Human rights organisations are warning UK ministers against pursuing changes that could weaken protections against torture and other forms of mistreatment for asylum seekers, ahead of a critical European summit on migration policy. Ministers are preparing for a high-stakes Council of Europe meeting on Wednesday, where discussions may include reinterpretations of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) that could limit key safeguards long considered non-negotiable.
Justice secretary David Lammy is expected to take a leading role in discussions about how Article 3 of the ECHR — the provision that bans torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment” — could be reinterpreted. The UK, alongside Belgium, has reportedly pushed for the scope of Article 3 to be debated, despite the meeting initially being scheduled to focus on Article 8, which concerns the right to a family life.
The UK government has argued that the interpretation of Article 3 has widened to the point where individuals facing removal can challenge deportation by citing factors such as lack of access to mental health care in their home country. The Home Office has suggested that this evolving case law has made it increasingly difficult to enforce immigration decisions, particularly in cases involving asylum seekers with complex personal circumstances.
Article 8 Under Pressure Amid Government’s Tougher Asylum Stance
The meeting comes shortly after the UK announced a significant tightening of asylum rules, stating that the balance between migrants’ rights under Article 8 and the public interest in removing people from the country must be “fundamentally reset”. Ministers argue that current legal thresholds allow too many individuals to rely on family-life rights to resist deportation, undermining public confidence in the immigration system.
Although the Council of Europe is not expected to amend the ECHR itself, member states can push for political declarations that influence how its articles are interpreted by national courts and the European court of human rights.
Human Rights Groups Warn of Global Consequences
Freedom from Torture criticised any attempt to reopen or narrow Article 3 protections. Natasha Tsangarides, the charity’s associate director of advocacy, urged Lammy to ensure the UK does not trigger a weakening of the absolute ban on torture, calling it a “centuries-old cornerstone” of international human rights protection.
She warned that even minor shifts in interpretation could cause a “chain reaction” among governments worldwide, emboldening those seeking to roll back human rights standards. She said the UK, a country that once played a leading role in shaping post-war human rights law, would risk eroding its own credibility by supporting such changes.
Amnesty International echoed the concern. Steve Valdez-Symonds, the organisation’s refugee and migrant rights director, said reinterpreting the ban on torture or diluting family-life protections would undermine principles designed to prevent governments from sending people back to places where they may face abuse or unjust separation. He said weakening rights for one group inevitably puts everyone’s rights at risk.
Government Maintains Commitment to the ECHR
A government spokesperson insisted the UK remains committed to the ECHR and does not see withdrawal as necessary to reform immigration policy. The spokesperson pointed to the government’s immigration white paper, which outlines plans to tighten how Article 8 is applied in UK courts to prevent what ministers describe as misuse of family-life rights in deportation cases.
The debate comes at a moment when European countries are under intense political pressure to manage migration more aggressively, with several governments seeking to reshape human rights frameworks they believe restrict their ability to deport people. In the UK, the political landscape has shifted sharply following the collapse of the Rwanda deportation plan and rising public concern over small-boat crossings. Ministers now view reinterpretation of ECHR articles as a key tool for regaining control over immigration enforcement without formally leaving the convention — a move that would risk major diplomatic fallout across Europe.
