Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Human Rights Act 1998: Immigration

Monday 15 September 2025 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Department has assessed the potential merits of disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 to immigration matters.
  • The Government plans to legislate to limit the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to address deportation issues.
  • The Minister dismissed criticism that the Government is merely tinkering with the edges of human rights legislation, asserting a more comprehensive approach.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Andrew Snowden Con Fylde
Immigration Standards & Ethics
Context

The MP questions the balance between human rights protections for illegal migrants and public interest in addressing illegal migration.

Question

What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 to immigration matters. Every new appointment comes with an opportunity to take a fresh look at these matters. Clearly, since the 1950s when the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights were first written, the world has changed significantly. Successive Governments have tweaked various bits, working with partners, but does she agree that if we are to stop the small boats that are crossing the channel and illegal migration, the Government will need a more wholesale change?

Answer from The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)

Clearly the balance between the human rights of illegal migrants and the wider public interest is out of kilter. This Government will legislate to limit the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to a family life. This will mean that we can deport and remove more illegal migrants, and we will pursue international reform, too. In my previous role, I was already involved in conversations with other member states of the Council of Europe, and this Government will continue that work.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Chris Philp Con Croydon South
Immigration Standards & Ethics
Context

The MP challenges the Home Secretary's approach to human rights legislation, citing an Attorney General's statement that ECHR reform is a 'political trick'. The MP argues for fundamental change.

Question

When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?

Answer from Shabana Mahmood

After that performance, I have to confess that I find myself rather missing the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The shadow Minister says that we are tinkering at the edges. He could not be more wrong; we have a proper plan for looking at legislative reform. But tinkering at the edges would have been fantastic under the Conservatives, because their track record is that they did nothing—sod all—in 14 years. Suddenly, they have found their reforming instincts now that they are in opposition.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The Home Secretary criticizes the previous government's lack of action rather than directly addressing the need for radical change or supporting Conservative plans.

How: Criticizing The Previous Government

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)