Human Rights Must Protect the Public Too

Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to protect fundamental human rights but it also has a responsibility to maintain secure borders, operate a fair immigration system and ensure that laws passed by a democratically elected Parliament can be implemented effectively. Increasingly, many people believe those responsibilities are coming into conflict, raising an important constitutional question about where the balance should lie between parliamentary sovereignty and the courts’ role in applying human rights law.

A recent case that has reignited that debate involved a British citizen originally from Gaza who successfully challenged the Home Office’s refusal to allow 17 members of her extended family to enter the UK. The family, including parents, siblings, their spouses and children, argued that refusing entry would disproportionately interfere with their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act. Every case turns on its own facts and this is not a criticism of that family. However, the case has become a focal point in the wider debate about how human rights law increasingly shapes immigration decisions.

It is cases such as this that have led the Conservative Party, under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership, to conclude that Britain should leave the European Convention on Human Rights and replace it with a British framework for rights.

This is not an argument against human rights. Britain has a proud history of defending liberty, justice and the rule of law long before the ECHR existed. The real question is whether decisions about our borders, our security and our immigration system should ultimately be determined by the British Parliament, accountable to the British people, or by a legal framework that allows the courts to reshape how immigration laws are applied.

Although this is a national issue, its consequences are felt in communities across the country, including here in BCP. We have seen the continued use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers and the understandable concerns this has raised about pressure on public services, housing, healthcare, policing and community confidence. Whatever your views on immigration, decisions made nationally have real consequences for local communities.

Britain should always offer sanctuary to those who genuinely need protection. That is something I firmly believe but we must also have an immigration system that is fair, sustainable and commands public confidence. That confidence is weakened when people believe decisions are being driven more by legal interpretation than by immigration policy approved by Parliament.

Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. Governments are elected on promises to strengthen border security and reform the immigration system. Yet many of those policies are challenged through human rights law, leaving people to question whether elected governments can fully deliver the policies they were given a democratic mandate to implement.

Leaving the ECHR does not mean abandoning human rights. It means restoring democratic accountability. It means ensuring that rights are balanced with responsibilities, that public safety and the national interest are given proper weight and that decisions affecting the UK are ultimately made in the UK. Human rights should protect people from injustice but they should not leave the public feeling that Parliament no longer has the final say over who is entitled to settle in this country.

Whether you agree or disagree with this particular judgment, it raises a fundamental constitutional question, who should decide Britain’s immigration policy? Judges applying Article 8 rights in individual cases, or an elected Parliament accountable to the British people?

For me, the answer is clear. Britain can remain a compassionate nation, continue to uphold fundamental rights and protect those fleeing genuine persecution while also restoring democratic control over immigration. A sovereign Parliament should be able to make immigration law and governments elected by the British people should be able to implement it. That is why I believe it is time to replace the current framework with a British system of rights that protects individual freedoms while restoring parliamentary sovereignty and public confidence.Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to protect fundamental human rights but it also has a responsibility to maintain secure borders, operate a fair immigration system and ensure that laws passed by a democratically elected Parliament can be implemented effectively. Increasingly, many people believe those responsibilities are coming into conflict, raising an important constitutional question about where the balance should lie between parliamentary sovereignty and the courts’ role in applying human rights law.

A recent case that has reignited that debate involved a British citizen originally from Gaza who successfully challenged the Home Office’s refusal to allow 17 members of her extended family to enter the UK. The family, including parents, siblings, their spouses and children, argued that refusing entry would disproportionately interfere with their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act. Every case turns on its own facts and this is not a criticism of that family. However, the case has become a focal point in the wider debate about how human rights law increasingly shapes immigration decisions.

It is cases such as this that have led the Conservative Party, under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership, to conclude that Britain should leave the European Convention on Human Rights and replace it with a British framework for rights.

This is not an argument against human rights. Britain has a proud history of defending liberty, justice and the rule of law long before the ECHR existed. The real question is whether decisions about our borders, our security and our immigration system should ultimately be determined by the British Parliament, accountable to the British people, or by a legal framework that allows the courts to reshape how immigration laws are applied.

Although this is a national issue, its consequences are felt in communities across the country, including here in BCP. We have seen the continued use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers and the understandable concerns this has raised about pressure on public services, housing, healthcare, policing and community confidence. Whatever your views on immigration, decisions made nationally have real consequences for local communities.

Britain should always offer sanctuary to those who genuinely need protection. That is something I firmly believe but we must also have an immigration system that is fair, sustainable and commands public confidence. That confidence is weakened when people believe decisions are being driven more by legal interpretation than by immigration policy approved by Parliament.

Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. Governments are elected on promises to strengthen border security and reform the immigration system. Yet many of those policies are challenged through human rights law, leaving people to question whether elected governments can fully deliver the policies they were given a democratic mandate to implement.

Leaving the ECHR does not mean abandoning human rights. It means restoring democratic accountability. It means ensuring that rights are balanced with responsibilities, that public safety and the national interest are given proper weight and that decisions affecting the UK are ultimately made in the UK. Human rights should protect people from injustice but they should not leave the public feeling that Parliament no longer has the final say over who is entitled to settle in this country.

Whether you agree or disagree with this particular judgment, it raises a fundamental constitutional question, who should decide Britain’s immigration policy? Judges applying Article 8 rights in individual cases, or an elected Parliament accountable to the British people?

For me, the answer is clear. Britain can remain a compassionate nation, continue to uphold fundamental rights and protect those fleeing genuine persecution while also restoring democratic control over immigration. A sovereign Parliament should be able to make immigration law and governments elected by the British people should be able to implement it. That is why I believe it is time to replace the current framework with a British system of rights that protects individual freedoms while restoring parliamentary sovereignty and public confidence.

Written by Jo Keeling