- A new report by Lord Peter Lilley challenges the conventional wisdom that the ECHR was a British creation enthusiastically adopted by Churchill and Attlee
- Lord Lilley, who served in Cabinet under both Thatcher and Major, reveals that several Labour and Conservative leaders have considered overriding, ignoring or withdrawing from the ECHR
- The Strasbourg Court has found the UK in violation in 329 out of 567 cases, covering issues from national security to environment policy
- The report argues that – through no fault of the judges themselves – the Convention requires them to make decisions which politicise their role, inexorably leading to calls for ideological vetting of judges and undermining respect for the rule of law itself
- Lilley’s analysis shows withdrawal would not breach the Good Friday Agreement, or our EU trade agreement, or put human rights at risk
A willingness to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights may be Britain’s only option to resolve a growing constitutional tension that threatens democratic accountability, respect for our impartial judiciary and the rule of law itself, according to a major new analysis by a former Cabinet Minister.
In a new report published by the Centre for Policy Studies, Peter Lilley demolishes claims that the ECHR was a British invention enthusiastically adopted by Attlee and Churchill. Research reveals that the Convention was reluctantly ratified by Attlee only on condition that it had no jurisdiction in the UK, a position immediately upheld by Churchill.
‘Britain and the ECHR: Past Myths, Present Problems and Future Options‘ documents how the Strasbourg Court has found the UK in violation in 329 out of 567 cases, covering everything from national security and military operations to environmental policy and prisoner voting. The ‘living instrument’ doctrine enables the Court to create new laws in areas never envisaged by signatory states.
Lord Lilley’s research shows that leading figures from both main parties have repeatedly considered withdrawing from the Convention. Even Tony Blair instructed ministers to examine withdrawal after court rulings prevented deportation of foreign criminals. David Cameron, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak all publicly considered leaving.
The report argues that by giving courts power to interpret vague Convention rights and override Parliamentary decisions, the ECHR transfers law-making authority from elected representatives to unaccountable judges. This unavoidably politicises judicial decisions and undermines the rule of law.
While reforming the ECHR would be the preferred option, there is unlikely to be the international support required. The report examines options short of withdrawal which might mitigate the problems. However, it shows that withdrawal would not leave Britain as an international pariah, unless that description applies to other common law democracies like Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Lord Lilley demonstrates that withdrawal would not breach the Good Friday Agreement or our trade agreement with the EU.
Lord Lilley, author ot Britain and the ECHR: Past Myths, Present Problems and Future Options, said:
‘This report demonstrates that the ECHR has created constitutional problems for Britain from the start, with successive Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers recognising that giving the courts power to make law and overrule Parliament results in legislation without representation. The myth that this was a British creation enthusiastically embraced by our leaders simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
‘It is not the fault of judges themselves, but the role imposed on them by the Convention to make inherently political decisions, that is politicising our courts and undermining respect for the rule of law itself. I instinctively prefer reform, but that is inconceivable unless Britain is prepared to withdraw until meaningful change is agreed.
‘Leaving would simply mean the UK joining other respected democracies like Australia and Canada that successfully protect human rights through Parliamentary accountability without depending on an international court.’
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS
-
- Britain and the ECHR: Past Myths, Present Problems and Future Options is available here
- Lord Lilley will be speaking at a public launch event for the paper on Wednesday 9 July at 9am, at Old Queen Street Cafe. To attend, please email [email protected].
- For further information and media requests, please contact Emma Revell on 07931 698246 and [email protected] or Melisa Tourt on 07399 251110 and [email protected]
- Lord Lilley served in the Cabinets of Margaret Thatcher and John Major as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry then for Social Security. He was Shadow Chancellor then Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, with responsibility for policy renewal, until 2000. He stood down as an MP in 2017 and was made a Peer in 2018.
- The Centre for Policy Studies is one of the oldest and most influential think tanks in Westminster. With a focus on taxation, economic growth, housing, immigration, and energy abundance, its goal is to develop policies that widen enterprise, ownership and opportunity.
Date Added: Wednesday 9th July 2025
