debates/debates2025-11-11b conversation_1
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-11b conversation_1

Bob Blackman:What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform human rights laws. \p David Lammy: Mr Speaker, the whole House will know that I shall be making a statement shortly after this Question Time.

The Government are committed to human rights at home and abroad, but in order to retain public confidence, the European convention on human rights and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. Domestically, we will clarify how convention rights operate in immigration cases, and I am engaging across Europe on wider reform. \p Bob Blackman: The public are clearly frustrated that foreign criminals and people who come here illegally are not deported because human rights laws are used to prevent that from happening. I understand that the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, the present Home Secretary, is considering changing those laws, which might happen, but if that is the case, could the Lord Chancellor not accept the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor and put it into law so that we can get on with the job of deporting people who should not be here? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right; people are claiming the article 8 right in particular and using domestic law to thwart removal to their countries. That is why it is important for us to deal with that domestically, through legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that this Government are deporting more foreign criminals than have ever been deported before—over 5,000 just in our first year in office. We are taking this seriously and we are acting. \p Luke Akehurst: Because of our proud history and our commitment to the rule of law, the UK is a global leader in legal services, with our courts garnering respect across the world. What does the Lord Chancellor think would be the impact on our reputation should we begin ripping up our international agreements and our commitments to the very rule of law that we as a nation helped to shape? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that legal services, the rule of law and the importance of this jurisdiction for companies and individuals seeking recourse brings £47 billion a year into our economy. It is right for us to seek common cause with countries such as Denmark and Italy, which are, like us, exercised about how the European convention on human rights is being thwarted; but we do that in a steady, progressive way, and we certainly recognise the importance of the ECHR. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: I serve on the Council of Europe, which is a perfectly worthwhile assembly. The convention was framed shortly after the second world war and was designed to counter Nazism—it was not designed to protect illegal migrants entering a country. We all know that this crisis is sapping belief in government. Why does the very reasonable Justice Secretary not work with the even more reasonable shadow Justice Secretary, come before the House and say that we will get a temporary derogation from the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and that we will detain and deport anyone who enters this country illegally? That would solve the crisis. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman, who is hugely experienced, will know that it is important that we do not do anything that might, for example, undermine the Good Friday agreement, in respect of which the ECHR is fundamentally important. He rightly mentioned the refugee convention, which sits with the United Nations. I will be going to Strasbourg shortly, where I will be taking up many of these issues. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Perran Moon. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Mr Speaker. There are perhaps other unforeseen consequences of leaving the ECHR, including for the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that either the Opposition parties wishing to leave the ECHR have not considered the impact of leaving on Cornish national minority status, or they have but they just do not care about the Cornish? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend will know that, in relation to the debate that we had on exiting the European Union, all sorts of things were promised by many colleagues now on the Opposition Benches, but they were not delivered. It feels a little bit like we are on repeat in relation to this. There are areas of immigration where we have to do things domestically, and there are areas where we want to work with European colleagues—who are also concerned at the way that laws are being thwarted—but please let us not undermine a fundamental that was instituted by one of the heroes of this Parliament, Winston Churchill. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Robert Jenrick: Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the  Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself? \p David Lammy: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always keen to get headlines, but he knows that the consequences of judgments—their impacts on Government and any payments made—have been an issue for successive Governments for the entire time that he and I have been on the planet. He knows that we are committed to the ECHR—offering asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing torture and execution—but he knows, too, that we are seeking to work domestically and with European colleagues on the issues that I referred to earlier, and article 8 in particular. This is not the time to start revising decisions that have effectively been made by our courts.