Labour Divided On ECHR As Party Grandees Push For Migration Reform

Senior figures within the Labour Party are intensifying calls for urgent reform of the European Convention on Human Rights in response to the ongoing migration crisis. Jo White, leader of the influential Red Wall caucus of over 40 Labour MPs, has publicly voiced that the ECHR, established more than six decades ago, requires a comprehensive review in order to adapt to contemporary challenges posed by illegal migration and asylum claims.

The pressure on Sir Keir Starmer comes after notable interventions from key party veterans. Jack Straw, former home secretary and architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, has suggested that Britain should consider “decoupling” domestic law from the ECHR, claiming that UK courts are interpreting the Act as a directive to follow, rather than simply to take account of, ECHR judgments. Straw argues this judicial stance has led to a legal climate where deportations of illegal migrants and convicted foreign criminals are excessively constrained, contrary to the original aims of the Convention’s drafters in the postwar period.

Lord Blunkett, another former home secretary, has gone so far as to advocate for the suspension of the ECHR to provide breathing space for tackling the backlog of asylum seekers, amid public discontent over more than 32,000 migrants currently housed in hotels. Labour backbencher Graham Stringer has similarly declared the ECHR unfit for its current purpose, even proposing temporary withdrawal if necessary.

While senior Labour voices debate radical change, Starmer remains committed to respecting international legal frameworks. His official spokesperson has underscored that the ECHR underpins key international agreements—including the Good Friday Agreement—warns that leaving or suspending the treaty could align the UK with countries such as Russia and Belarus, potentially jeopardising both trading relationships and security cooperation.

Despite this official line, policy work is underway. Yvette Cooper, the current Home Secretary, is leading an effort to draft legislative amendments to limit judicial use of ECHR Articles 3 and 8, which protect the rights to a family life and against persecution and are regularly cited in appeals against deportation. These reforms aim to prevent further abuses of the legal system by rejected asylum seekers keen to delay removal from the country.

The debate has opened sharp ideological divides not just within Labour but also across the political spectrum. Nigel Farage has promised his Reform party would withdraw from the ECHR entirely to facilitate the deportation of up to 600,000 illegal migrants. Simultaneously, Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch has commissioned a review into the practicalities of leaving the Convention should current approaches prove inadequate.

The fate of the ECHR’s role in Britain’s migration policy now hangs in the balance, as both the financial and political costs of the status quo intensify. Investors and international partners alike are watching closely as the question becomes not whether reform will happen, but how fundamental such change is likely to be.