A Tory frontbencher tasked with working out how Britain might quit the European Convention on Human Rights in order to control immigration has said he does not believe leaving is necessary.
Shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC is leading a Conservative review of the UK’s membership of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), leader Kemi Badenoch revealed this month.
She said the post-war framework was being used as ‘a political weapon’ to block the legitimate deportation of illegal immigrants from Britain, warning the UK might have to withdraw.
But in a speech earlier this year, footage of which has been seen by MailOnline, Lord Wolfson said he was ‘confident’ the UK could have a ‘sensible’ immigration policy while staying within the ECHR framework.
Speaking to students at his alma mater Cambridge college he said ‘why choose when you can have both?’
His comments appear to put him at odds with the party leader and fellow shadow ministers including Robert Jenrick, who challenged her for the party leadership, and Chris Philp.
It follows a slew of cases where illegal migrant have successfully used the convention and the Strasbourg court to stay in Britain instead of being deported, either to their home nations or Rwanda under the former removals scheme.
But it is the latest evidence of division within the party over whether to take the nuclear option of quitting.
Shadow attorney general Lord David Wolfson used a speech earlier this year – seen by MailOnline – to say a ‘sensible immigration policy’ was possible without leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Ms Badenoch has indicated she would consider pulling the UK out of the post-war framework, saying it is being used as ‘a political weapon’ to block the legitimate deportation of illegal immigrants from Britain.
He will not look at ‘if’ the UK should leave the convention and the court in Strasbourg (pictured), she said earlier this month, but ‘how’ it might be achieved.
Speaking at an event at Selwyn College in February, Lord Wolfson, 56, was asked about Mr Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, advocating for leaving the ECHR when he ran for the Tory leadership last year.
The peer replied that whether to leave or stay was a debate being had by a number of political parties, adding: ‘My position is that I am confident that we can both have a sensible immigration policy and at the same time, remain within the European Convention on Human Rights.
‘I would be surprised if we can’t do that, and therefore, you know, why choose when you can have both? That’s where I am.’
However he did also criticise the way the articles of the convention have been interpreted by the court in recent times, adding: ‘For example, Article 8, a right to family life … was designed to stop the Stasi or the Gestapo knocking on your door at three in the morning and hauling you away, it wasn’t designed to decide whether planes should be able to land at Heathrow before 5:30 in the morning.’
Another Tory frontbencher recently told MailOnline that while action had to be taken to reduce illegal immigration, withdrawing from the ECHR would be a mistake.
They cited the ‘complex’ relationship between the convention and the Good Friday Agreement which ended The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
MPs were told last year by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that it is ‘unlikely the UK could withdraw from the ECHR without triggering a review procedure built into the GFA’.
However, another shadow cabinet minister dismissed Lord Wolfson’s opposition to leaving as unimportant in the context of the review.
They told MailOnline that the party was definitely ‘leaning in’ to supporting leaving the ECHR and pointed out he was being asked to use his skills to see ‘how’ the UK might leave, not to make a political judgement on whether it should.
The review will also look at issues like the GFA, they added.
This point was also made by Mrs Badenoch when she unveiled the review at the start of the month.
‘The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors,’ she told a Westminster event.
‘It should be a shield to protect, instead, it’s become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense.
‘This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn’t just damaging our security, it’s also damaging our prosperity.’
She said she was tasking Lord Wolfson’s Lawfare Policy Commission with examining ‘what the unintended consequences might be’ if the UK were to leave the ECHR.
‘Because it is clear that the ECHR is a major issue, I’m not asking Lord Wolfson if we should leave, that’s a political not a legal question,’ she said.
‘I’m asking him to set out how we would leave and to consider what the unintended consequences might be, not least in Northern Ireland – if we decide to go down this route, we must do so knowingly.’
A Conservative Party spokesman said: ‘Lord Wolfson is one of the most respected barristers in the country and no true Conservative could be opposed to employing his immense legal expertise to probe our membership of international treaties and how they interact with UK law.
‘Kemi Badenoch has been very clear that the abusive practice of lawfare must end and no stone will be left unturned in our pursuit of that.
‘That is why she has made it clear that, if it is necessary to leave the ECHR to ensure that his country and this country alone has sovereign control of it’s borders, then we will do so.
‘But if we are to do so then we need a real plan, fully thought-out, by a serious legal mind, and not just an empty announcement with no plan as others are offering.’
But Angela Eagle, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, said: ‘Kemi Badenoch‘s ECHR review is already in chaos, with its chair holding views her party can’t accept.
‘Her attempts to appease Robert Jenrick and Farage’s Reform are coming apart at the seams.’
The Tories are not the only party bashing the ECHR as they face competition from Nigel Farage’s Reform, which already backs leaving.
Last week Justice |Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the convention must be reformed as public confidence in the rule of law across the continent is ‘fraying’.
The commission is due to be completed in time for the party conference in October, allowing it to be unveiled there.
Lord Wolfson told the audience in Cambridge he was balancing his shadow ministerial role with his highly successful legal career.
‘Being shadow attorney general is not a full-time job, it’s not a paid job, there’s no salary for it so I’ve kept my practice at the bar,’ he said.
‘It’s sometimes difficult to cram it all in, but so far so good.’
