Secure borders are essential to keep our country safe

Steve Barclay

January 14, 2025.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, so says the oft-used, if likely misattributed, quotation. Yet this encapsulates what we’ve been doing in respect of the laws that have stopped tough action on small boat arrivals and deporting foreign criminals. We now need to be bold and admit that it’s time the UK left the European Convention on Human Rights.

Since small-boat arrivals began being recorded in 2018, over 150,000 people have crossed the channel in this way – that’s the equivalent of a city the size of Cambridge. And it is getting worse – numbers have surged by nearly a third since Labour came to power. After six months of this Labour Government, it is clear that it has no credible plan to tackle small boats or to drive through the changes needed to deliver deportations of foreign criminals at the scale or speed needed.

Secure borders are essential to keep our country safe, as is the ability to deport dangerous foreign criminals. Rightly, the public wants to see action. Boris Johnson’s pledge to “stop the boats” was one of the key drivers behind his 2019 landslide election victory. Yet time and time again, it is the ECHR that has frustrated the progress of democratically elected governments to deliver on their pledges to the British people.

Illegal migrants commonly use arguments under the ECHR, such as the “right to family life” to stay in the UK. The same is true of foreign criminals, including those convicted of the most serious crimes like murder, sexual offences and drug dealing, who routinely use ECHR arguments to avoid deportation.

The ECHR was also one of the central blockers to getting the Rwanda plan up and running, which as well as facilitating removals, had the potential to serve as an effective deterrent to prevent people from making a dangerous journey to the UK when they are already in a safe third country.

While in the Cabinet as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I authored a paper for the then prime minister recommending that leaving the ECHR was the only certain way to tackle small boats – but it was felt too many then Cabinet colleagues were opposed. This meant in government we weren’t bold enough to commit to leave as I had advised. Instead, we sought incremental improvements elsewhere. While welcome, they simply couldn’t deliver the fundamental change that people wanted. And, partially as a result of this, we now have a Labour Government that will do even less.

Getting to grips with illegal migration and the deportation of foreign criminals isn’t just about security or cost to taxpayers, although these are vitally important. It also speaks to a more fundamental right in a democratic society. If politicians are repeatedly prevented from delivering the commitments they were elected on, people may question what is the point of voting at all. Either you believe in Parliamentary sovereignty, or you don’t.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t mean people are left without legal protections against overbearing public authorities. The UK had a long history of protecting the rights of individuals predating the ECHR, underpinned by its parliamentary democracy, and in leaving we should take the opportunity to update our domestic legislation in the area with a bill of rights. Indeed, many of our closest allies – such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand – all protect the rights of their citizens without membership of the ECHR. What leaving does mean is a political system that can be truly responsive to the democratic will of the electorate.

Some may also question whether leaving the ECHR sends the wrong signals to other countries – but in my view, nothing is worse in diminishing our standing than being seen to be incapable of keeping our borders secure or deporting foreign criminals.

As with any major policy change, legitimate questions have been raised about how leaving would work in practice. These include the application of the ECHR in Northern Ireland, its interplay with other existing laws and its role in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement we have with the EU. We should take these seriously, but not overstate them. As secretary of state for exiting the European Union when the UK left the EU, I worked on similar questions that were presented by and resolved through Brexit, and while we should be open that they are challenging, I am confident they are not insurmountable.

Secure borders will not be delivered while porous legislation remains. Until the law is watertight in stopping the army of human rights lawyers, it will not stop the flotilla of small boats. The Conservative Party must not shy away from accepting what is required to make this change.

Every recent Conservative leader has expressed concern about the ECHR and suggested that they would have been prepared to leave. Kemi Badenoch has made similar promises, saying that she will “review every policy, treaty and part of our legal framework – including the ECHR and the Human Rights Act”. This is welcome, but she can’t repeat the mistakes of her predecessors.

Now is the time to commit to the fundamental change needed. We must leave the ECHR.

Steve Barclay is the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire

Image - Hollie Adams via The Telegraph

What’s your view?

Scroll down and leave a Comment using the comments form below

and have your say.

User names are fine.

Use the Get in Touch form at the very bottom of the Home Page

and write a letter for our Reader’s Remarks Page.

You will need to include your name, address and contact details.

Only your name, city/town and county/country will be published

and we can withhold these if you ask.