Lawfare – where litigation is being used as a political weapon to attack democracy and deny common sense – is now firmly in the glare of the public eye. As the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) marks its 75th anniversary, it is very clear it is now being used in significant ways that its original authors never intended.
When Britain signed up to the ECHR in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Convention’s aim was a noble one: to protect basic liberties from despotic regimes within Europe and prevent tyranny from returning. Yet over time the ECHR has expanded and transformed into something very different: a supranational instrument by which domestic legislation, much of which was never imagined to lie within its scope, can be suspended, diluted or blocked outright. The Court’s judgements regularly overreach and calls for reform continue to fall on deaf ears. In fact, the Court in Strasbourg continues to show it is inclined to take a more, not less extensive view of the rights the Convention protects, and of those who may litigate those rights.
Time and again, in recent years and recent judgements, we have seen cases where foreign rapists or paedophiles cannot be deported, where critical infrastructure is endlessly delayed by spurious legal challenges, and where our brave veterans are repeatedly harassed through the courts. It is this judge-made law which puts allegiance to the rhetoric of universal human rights law above the negative real-life impacts on our national interest and our citizens which has prompted many to conclude we must part ways with the ECHR.
The country wants a government that can deliver. Time and again, they have been disappointed and we were thwarted. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General and an experienced barrister, to lead a commission into tackling this lawfare.
We set out five key tests that would ensure a future Conservative Government had the means to actually govern and deliver change. First, the Government must be able to control our borders and remove those with no right to stay. Second, our veterans should be shielded from vexatious legal pursuit decades after their service. Third, British citizens should have priority in access to public services. Fourth, the decisions of Parliament should be respected, in relation to prison sentences and other controversial legislation. And fifth, the system of planning and funding infrastructure should not be paralysed by excessive and vexatious litigation.
After a thorough legal analysis, Lord Wolfson concluded that all five tests are “significantly constrained” by our membership of the ECHR. Quite simply, as long as we remain in the ECHR, we cannot make our own laws and govern ourselves properly.
Therefore, we are determined a future Conservative Government will leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act on immigration-related matters. Both are necessary to protect our country’s borders and remove those with no right to stay, including foreign national offenders. At the same time, we would continue to protect human rights in a way that is faithful to our democratic heritage. Our common law inheritance gives this country one of the best human rights records in the world, a heritage that predates the ECHR by many centuries so I do reject the view that leaving the ECHR would impact on human rights at home.
Our tradition of liberty under law stretches far back in time – to before the Bills of Rights and Magna Carta. Britain has the best legal system in the world; we must defend it, not see it abused or distorted through legal activism. Our courts are well able to protect those rights without a codified body of international rights. Other common law jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have never signed the ECHR, yet their political systems function effectively, their rights are respected, and their parliaments remain sovereign. There is no reason why Britain cannot recover that status.
Lord Wolfson’s legal advice indicates that alternative options to leaving the ECHR, such as re-negotiation, derogation or repealing only the Human Rights Act, are either unrealistic or ineffective. He was also clear that withdrawal would not breach the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement or the Windsor Framework.
Of course, I do recognise leaving will be a complex and challenging process involving all areas of government, and our international relations. That is why my party will be undertaking detailed work to ensure our exit is carried out in an orderly and respectful way.
While I recognise these are bold changes, effective politics depends on the democratically elected Parliament’s ability to make laws and see them carried through. When that ability is lost - when lawfare allows responsibility to become blurred and outsourced - accountability collapses, and trust in governments evaporate. We need to restore a proper balance between political accountability and judicial oversight. We must prove democracy still works.
I was therefore pleased to support Mr Farage’s cross-party 10 Minute Motion ECHR (Withdrawal) on the 29th of October which is both our firmly held Party position and in the national interest.
I have provided the link to the 10-Minute Rule Bill on the European Convention on Human Rights put forward by Mr Farage on the 29th of October 2025 here:
European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) - Hansard - UK Parliament
Unsurprisingly, it was voted down by a coalition of Greens, Liberal Democrats, some Labour, Independents and other MPs. I was interested to see Labour MPs were being whipped (asked to follow the party line) to abstain from the vote on leaving the ECHR but 63 defied the Leadership and voted against the motion.
I would also like to say I found the continual loud heckling from the Liberal Democrats particularly, even as the Bill’s main sponsor was trying to speak, too much and I’m sure had the boot been on the other foot, they would have complained, also loudly, of uncivil behaviour in the House.
