Labour plan to stop foreign criminals exploiting human rights laws to avoid deportation rejected by Eurocrats
She used a speech in Strasbourg to set out how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 'feels out of step with common sense' and needed to 'evolve'.
But the head of the Council of Europe – the organisation which drew up the ECHR 75 years ago – said the treaty should not be used as a 'scapegoat' and insisted he did not support any moves to amend it.
Ms Mahmood said: 'There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.
'That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them.'
She added that post-war values of 'democracy, human rights and the rule of law' were now facing 'distortion, doubt, even hostility', as the public's confidence in them was 'fraying'.
For example, she went on, the 'right to private and family life' under Article 8 of the ECHR has 'too often been used in ways that frustrate deportation'.
Secretary general of the Council of Europe Alain Berset said he would not support any measures which would 'weaken' the human rights convention
'The ECHR is one of the great achievements of post-war politics. It has endured because it has evolved. Now, it must do so again,' she said.
However, Council of Europe secretary general Alain Berset said he opposed changes to the convention.
'I am not calling for reform of the ECHR, nor do I support any effort that would weaken it,' he told the Politico website.
'It should never be used as a scapegoat in domestic political debates.
'When states face complex challenges, the answer is not to dismantle the legal guardrails they themselves helped build.
'The proper place for dialogue is through our institutions, not through pressure on the European Court of Human Rights or attempts to bypass the system.'
It also emerged Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has launched a probe into how human rights laws are abused in extradition cases as part of a wider shake-up.
She has ordered Home Office civil servants to conduct a review of the way Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – is being deployed in immigration cases, especially extraditions.
She is thought to be concerned over cases in which foreign nationals facing extradition from the UK are able to successfully argue it would breach their human rights because of poor conditions in prisons overseas.
There have been several examples of Brazilian nationals dodging extradition because of jail conditions in their home country, for example.
Last month Ms Cooper pledged to tighten the law on Article 8 in an immigration White Paper.
It said the Government will neuter the ability of immigration courts to allow human rights appeals, by strengthening the 'public interest test', making it easier to deport foreign criminals and others.
Legal changes will also make clear that Parliament has the final say on immigration law, and not judges.
Ms Cooper's new review could mean human rights claims are curtailed when foreign nationals attempt to avoid deportation under Article 3 as well as Article 8, it is thought.
New laws curtailing the use of human rights laws in immigration cases are set to be unveiled after Labour party conference in September, the Daily Mail understands.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said a Tory government would leave the ECHR if necessary.
Former Tory home secretaries Priti Patel and Suella Braverman have both called for the UK to leave the convention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Masked ICE agents detain former Afghan interpreter who helped US military
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - An Afghan who moved to the United States after working for the U.S. military in his home country was seized by armed, masked immigration agents, put in a van and taken out of state, attorneys and members of Congress said on Tuesday. Identified only as Zia by members of Congress and his attorney out of concern for his safety and that of his family, the man had worked as an interpreter for the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan. He was in the United States legally and was arrested after an appointment in Connecticut related to his application for a green card under a program to protect people who worked for U.S. forces, according to human-rights advocates, his attorney and members of Congress. Since starting his second term in January, Republican President Donald Trump has pursued a broad crackdown on immigration. "What happened to him is the worst kind of abhorrent violation of basic decency," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told reporters on a call with advocates to draw attention to the case of Zia and at least two other Afghans who worked for the U.S. and have been seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. "He actually worked and risked his life in Afghanistan to uphold the values and rights that are central to democracy," Blumenthal said. Blumenthal and two other Democrats, representatives Jahana Hayes, who serves Zia's district in Connecticut, and Bill Keating, who represents the Massachusetts city where Zia is being held, all pledged to fight for his release. A judge has issued a temporary stay preventing Zia's removal from the United States, but he remains in detention. Asked for comment, the Department of Homeland Security said the Afghan national entered the U.S. on October 8, 2024, and is under investigation for a "serious criminal allegation," adding, "All of his claims will be heard by a judge. Any Afghan who fears persecution is able to request relief." The emailed statement from DHS provided no further details. Zia's attorney, Lauren Petersen, said he was approved for humanitarian parole in 2024 due to a direct threat from Afghanistan's Taliban rulers. She said he has no criminal history and, when asked about DHS's saying he was under investigation for a "serious criminal allegation," she said she had no understanding of what they were referring to. Humanitarian parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. More than 70,000 Afghans entered the U.S. under former Democratic President Joe Biden's "Operation Allies Welcome" initiative following the Taliban takeover in 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Trump administration's immigration crackdown has included mass deportations and reversing "temporary protected status" granted to people already in the U.S. who cannot return to their home countries due to armed conflicts, natural disasters or other extraordinary events. U.S. agencies have moved to terminate that status for some 14,600 Afghans. Shawn VanDiver, the founder of #AfghanEvac, the main coalition of veterans and advocacy groups that coordinated resettlements of Afghans with the U.S. government, said on the call with reporters and lawmakers that he was aware of at least two other Afghans detained after being admitted to the United States because they had worked for the U.S. military. He said his group, and veterans organizations, were working for their release. "It's about whether this country honors its word to those who risk everything," he said. (This story has been refiled to add the dropped word 'interpreter' to the headline)
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Government and opposition alike must do much better
Out of the three parties that matter most, only one will be looking forward to autumn. When parliament packed up for the summer recess this time last year, the new Labour administration had a stonking majority, a sense of confidence and a clear plan of action. Twelve months on, morale has collapsed. Rarely have a government's fortunes declined so far, so fast. This is not the consequence of world events or the vagaries of the global economy: Sir Keir Starmer is to blame. He came into power with the stated aim of boosting the economy's performance to improve public services. But prioritising growth demanded a degree of discipline that he has signally failed to demonstrate. Although the government has chalked up a few achievements — for instance, in reforming the planning system — too often other considerations have taken precedence over growth. Workers' rights have been strengthened to the detriment of companies. Taxes on employers have been raised with the consequence that firms are hiring fewer people. Higher pay for public servants has contributed to the deterioration of public finances. The government's big effort to rein in spending centred on its planned reform of the welfare system, but Labour backbenchers rebelled against it. Instead of facing up to the rebels by making the issue a vote of confidence, the prime minister backed down. Predictably, this cave-in has encouraged further dissent. The prime minister's problem is that he is a conciliator rather than a leader. That is why he has proved to be an effective diplomat in his dealings with foreign leaders. With his low-key style, he has succeeded in improving Britain's relationship with Europe, in encouraging European leaders to co-operate over defence and in establishing a good working relationship with Donald Trump, despite the two men's glaring ideological differences. These external successes cannot compensate for Sir Keir's domestic failures, however. They have cost him credibility and the economy momentum. In the past two months, national output has shrunk while public debt continues to mount. In June, the government borrowed £20.7 billion. That is £6.6 billion more than in June last year and £3.6 billion more than expected. As Sir Keir has lost focus on the economy, concentrating on averting short-term difficulties rather than pursuing a coherent agenda, he has come to look like a tactical politician rather than a strategic one. Both MPs and voters are increasingly unclear about what his government is for. Labour is divided between pragmatists who want order in the public finances and leftwingers who want to spend more. The autumn budget, in which Rachel Reeves will have to reconcile the conflicting demands of the bond markets and Labour MPs' desire to protect social spending, will be a pivotal moment in the government's life. Sir Keir's greatest boon has been the state of the Conservative Party. Despite a welcome recent attempt to reassert the party's commitment to fiscal rectitude in the wake of the government's welfare debacle, Kemi Badenoch has failed to establish a clear identity around which her party can coalesce. At 23.7 per cent, its share of the vote in the last election was the lowest yet; it has declined further in polling since then, to 17 per cent. This week's reshuffle will not by itself reverse the Tories' decline: changes in personnel cannot compensate for the lack of a compelling story. The one party that has succeeded in devising one in the past year is Reform. Nigel Farage has capitalised on the loss of direction in both main parties to seize a commanding lead in the polls. Sir Keir and Ms Badenoch need to develop better ways of countering Mr Farage over the summer, or he will make short work of them in the coming year. For both, it is a case of 'must do better'.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Two hour screen time limit and curfews for children being considered by government
Why you can trust Sky News Social media limits for children are being planned by the government to tackle "compulsive" screen time, the technology secretary has told Sky News. Peter Kyle said he was concerned about "the overall amount of time kids spend on these apps" as well as the content they see. A two-hour cap per platform is being seriously considered after meetings with current and former employees of tech companies. A night-time or school-time curfew has also been discussed. Children would be blocked from accessing apps such as TikTok or Snapchat once they have hit the limit, rather than just reminded of how long they have been scrolling, it is understood. An announcement on screen time is expected this autumn. Mr Kyle said: "I'll be making an announcement on these things in the near future. But I am looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps. "I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online. "I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I'm looking at really carefully. "We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important." He added that he wanted to stop children spending hours viewing content which "isn't criminal, but it's unhealthy, the overuse of some of these apps". "I think we can incentivise the companies and we can set a slightly different threshold that will just tip the balance in favour of parents not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids' hands and having a really awkward, difficult conversation around it," he added. Mr Kyle spoke exclusively to Sky News after meeting with a group of pupils from Darlington who have spent a year participating in regular focus groups about smartphones and social media, organised by their Labour MP Lola McEvoy. They took part in a survey of 1,000 children from the town, mostly aged 14 and 15, which found that 40% of them spent at least six hours a day online. One in five spent as long as eight hours scrolling. Most of the under-16s (55%) had seen inappropriate sexual or violent content - often unprompted. And three-quarters of the under-16s had been contacted online by strangers. In the session in parliament, in which the children were asked what they were most concerned about, Jacob, 15, said: "A lack of restrictions on screen time I would personally say, which leads to people scrolling for hours on Tiktok. "People just glue their eyes to their phone and just spent hours on it, instead of seeing the real world." Tom, 17, said: "I get the feeling you have to be quite tech savvy to protect your kids online. You have to go into the settings and work out each one. It should be the default. It needs to be straight away, day one." Matthew, 15, said: "I think because everybody is online all the time and there's no real moderation to what people can say or what can be shared, it can really affect people's lives because it's always there. "As soon as I wake up, I check my phone and until I go to bed. The only time I take a break is when I eat or am talking to someone." Some of the teenagers had spent 12 or even up to 16 hours a day online. Nathan, 15, said: "When, for example, a 13-year-old is on their phone 'til midnight, you can't sleep, your body can't function properly and your mind is all over the place." But there was scepticism about what could be done. Charlotte, 17, said: "If your parents sets a restriction on Instagram and say, 'right, you're coming off it now' - there's TikTok, there is Pinterest, there is Facebook, there's Snapchat, there so many different other ones, you can go on, and it just builds up and builds and builds up, and you end up sat there for the entire evening just on social media. I think we need harsher controls." Several of the pupils who met Mr Kyle detailed being contacted by adult strangers, either on social media apps or online gaming, in ways which made them feel uncomfortable. How could the ban actually work? The tech already exists to make a ban like this a reality. On Friday, rules will start being enforced in the UK that will mean sites hosting harmful adult content will need to properly check the ages of their users. There are a number of ways companies could do that, including credit card checks, ID checks and AI facial age estimation. It is likely these are the same systems that would be used to keep teenagers off social media during certain hours, as suggested by Peter Kyle to Sky News. It's how Australia is looking into enforcing its total ban of under-16s on social media later this year - but the process isn't without controversy. Concerns around privacy are frequently raised as internet users worry about big tech companies storing even more of their personal data. There are also questions about just how effective these age verification processes could actually be. Tech like AI facial estimation can reliably age-check users - but teenagers may quickly work out how to circumvent the system using plugins and settings that could be a mystery to all but the savviest parents. At the moment, a lot of age-checking AI systems are trained to spot the difference between an adult and a child, and can do that to a high degree of accuracy. But while telling the visual difference between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old is much harder, AI learns fast. Officials working on the UK's age verification scheme have suggested AI will soon be able to accurately verify the ages of under-18s, making a ban like this much more realistic. Mr Kyle said: "It is madness, it is total madness, and many of the apps or the companies have taken action to restrict contacts that adults - particularly strangers - have with children, but we need to go further and I accept that. "At the moment, I think the balance is tipped slightly in the wrong direction. Parents don't feel they have the skills, the tools or the ability to really have a grip on the childhood experience online, how much time, what they're seeing, they don't feel that kids are protected from unhealthy activity or content when they are online." The tech secretary is in the process of implementing the 2023 Online Safety Act, passed by the previous government. From this Friday, all platforms must introduce stronger protections for children online, including a legal requirement for all pornography sites accessed in the UK to have effective age verification in place - such as facial age estimation or ID checks. Mr Kyle added: "I don't just want the base level set where kids aren't being criminally exploited and damaged, that shouldn't be the height of our aspirations. The height of our aspirations should be a healthy experience." Labour MP Lola McEvoy, who organised the focus group, said: "I knew things were bad online for children and young people but their testimony revealed the extent of explicit, disturbing and toxic content that is now the norm. "Their articulation of the changes they wanted to see was excellent and they've done our town and their generation proud." Tiktok, Pinterest, Meta and Snapchat were contacted for comment, but none provided an on the record statement. The companies have accounts for under-16s with parental controls and some set reminders for screen time. TikTok has a 60-minute daily screen time limit for under-18s after which they must enter a password to continue, and a reminder to switch off at 10pm. The company say this is to support a healthy relationship with screen time. Pinterest have supported phone-free policies at schools, in the US and Canada and say they are looking to expand this elsewhere.
