Domestic politics, the courts and foreign interference will all conspire against Shabana Mahmood’s noble intentions.
Labour’s latest scheme will fall short of what is required (Image: Getty)
Shabana Mahmood is undoubtedly one of the few competent members of the Cabinet who has their heart and head in exactly the right place. A solid right-winger on home affairs, Ms Mahmood may not be perfect, but she’s the best this Labour government has to offer.
She has correctly identified that unless Labour copies the left-wing Danish government’s approach of actually addressing immigration concerns, she will be out of power come the next election. Even the Tories’ Chris Philp has acknowledged that today’s package of radical asylum and migration reforms contain some positive steps in the right direction. But unfortunately for Ms Mahmood, she will soon discover she is just as hamstrung as all of her predecessors. Here are the three key reasons why this latest package of border enforcement measures will fall well short of what the public wants.
The ECHR will once again block serious attempts at reform (Image: Getty)
1. Reform of the ECHR is not going to happen
The Tories and Reform are both right – Britain will never control its borders until we leave the ECHR. As with Brexit and free movement, there is nothing we can do while devolving such a large swathe of our border sovereignty to a foreign court and foreign politicians.
Ms Mahmood has, in fairness, boldly acknowledged that the ECHR is a danger to the safety of the country and to Britons.
In a Home Office press release last night, the department said: “The European Convention on Human Rights is allowing large numbers of people, including serious criminals, to stay in the UK against the wishes of the public.”
Unfortunately, Ms Mahmood is pursuing the now-tried and tested David Cameron approach of pushing for reforms, which will simply never happen.
A key plank of today’s announcement will be a state desire to work with fellow ECHR signatory countries to reform ‘Article 3’, which is protection from inhuman or degrading treatment.
Ms Mahmood rightly believes that the scope of this provision has been widened excessively by the court’s activist judges.
Yet in September, the government’s own Attorney General Lord Hermer openly said that it would be a “political trick” to pretend that any meaningful changes to the ECHR could be achieved in time to “make a difference” before the next election. He pointed out that the last time even a minor change was made to ECHR protocol took nine years to implement.
Hope of reforming the treaty, therefore, is a road to nowhere. Unless Ms Mahmood persuades Sir Keir that quitting it altogether is necessary – which is never going to happen – this is a dead end.
Reform and the Tories have said Britain must quit the ECHR (Image: Getty)
2. Domestic judges
Another key plank of today’s announcement will be new legislation to change how British judges have to interpret Article 8 of the ECHR when making decisions about deportations.
Article 8 is the provision for the ‘right to a family life’, which has routinely been abused by foreign criminals as an excuse not to be removed from the country.
Unfortunately for Labour one of the country’s most senior legal brains has already poured cold water on this Baldrick-style cunning plan.
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Scumption told the Today Programme this morning that the plan will either fail, or have very “limited” effect.
He explained: “Now, if we pass an act in the UK that tells judges to interpret the Convention in a particular way and the Strasbourg court says it should be interpreted in a different way, then the Strasbourg court will hold us to have violated the Convention, we will then have a direct conflict between our international obligations under the Convention and our domestic legislation.
“[The government] has only very limited freedom of action, it has to draft its legislation in a way that will be acceptable to the Strasbourg court.
“That’s quite difficult to do, because the Strasbourg court is an unpredictable court which tends to make up the legal principles as it goes along.”
Labour rebels are already demanding a u-turn (Image: Parliament)
3. Labour civil war
Ms Mahmood hasn’t even stood up in the Commons to announce her proposed reforms, and we’re already into double figures of Labour MPs voicing fury at them for being too hardline.
Tony Vaughan, a 2024 intake MP who represents the south coast beaches of Folkestone and Hythe – a key target for migrant dinghies, emerged last night to demand that the government “think again on this”.
Mr Vaughan, who is notable for not being a typical backbench rebel, fumed: “The idea that recognised refugees need to be deported is wrong.”
“The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities.”
John McDonnell, the former shadow Chancellor who was recently admitted back into the Labour Party, warned he suspects Mr Vaughan “is reflecting here what many in the PLP feel.”
The Folkestone MP’s tweet was also shared by seven other MPs, namely: Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Stella Creasy, Clive Lewis, Nadia Whittome, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Peter Lamb.
It’s also reported that the plans to deport existing refugee families should their home countries become safe has left one minister on resignation watch.
As with disability welfare reform, and Winter Fuel, this Labour government has shown time and time again it is unable to stand up to its ideological backbenchers.
The reforms, which do not go far enough, will only get watered down as they make their way through the Commons.
