Britain should not leave the European Convention on Human Rights to appease rightwing criticism over immigration, the new chair of the UK’s equalities watchdog has warned, as she cautioned against rhetoric that fuels hostility towards migrants and ethnic minorities.
Mary-Ann Stephenson, who took up her role as head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in December, said withdrawing from the convention would weaken rights that protect everyone in the UK, not just migrants.
Warning over anti-migrant rhetoric
Stephenson said the tone of public debate around human rights and immigration has become increasingly dangerous.
She warned that portraying migration as a threat risks making life harder not only for people who migrate to the UK but also for ethnic minority British citizens.
She said honesty is needed in discussions about human rights law, adding that the demonisation of migrants often relies on distorted or misleading examples.
Misuse of human rights cases
Stephenson said there is a growing tendency to cite failed or misrepresented legal cases to undermine the European Convention on Human Rights.
She pointed to research published earlier this year by the University of Oxford, which highlighted several high-profile examples of misleading media coverage.
One such case was the so-called “chicken nuggets” story, widely reported as preventing a deportation because a child disliked foreign food, despite the ruling not being based on that detail and later being overturned.
Debate over UK exit from ECHR
The UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights has become a focal point in political arguments over deportation and asylum policy.
Some on the political right argue the convention obstructs efforts to remove people from the UK, with both the Conservatives and Reform UK stating they would leave the treaty if in power.
The convention is overseen by the Council of Europe and underpins legal protections across the continent, including in the UK through domestic legislation.
Labour review of human rights law
The Labour Party government is currently reviewing aspects of human rights law as part of plans to reform the asylum system.
Ministers are examining how articles of the convention are applied in deportation cases, including article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and article 8, which protects the right to family life.
These provisions have been cited in several high-profile court cases involving removals from the UK.
Convention underpins UK law
Stephenson said the convention is fundamental because it is incorporated into domestic law through the Human Rights Act.
She warned that withdrawing from the treaty would undermine legal protections relied on by people across the UK, regardless of their background or immigration status.
She cited the John Worboys case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that police could be held liable for serious investigative failures, as an example of how convention rights protect victims.
She also referenced cases involving elderly couples at risk of being separated due to care decisions, saying most people would expect the law to prevent such outcomes.
Leaving would weaken rights
Stephenson said these cases show why leaving the convention would be a mistake.
She said the rights protected under the treaty are ones that most people would want for themselves and their families, and argued that withdrawal would weaken the legal framework that safeguards those rights.
She added that debates focused narrowly on immigration overlook the wider consequences for civil liberties in the UK.
European reform discussions continue
Earlier this month, the head of the body overseeing the convention said member states had taken an important first step by agreeing to explore reforms to address migration within the existing legal framework.
Stephenson said this shows that change is possible without abandoning the convention altogether.
She urged politicians to engage honestly with human rights law rather than using it as a scapegoat in debates over immigration.
