Show the Working

Leave the European Convention on Human Rights and reform the Human Rights Act

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Leave the European Convention on Human Rights and reform the Human Rights Act” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Leaving the ECHR and reforming the Human Rights Act would remove the main external check on state power over individuals, stripping the right to take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights and weakening domestic legal protections. The associated enforcement plans — including a tenfold increase in detention capacity — represent a direct expansion of state coercion over people's bodies and liberty.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How the replacement 'British Bill of Rights' is drafted will determine how much residual protection against state coercion survives domestically; the policy text gives no detail on this.

Our reading: O10 concerns freedom from undue state control over speech, bodies and choices. The clearest effect of this policy is to remove the external judicial backstop — the ECtHR — that individuals can use to challenge state action after domestic courts have ruled. That is a direct reduction in the legal tools available to ordinary people to resist state coercion. The reform of the HRA to privilege 'law-abiding people' signals further restriction on who can invoke rights protections, with no committed replacement mechanism detailed in the policy text. On the enforcement side, the associated plan to expand detention capacity tenfold (to 24,000 places) represents a major expansion of state power over individuals' bodily liberty — this is a concrete coercive instrument, not a soft aspiration. The case for this package improving O10 — by removing ECtHR interference in domestic affairs — would require evidence that the ECtHR was itself imposing undue constraints on liberty. The data runs the other way: the UK was among the lowest violators among 46 member states, and the court ruled against it in only 13 deportation cases over 45 years. The ECHR acts primarily as a constraint on state overreach; removing it expands state power relative to the individual. The magnitude is major because the removal of the ECtHR backstop and a tenfold increase in detention capacity are population-scale structural changes to liberty protections, not marginal tweaks. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the ultimate O10 impact depends on what replaces the HRA — a well-drafted British Bill of Rights could recover some protections — but the policy text gives no such commitments, so the evidence-bound default is net loss of liberty protection.

Crime, justice & national security — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Leaving the ECHR would damage law-enforcement cooperation with the EU and risk the Northern Ireland peace settlement, while delivering little extra deportation power since the ECHR rarely blocks removals in practice. The net effect on safety and security is likely negative.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the EU would actually suspend law-enforcement and judicial cooperation agreements, and the scale of any Northern Ireland destabilisation, determines how severe the security harm would be.

Our reading: O5 asks whether streets are safer, the country more secure, and whether justice works better. This policy's stated security rationale is expanding deportations of foreign criminals and illegal migrants. The evidence, however, shows the ECHR is not a material barrier to that goal: only 13 deportation cases were blocked by Strasbourg over 45 years, Article 8 succeeds in fewer than 3% of resistance cases, and the UK is already one of the least-found-in-violation member states. The marginal security gain from removing ECHR constraints on deportations is therefore small. Against that, two substantial security costs are evidenced. First, leaving the ECHR risks EU suspension of law-enforcement and judicial cooperation — extradition and data-sharing — which are operationally important to tackling cross-border crime. This is a concrete, mechanism-grounded risk, not a theoretical one. Second, the ECHR is embedded in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Windsor Framework; parliamentary committees and the overwhelming consensus of analysts assess withdrawal as a serious threat to the Northern Ireland peace settlement — a major national-security concern. Legal uncertainty and increased domestic litigation (E4/E5) add further friction to the justice system. The combination of a weak safety benefit (ECHR is not meaningfully blocking deportations) against real security costs (loss of EU law enforcement cooperation, Northern Ireland stability risk) makes the net direction on O5 negative. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the severity depends on whether the EU actually suspends cooperation agreements and on how Northern Ireland institutions respond — both of which involve political variables outside the policy's direct control.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act would remove key legal protections that individuals — especially vulnerable groups — currently use to challenge state actions, reducing access to due process and equal treatment. The scale of harm depends heavily on what any replacement domestic Bill of Rights would contain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: What a replacement domestic Bill of Rights would actually contain — a strong replacement could limit the damage, but the policy text provides no detail on its scope or protections.

Our reading: The policy removes two interlocking mechanisms that currently underpin equal treatment and due process in the UK: the Human Rights Act (which incorporates ECHR rights into domestic law) and access to the ECtHR as a final external check. These are core O9 instruments — they provide enforceable rights against state discrimination and guarantee due process for individuals challenging public authorities. The evidence base points clearly toward worsening O9. Multiple legal and institutional sources project erosion of protections for vulnerable groups, loss of judicial redress at the international level, and reduced ability for ordinary people to vindicate their rights against public bodies. Structurally, removing the HRA's obligation on courts and public authorities to act compatibly with ECHR rights narrows the practical scope of anti-discrimination and due-process protections regardless of the replacement's framing. The policy's primary driver — overcoming obstacles to immigration enforcement — is relevant context for calibrating magnitude. Evidence shows the ECHR and HRA are rarely used to block deportations: one UK violation judgment in 2024; HRA-based appeals representing 0.4% of inward immigration. This means the structural impact on rights falls across a much wider population than the targeted immigration use-case, while the gain in that use-case is modest. The Northern Ireland dimension adds a further O9 concern: the ECHR is embedded in the peace settlement's legal architecture, raising risks for rights protections for a minority community in that jurisdiction. The main uncertainty is the replacement domestic Bill of Rights. If it preserved most substantive protections, harm would be reduced. The policy text commits only to 'reform' without specifying what protections would survive. On the evidence provided, the structural removal of an external judicial check and the HRA's domestic obligations points to a worsening of O9 at moderate magnitude.

Immigration & border control — Moves toward more control

We don’t call this better or worse — that’s your call; we only show which way the policy moves it.

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy aims to remove legal protections that can delay or block deportations, moving the UK toward tighter immigration control and lower net migration. However, experts disagree on how much difference it would make in practice, since these protections are used successfully in a small share of cases.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether removing ECHR/HRA protections would enable significantly more deportations in practice, given evidence that HRA immigration appeals succeed in only around 0.4% of total inward immigration cases.

Our reading: The policy is explicitly designed to reduce legal barriers to deportation and increase removals, which would move immigration policy toward more control and lower net migration. The direction is clear. However, the magnitude is uncertain: measurable evidence shows that ECHR/HRA protections currently succeed in a very small proportion of immigration cases, suggesting the practical uplift in deportations from removing these protections may be modest relative to the stated targets. The deportation volume targets (91,000/year) represent a dramatic increase from current levels, and logistical feasibility is questioned independently of the legal framework change. The shift is therefore classified as moderate rather than major, reflecting the gap between stated intent and projected real-world effect.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Compare all parties on immigration & border control →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home