ECHR must be reformed to restore ‘fraying' public confidence
Shabana Mahmood told the Council of Europe in a speech in Strasbourg the ECHR 'must evolve' to respond to new realities.
It comes as the Government also seeks to tighten the interpretation of the human rights laws in the UK.
On Wednesday, the Lord Chancellor said: 'Across Europe, public confidence in the rule of law is fraying
'There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.
'That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them.'
'This tension is not new. But in today's world, the threats to justice and liberty are more complex. They can come from technology, transnational crime, uncontrolled migration, or legal systems that drift away from public consent.'
Ms Mahmood told European ambassadors the UK was committed to the ECHR, but that was 'not the same as complacency'.
She added that when the application of rights 'begins to feel out of step with common sense', that is where trust begins to erode.
Her call for change comes as the Government plans to tighten the use of Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to private and family life, in immigration cases in the UK.
This includes cases involving foreign criminals.
Under the plans unveiled in the immigration White Paper last month, the Home Office will bring forward legislation to try to reduce the number of people claiming 'exceptional circumstances' under Article 8 to stay in the UK.
Ms Mahmood said: 'The right to family life is fundamental. But it has too often been used in ways that frustrate deportation, even where there are serious concerns about credibility, fairness, and risk to the public.
'We're bringing clarity back to the distinction between what the law protects and what policy permits.'
She also said judges cannot be asked to solve political problems and so reform must be a 'shared political endeavour' among member states.
The Lord Chancellor added: 'The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the great achievements of post-war politics. It has endured because it has evolved. Now, it must do so again.'
Following Ms Mahmood's speech, a No 10 spokesman said it should be for Parliament and the Government to decide who has the right to remain in the country.
'We want to ensure the right balance is made in migration cases in relation to the national interest,' the spokesman said.
The Lord Chancellor was making a broader point that 'now is the time for countries to work together to ensure the ECHR can evolve to meet the challenges facing modern democracies'.
But, he added: 'The Government has been clear that Britain will remain a member of the ECHR, it underpins key international agreements on trade, security, on migration, on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.'
A Tory spokesman said Kemi Badenoch had been clear that 'we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the supremacy of UK laws, and set a number of clear tests, including the deportation test, and made clear that if necessary, we would leave the ECHR'.
But responding to the speech Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said that any reform of the ECHR must 'shore up universal protections, not chip away at them'.
He said: 'If the UK starts picking and choosing who merits protection from torture, family separation or arbitrary removal, it will undermine not just its moral authority but the rule of law itself, weakening its hand when speaking out against rights abuses abroad.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
21 minutes ago
- The National
Scottish Labour is a fiction, nothing more than a branding
The SNP have urged Anas Sarwar to whip Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against the Government's planned benefits cuts, which the British Government's own analysis estimates will push 250,000 disabled and chronically ill people into poverty, including 50,000 children. However, disability rights campaign group Disability Rights UK, anti-poverty charity and think tank Trussel, and economics think tank WPI Economics all calculate that the Government's analysis significantly underestimates the number of disabled people who will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of these cuts. They believe that the true number is in excess of 400,000. Thousands of disabled people are expected to lose their entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main benefit for disabled people in England and Wales, under Labour's plan to change the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The plan will introduce a new eligibility requirement which will mean that only those who score a minimum of four points in at least one activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. To be eligible for PIP, claimants must score a minimum of eight points assessed on the help they need across a range of daily living activities such as food preparation, bathing and showering, toileting, dressing, eating, and taking medication. Many people make up the eight points by scoring one or two across different categories, but under the new plans only those scoring four in one category will be eligible. If a claimant does not score four in a single category, the points they score in other categories will be discounted. Note that this change does nothing to help disabled people into work, the stated aim of the Government's cuts; it merely reclassifies disabled people as no longer being disabled for the purposes of eligibility for PIP. The needs of disabled people remain the same. (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) One of the more pernicious effects of this change follows from the fact that PIP is a so-called passport benefit – eligibility for other benefits depends on eligibility for PIP. Carers Allowance is paid to those who care for a disabled person in receipt of PIP, or Attendance Allowance, its equivalent for retired people. If the disabled person loses their eligibility for PIP, eligibility for Carer's Allowance is lost too. Far from providing an incentive to the disabled person to find work, this will make it far more difficult for them to cope with daily living and far more difficult to get into work. Disability campaigners have warned that the cuts will not save the Government money as they will simply force disabled people, whose very real needs remain unchanged, to turn to other services such as the already over-stretched NHS and adult social services. Any politician with a social conscience or a basic understanding of disability should vigorously oppose these harmful and damaging cuts, but with the honourable exception of Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, Labour's Scottish contingent in Westminster are a supine bunch of careerists whose contribution to Commons debates consists of attacking the Scottish Government on devolved issues. Of course Anas Sarwar, the nominal leader of the Labour party in Scotland, should instruct Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against these cruel and counterproductive cuts, but he won't, because he too is a supine careerist, installed in his current job by the right wing of the Labour party precisely because he'd do Keir Starmer's bidding. Sarwar defends the cuts, because he believes what Starmer tells him to believe. But even if Sarwar finds a backbone and opposes the cuts, he has no authority over Labour's Scottish MPs in Westminster and no means of enforcing how they vote in the Commons. "Scottish Labour" is a political fiction, nothing more than a branding exercise. Labour MPs elected in Scotland are subject to the UK Labour whip. They do not constitute a cohesive voting bloc in the Commons. They are part and parcel of the UK Parliamentary Labour Party. Anas Sarwar couldn't whip up a cream cake, never mind Labour's Scottish MPs. At First Minister's Questions today, John Swinney tore into Sarwar's attacks on him as "the performance of a weak man" after asking two rather desultory questions about Alexander Dennis moving bus production to England and suggesting that Swinney's leadership was under threat. Sarwar accused Swinney of pressing the "big panic independence button" to "save his skin", after the First Minister made a speech on his desire for self-determination this week. (Image: Andrew Milligan) Swinney retorted: "Isn't it interesting that Mr Sarwar's interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted two questions and then he gets on to his usual posturing in this Parliament of little substance that is before us. Israel discovers war crimes Meanwhile, Israel has suddenly discovered that launching missiles into hospitals is a war crime after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva. Iranian state media has claimed that the missile targeted a military site next to the hospital and not the medical facility itself. Israel's deputy foreign affairs minister Sharren Haskel has called Iran's strike on the hospital "deliberate" and "criminal", while the Israeli health minister Uriel Buso said it was a war crime. But apparently, it's perfectly fine for Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza on the supposed grounds that they are targeting Hamas operations in or near the hospital.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Attorney General should not have a veto on military action
The role of the attorney general has always been a curious hybrid: part-jurist, part-politician. He is the government's foremost legal advisor but also a member of the political Cabinet. He is not one of the thousands of anonymous (and apolitical, at least on paper) Civil Service lawyers offering cautious legal guidance behind closed doors. No, the attorney general is, or ought to be, someone who understands the weight of democratic mandate, who sits at the Cabinet table not just to interpret the law but to help the elected government navigate it in service of the people's will. This role, by its nature, requires a certain dexterity: legal acumen, certainly, but also political courage. Some attorneys general have leaned heavily into the legal: aloof, abstracted, priestly. Others, more controversially, have seen their political duty as primary: a jurist who bends with the winds of popular sovereignty. I count myself unapologetically in the latter camp. I saw my role as AG as elected representative first, bound by my promise to the people and my party. My duty was to provide lawful pathways, not legalistic roadblocks, to implement the prime minister's democratic agenda. But what we have now in the present Attorney General is something quite different: a Whitehall legalist who appears to have mistaken his office for a courtroom and forgotten that he serves in Cabinet, not from chambers in Lincoln's Inn. He behaves not as the attorney to the Government but as a robed inquisitor, as a champion of international law in its most unrooted, abstract, and often contradictory form. This is not just about his conflicts with Cabinet colleagues. We're now in the territory of deliberate obstruction: policy sabotage masquerading as legal rectitude. From attempting to reshape the constitutional role of First Treasury Counsel by installing an ideological legal inner circle, to smearing those of us who are ECHR sceptics as 'Nazis ', he is transforming the Law Officers' Department into a vehicle for Left-wing judicial activism. The consequences are already dire. Most recently, it is reported that the Attorney General has moved to block Britain from joining the US in potential military action in Iran. This, allegedly, on legal grounds. Of course, the legal dimension matters. No serious person would argue otherwise. But law in this context is not absolute; it is interpretive. And when the Attorney General starts using legal advice as a veto on foreign policy, overriding the collective wisdom of Cabinet, the intelligence agencies, the military, and elected ministers, then the tail has started wagging the dog. To be clear, under international law, military force is permissible in narrow circumstances: UN Security Council authorisation, host-state consent, or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In 2018, we invoked the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to justify strikes in Syria. There is precedent, there is scope, and there is nuance. Looking at Iran's sustained aggression; its funding and arming of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and a constellation of Shiite militias across the region; its direct attacks on Israeli civilians and cities; its escalating nuclear programme with range capabilities stretching to the UK, it is entirely arguable that collective self-defence is not just viable, but urgent. And yet, we are told that the Attorney General finds this too fraught: too difficult. That under no circumstances could UK participation include striking Iran itself. This, while Iranian missiles crash into civilian neighbour-hoods, rockets rain down on hospitals and innocent Israelis are killed. It would be comic if it weren't so dangerous. To tie the hands of government in the face of tyranny is not moral clarity; it is moral cowardice dressed in judicial robes. This Attorney General is not elected. He, personally, holds no democratic mandate. Yet his advice – shaded, it seems, by a particular worldview that sees Western action as the problem and our enemies as misunderstood – is now shaping the limits of Britain's global standing. If the Prime Minister chooses to follow such counsel blindly, we risk becoming spectators to history rather than participants in its making. In moments of crisis, the question is not simply 'Is this legal?' but also 'Is this right, necessary, and proportionate?' Good legal advice answers all four questions, not just one in isolation. Right now, Britain's voice on the world stage is being stifled by a cautious legalism that views foreign policy through the rearview mirror. The Attorney General's role is not to moralise, but to advise. It is the Prime Minister who must decide. History will not forgive us for dithering while our allies act. Nor will it forgive those who mistook paralysis for principle. The attorney general is supposed to safeguard the law, not sanctify it at the expense of sovereignty, security, and strategic clarity. If this Attorney General cannot understand that, then perhaps he is in the wrong job.
STV News
an hour ago
- STV News
Minister announces £1bn in savings to be redirected to frontline services
The Scottish Government has launched a brand new public service reform strategy to make £1bn of savings in the next five years. Ivan McKee set out a range of reforms to Scotland's public sector on Thursday as he aims to make it efficient and fit for the future. He said spending from 'back office costs' will be cut by 20%, with the cash being redirected to frontline services. By 2029-30, the Government estimates this will amount to £1bn a year in savings, freeing up cash in areas such as the NHS. 'This will require every part of the public sector to reduce the cost of doing business to prioritise the frontline,' McKee said. 'The aim is to do things better, not do less.' McKee said the Scottish Government will achieve the savings through a combination of automation, digitisation, estate rationalisation, and workforce reform. Among the 80 actions set out in Mr McKee's reforms include changes to the culture of the public sector and those in charge of it. The number of public bodies will be reduced to drive a more efficient system alongside a new review of public sector buildings. The minister said the Government will embrace automation and new technology to digitise government. The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) criticised the strategy of 'missing the mark'. 'Whenever government ministers speak of public sector 'efficiencies', workers anxiously hold their breath,' said STUC general secretary Roz Foyer. 'These cuts, prepacked as reforms, miss the mark entirely. Simply put: you can't fix public services by cutting the very people who keep them running. Talk of reducing headcount while NHS waiting times spiral, A&E departments are overwhelmed and social care is in crisis is as reckless as it is illogical.' She said Scotland deserves public services that are properly funded, and 'not an overreliance on technology to plug staffing shortages'. 'The reality is that Scotland's fiscal future demands honesty and ambition. Instead of chasing cuts disguised as reform, ministers should be adopting progressive tax policies that can raise the revenue we need,' Ms Foyer said. 'Before racing ahead with changes, the Scottish Government must engage in serious dialogue with the trade union movement. We've been clear: we will not support any programme that threatens jobs, conditions or the quality of the services our communities rely on. That position remains the same.' The Tory shadow secretary for finance slammed the reforms as a 'wish-list of word soup that fails to mention waste once'. 'Despite the SNP saying we were reckless for proposing fully costed tax cuts worth £500m, they now claim they can save £1bn by merely slashing corporate functions,' MSP Craig Hoy said. 'There is still an astonishing lack of detail as to where these savings will be made, or what quangos will be axed. The public simply will not trust the SNP to suddenly tackle the enormous waste they have presided over.' Daniel Johnson, Scottish Labour's finance spokesman, said he welcomed the 'overall sentiment' but feared it amounted to 'a plan for a plan'. He said Thursday's statement was 'an acknowledgement that we have a billion pounds worth of waste'. He added: 'Reform, to my mind, is not about shrinking the state, but maximising its effectiveness and you cannot ignore the fact that over the past decade, the civil service has grown at three times the rate of the NHS, while police, fire and colleges' headcounts have all fallen.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
