Immigration debate: ‘human rights have become dirty words’

During an impassioned debate, Tory MP Dominic Raab cited emotional cases of foreign criminals whose “right to a family life” has seen them spared deportation. He was arguing for a change in immigration law so that criminals could not use their “right to a family life” as an excuse to stay in the United Kingdom.

In the end his amendment was defeated by 241 votes to 97, thanks to opposition from Labour and Liberal Democrats. Many of the 97 who voted for the amendment were Tory backbenchers. Fears of a massive rebellion had prompted Downing Street to order Tory ministers to abstain, to avoid losing face.

Mr Raab, the MP for Esher and Walton, said many crime victims were being put at risk because their attacker remained in the UK, as he told the Commons that human rights had become “dirty words”.

He said that this use of human rights demeaned its meaning in the eyes of the British public.

Mr Raab told Parliament: “these cases walk the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and frankly, for many people outside of parliament, make human rights dirty words.”

The “right to a family life” is given by Article 8 of the European Human Rights Act.

400 cases a year

Mr Raab said there were 400 cases each year where foreign criminals used Article 8 to avoid being sent to their home country, while 89 per cent of all successful appeals to remain in the UK relied on criminals basing their claim on a right to a family life.

“Some argue the rights of the partners and children of serious convicted criminals must be given due weight. But in reality, and this is the crucial point, Article 8 is being expanded to protect the criminals rights and not their families. Far from safe-guarding the vulnerable, it can expose them to undue pressure, if not worse, by dangerous offenders.

“In one case, a man jailed twice for raping his partner relied on his relationship with the same woman to avoid deportation successfully. I have to say it worries me that female victims may be coerced in to being reunited with violent criminals, who see them as a sort of legal lifeline to stay in this country.”

An illegal bill

But Mr Raab’s amendment could not become British law, said Mrs May, because it mean the UK would be contravening the European Human Rights Act by taking away people’s human rights.

“I am absolutely clear in the legal advice that I received that this is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights,” Mrs May said of the amendment.

Labour MPs have been ordered by the whip to vote against it on the same basis – it would be “illegal and counterproductive” they were told.

But Mr Raab did get some traction in the house.

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw said he held Mr Raab in great regard but could not support his amendment, which he said would result in the Commons knowingly legislating in a way that appears incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Addressing Mrs May, Mr Straw said: “I hope you will take away what (Mr Raab) is proposing and at least look at it.

“As I say, he was a very good lawyer in the Foreign Office when I was Foreign Secretary.

“I know he’s not in any sense somebody who is foaming at the mouth about the Human Rights Act.

“There’s been really serious purpose before what he is suggesting and there may be a way through, as it were, to meet halfway between what you are proposing and what he is proposing.”