payment (Pip) eligibility that would have seen around 800,000 people no longer qualifying for the benefit by the end of the decade. The government also ditched plans to freeze the value of the incapacity element of universal credit for existing claimants, affecting over 2m people by 2029-30, though it kept in place proposals to half the weekly rate for new claimants. Labour had 'in the end' made the right decision, the committee said in a report. But it reiterated calls for the remaining planned cuts to universal credit to be delayed until their impact on poverty, health and jobs were fully understood. Ministers been left badly bruised by the enforced gutting of its bill, which was intended to save £5bn a year by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, admitted subsequently that No 10 'didn't get the process right'. Although all existing universal credit claimants and new claimants with severe or terminal conditions will now be protected, from next year other claimants with limited health capacity for work will see monthly awards cut from £423.27 to £217.26. The committee chair, Labour's Debbie Abrahams, said, 'We welcome the concessions that the government made to the niversal Credit bill; but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.' Abrahams said that on the government's own analysis approximately 50,000 people who claim universal credit from next April after developing a health condition or becoming disabled will be plunged into poverty by 2030 as a result of cuts. 'We recommend delaying the cuts to the universal credit health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise,' she said. 'We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants,' added Abrahams The report also urged ministers to drop plans – currently out for consultation – to prevent young people aged 18-22 from claiming incapacity benefit. 'We share the minister's concern about young people being trapped in economic inactivity before their working lives have even begun, but we do not see why this means they should lose entitlement to universal credit health,' the report said. The cross-party committee welcomed the government's plans to review the much-criticised Pip assessment process, which it said was in 'desperate need of reform.' It applauded ministers promise to 'co-produce' the review with disabled people. A government spokesperson said: 'Our welfare reforms will support those who can work into jobs and ensure there is always a safety net for those that need it. The impact assessment shows our reforms will lift 50,000 children out of poverty – and our additional employment support will lift even more families out of poverty. 'The reforms will rebalance Universal Credit rates to reduce the perverse incentives that trap people out of work, alongside genuinely helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into good, secure work – backed by £3.8bn in employment support over this parliament.'
Sky News
30 minutes ago
- Sky News
Send us your Ukraine war questions for Professor Michael Clarke
Military analyst Professor Michael Clarke answers your questions on the Ukraine war live at 2pm today. Send us yours in the form below.
