European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and to make further provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that Convention.

In many ways, this is unfinished business. On 23 June 2016, in the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands, the British people—[Interruption.] Despite what they were told by all the businesses and all the trade unions and much of the press and most of this House, the British people managed, despite everything—[Interruption.] Children, be quiet.

Oooh!

Order. I will be responsible for maintaining order in this Chamber.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will allow me the opportunity to continue to try to say something despite such constant interventions.

The British people voted clearly, by a massive margin, to bring back the sovereignty—[Interruption.] By the way, what makes me laugh about this is that it is not just about the sovereignty of this country; it is about the sovereignty of this very Chamber and the people within it. It is about bringing power back to this very place, and that is what we voted for.

One of the biggest reasons why the vote happened was the deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country and the fact that we effectively had open borders, making us poorer in every way. Of course, our membership of the Council of Europe and the European convention and its writing into British law in 1998 kind of enshrined that, and I think it is what Tony Blair wanted us to do.

I believe that Brexit cannot be complete all the while we are subject to a foreign Court and a piece of legislation brought in by the Blair Government on which judges can choose their own political interpretation. We are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and its associated court. It is as simple as that.

Putin’s patsy!

It is marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place—it really is.

Is it any wonder—[Interruption.] Is it any wonder that out in the country there is growing frustration—[Interruption.]

Order. Can I remind Members that the hon. Gentleman has a ten-minute rule Bill in front of this House and should be listened to without interruption?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about fear and anger growing in the country—and I sense there is also a bit of that growing in this Chamber.

When it comes to controlling our borders and to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, and, indeed, to who should not be allowed to stay in our country, I do not believe it is right that that should be under the remit of judges in Strasbourg—who by the way are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified—and under the political control of judges in this country, who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law.

This Bill intends to restore the power of this Parliament—the power of all of you as MPs to actually be in control of the things that matter most to all voters, whether they supported you or not. This Bill intends to bring back British common law and some ideas—rather than state-given rights, those of birthrights of liberty and freedom. These are things that over centuries served our country far better than any other nation in the European continent.

This is about liberty, it is about freedom, it is about democratic control. Just think, whatever the election result, even if 650 of us wanted to change rules on who can come across the channel and stay, we could be overruled by a convention that we signed up to in 1998—[Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we could literally be overruled. This is about sovereignty—sovereignty of the country, sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our own country. That is why this matters.

Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the worst examples of the ECHR taking away our democratic rights. Interestingly, it was the last Conservative Government who decided to put in place the Rwanda legislation. It was, in theory, very good, as it would act as a deterrent—[Interruption.] Unless people support the criminal gangs, yes it was a very good idea. The trouble was that it could not happen. Why could it not happen? In the case of the 2022 Rwanda deportation flight, at 10 pm a single judge in Strasbourg, without any legal qualification, decided on the basis of article 3 that the flight could not take off.

Order!

I ask the Liberal Democrats and others in this place: what is wrong with you? Do you not believe that this country is good enough to make its own laws? Do you not believe in the country that since Magna Carta has developed the principle of common law—which, with its faults, has been perhaps the best ever developed by civilisation? Do you not believe we are good enough to make these rules? Should we stick with outdated conventions preyed on by human rights lawyers in this country? This Bill would restore democratic trust and faith in this once great nation.

The speech we just heard totally misrepresents the European convention, and the failure of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to mention the huge benefits and rights that the European convention has brought to millions of British people says it all. Let me give those attracted by the argument we have just heard one strong reason to think again. Russia under Vladimir Putin is the only country to have withdrawn from the European convention on human rights. Maybe that is what attracts the hon. Member—after all, he said that Putin is the world leader he most admires.

Russia: a country where those who oppose the regime are mysteriously pushed off balconies, and where, if it is not enough to murder a political opponent like Alexei Navalny, Putin has even jailed lawyers who dared to represent him—things not allowed under the European convention. As we have seen Nathan Gill, a leading political ally of the hon. Member for Clacton, imprisoned for taking Russian bribes, perhaps we should not be surprised that the Reform party is so keen to follow Russia.

Besides Russia, where else are people’s hard-fought-for rights under attack? Trump’s America. Of course, the US is not part of the European convention, yet its citizens have benefited from something similar: the US constitution, which was designed to check the power of tyrants and protect the individual from the state. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton desires to remove people’s rights here, his hero Donald Trump is doing the same in America, attacking the courts and the rule of law, and even inciting a violent mob against the US Congress to overturn an election. But of course, the hon. Member has called President Trump “an inspiration”. If we want to know the hon. Member’s intentions for British people’s basic rights and freedoms, we only need to look at Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America. That is not patriotic. It is deeply un-British, and he should be ashamed.

Unlike the hon. Member for Clacton, I am proud of our country; I love our country. I am proud that Britain helped to create the European convention on human rights, championed by Winston Churchill himself. The convention protects the very people who need it most: our elderly and most vulnerable, so that they may live and grow old with dignity; and our children, so that those facing horrific abuse have better protection. It also upholds our freedom of speech so that the press and public can criticise those in power without fear, and it protects our right to peaceful protest.

331|15:10|96|154|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0