Kemi Badenoch says ECHR now being used ‘to attack democratic decisions and common sense’
Kemi Badenoch is now giving her speech on the European court of human rights.
She starts by referring to two Rochdale grooming gang offenders who could not be deported to Pakistan because of the ECHR.
She goes on:
The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors. It should be a shield to protect. Instead, it’s become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense.
This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn’t just damaging our security, it’s also damaging our prosperity.
Key events
Badenoch suggests she wants to revive Rwanda plan
Q: Under your plan (see 11.19am), you would have to send illegal migrants to a third country. Would it be Rwanda?
Badenoch says she thinks the Rwanda plan should never have been scrapped.
Badenoch says she is opposed to Parthenon Marbles being returned to Greece, as report claims transfer plan agreed
Q: There are reports today the Parthenon Marbles will be returned to Greece. Would you support that?
Badenoch says she has not received those reports. She would like to see the details. But she goes on:
But I’ve never been someone who thought we should send the Elgin Marbles back.
Q: Are you saying you don’t believe the Council of Europe’s secretary general when he says reform of the ECHR might be possible? (See 11.15am.)
Badenoch says she read Alain Berset’s Times interview. She says Berset sounded like someone who had had his arm twisted. Previous attempts to reform the convention did not last. “So I’m not convinced,” she says.
She says, if the European court of human rights does reform over the next four years, that will be fine.
But she has to be prepared for that not happening, she says.
Q: Isn’t this too little, too late, given how well Reform is doing?
Badenoch rejects that. She says she has time to develop policy, and she says she is going to use that time properly.
What I want us to do is something serious and proper. Just going on TV and making noise is not governing. And quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing politicians make promises that they don’t know how to deliver.
Q: Is there a chance this review could end with you concluding that the UK should stay in the ECHR?
Badenoch says she does not want to announce that the UK will leave the ECHR without a plan. She says almost every member of her shadow cabinet has identified the convention as an obstacle to what they want to do.
Badenoch says Zia Yusuf’s resignation shows Reform ‘not a serious political party’
Q: Are you worried that it is too late to turn things around for the Conservative party?
Badenoch says that would be a fair question if there were an election next week. But the next election is four years away, she says.
And she says the Zia Yusuf resignation yesterday shows Reform “is not a serious political party”.
Badenoch plays down significance of Tories’ 6% vote in Hamilton byelection
Badenoch is now taking questions.
She downplays the Tory performance in the Hamilton byelection, saying the constituency is “not the place where the Conservative party fight back starts”.
She says Reform UK are showing they are a threat to all parties. She goes on:
We live in a very competitive political environment, and we have made it very clear that the situation has changed and we have to be different, and that is what my job is right now – to change the Conservative party to make sure we can fight in an era of multi party politics.
Badenoch announces 5 tests for EHCR policy review, to conclude by Tory conference.
Badenoch says she will not commit the Conservative party to ECHR withdrawal without a proper plan for what comes next.
She says Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, will lead the policy review looking at this.
He will apply five tests, she says.
1) The Deportation Test: Can we take back control of our asylum system? So Parliament — not international courts — decides who comes here and who stays. Can we lawfully remove foreign criminals and illegal migrants to their home country or elsewhere — even if they have family here or claim they could be at risk if sent home?
2) The Veterans Test: Can we stop our veterans being endlessly pursued by vexatious legal attacks? And can we make sure our military can fight a future war without one hand tied behind their backs?
3) The Fairness Test: Can we put British citizens first in social housing and in receiving scarce public services, because we believe charity begins at home and those who have paid in should come first, especially when resources are limited.
4) The Justice Test: Can we make sure that prison sentences actually reflect Parliament’s intentions? Can we stop the disruptive protests which block roads or emergency services without being told it’s ‘disproportionate.’
5) The Prosperity Test: Can we prevent courts pretending climate change is a human right? And how can we make sure we can prevent endless legal challenges for our infrastructure projects so we can actually get things built and control our planning system?
She says the review will conclude in time for the Tory conference in the autumn.
Badenoch says human rights law is also holding back the military.
Just before VE Day, I met a group of Chelsea pensioners. They talked about their former colleagues having to give evidence in old age and having to recall in minute detail events that happened 40 years before or risk prison.
Morale is suffering, and recruitment and retention are getting harder, just as we need to rebuild our military strength.
And it’s not just veterans. Soldiers on operations face legal challenge too. We cannot run the risk of our troops fighting a war with one hand tied behind their backs. We are going to fix this.
Badenoch says she is ‘increasingly of the view’ UK needs to leave ECHR
Badenoch says she is “increasingly of the view” that the UK will have to leave the ECHR.
I have thought long and hard about this, and I am increasingly of the view that we will need to leave, because I am yet to see a clear and coherent route to change within our current legal structures.
Some say reform is the answer, but I say we have tried that before. 15 years ago, the Brighton Process achieved some success, but the Strasbourg court has shown no real interest in fundamental change. It has rebuffed those European states calling for a new approach, and in its recent decisions – above on all climate change – it has shown ever greater willingness to invent new rights and directly overrule popular mandates.
But I won’t commit my party to leaving the ECHR or other treaties without a clear plan to do so and without a full understanding of all the consequences for all parts of our United Kingdom. Because we saw that holding a referendum without a plan to get Brexit done, led to years of wrangling and endless arguments until it got sorted in 2019. We cannot go through that again.
Badenoch says illegal immigrants should be removed immediately and banned from claiming asylum
Badenoch says illegal immigration is the best example of where “lawfare is destroying our country”.
I will always defend the support we gave people from Hong Kong and Ukraine, but we cannot become the destination for everyone looking for a new home or a better life.
Nor can we be the world’s softest touch. In some years, our approval rate for asylum applications was above 80% last year, Japan’s was 2%.
Britain is being mugged. Our asylum system is completely broken and will require a fundamental rebuild so that the British government, not people traffickers, control it.
That means a total end to asylum claims in this country by illegal immigrants and removing immediately all those who arrive illegally and try to claim asylum.
Badenoch says she does not believe suggestion from Council of Europe chief that ECHR could be changed
Badenoch says last month the leaders of nine European countries wrote to the Council of Europe, the body overseeing the ECHR, asking for changes to the way it operates. Alain Berset, the council’s secretary general, rejected this as political interference.
Badenoch acknowledges that Berset has now changed his line.
This is a reference to Berset telling the Times in an interview published today that he could see a case for change. Berset said:
We are witnessing a world where things are changing rapidly.
It is accelerating. We see this, and it means that it is normal that we must also adapt to this. We need adaptation. We need discussion about the rules that we want to have, and there is no taboo.
I see the necessity to adapt but we must also do this respecting our core values.
Badenoch says she intrepets this as meaning that in practice nothing will change.
Kemi Badenoch says ECHR now being used ‘to attack democratic decisions and common sense’
Kemi Badenoch is now giving her speech on the European court of human rights.
She starts by referring to two Rochdale grooming gang offenders who could not be deported to Pakistan because of the ECHR.
She goes on:
The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors. It should be a shield to protect. Instead, it’s become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense.
This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn’t just damaging our security, it’s also damaging our prosperity.
Tice defends Reform UK calling for debate on banning burqa, after proposal blamed for party chair’s resignation
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, has defended his party calling for a debate a debate on whether the burqa should be banned.
Yesterday Zia Yusuf, a Muslim multi-millionaire businessman, resigned as Reform’s chair. He had been in charge of professionalising the party – work that he seemed to be doing quite successfully – and his surprise decision to quit is seen as a blow to Nigel Farage. Here is Rowena Mason’s story about the resignation from last night.
In a post on social media, Yusuf did not give a full explanation for his decison to quit beyond saying he now longer believed “working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time”. But he announcement came about nine hours after he posted another message saying the decision of the party’s new MP, Sarah Pochin, to ask a question at PMQs implying that she favoured banning the burqa was “dumb”.
Banning the burqa is not officially Reform party policy. But Pochin implied it should be, and she was backed up by her fellow MP Lee Anderson who posted a message on social media on Wednesday saying:
Ban the burqa?
Yes we should.
No one should be allowed to hide their identity in public.
In an attempt to reconcile these various positions, Tice told the Today programme this morning that the party was in favour of this matter being debated. He said:
I think it is right that we should have a debate about whether or not the burqa is appropriate in a nation that’s founded in Christianity, where womenare equal citizens and should not be viewed as second-class citizens.
What’s interesting is lots of people are trying to sort label us and say, ‘You shouldn’t have this debate, it’s naughty of you to ask’. Why shouldn’t we? If we’re a great democracy that believes in free speech, let’s have a calm and respectful debate. Most people wouldn’t be aware that seven or eight nations across Europe have already banned the burqa. So let’s have a discussion. Let’s have a debate.
Asked if he was minded to support a ban, Tice said that he was concerned about the idea the burqa was a “repressive item of clothing”.
When Anna Foster, the presenter, put it to him that she had spoken to many women who want to wear the burqa, and that banning it would take away that choice, Tice claimed that was why a debate was needed.
Asked about Yusuf’s resignation, Tice he said he had not spoken to him since the announcement but that he was “enormously sad” he had gone.
The Hamilton byelection result shows that there is strong support for progressive politics in Scotland, according to Stephen Boyd, director of IPPR Scotland, a left-of-centre thinktank. He said:
Two thirds of votes cast went to progressive parties, while a quarter voted for a party promising to shake up the political establishment.
Scottish politicians should take heart that voters want a fairer, greener future, but must also recognise the work now needed to set out a compelling and positive vision for how to get there.
This should include a much bolder agenda to address persistent concerns around the cost of living, public services, poverty and housing- issues that help explain Reform’s momentum.
Far from being a defensive contest mired in negativity, the 2026 election is a battle for the high ground.
