Suella Braverman has been criticised by two Conservative MPs for an “alarmist” speech about the need for human rights reform due to the “existential challenge” posed by illegal migration.
Speaking from Washington DC on Tuesday, the home secretary riled some in her party by suggesting that being gay or a woman and fearful of discrimination should not be enough to qualify as a refugee in the UK.
The speech was seen as a warning that the government could commit to leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), if the scheme to remove migrants who arrive in small boats is blocked by the supreme court.
Braverman did not rule out such a move, and said world leaders had held back from reforming the ECHR for “fear of being branded a racist or illiberal”.
Bob Neill, a Conservative MP and chair of the justice select committee, told the Times that Braverman’s rhetoric was “excessive and unhelpful”, which he said was “a pity because her underlying point that the world was very different in 1951 [when the ECHR was created] is a fair one”.
Neill said it was “legitimate” to look at whether the convention was working “in a modern age of mass continental movement, and where the boundary is between persecution and discrimination”.
But he added: “The rhetoric has got in the way of it. Saying we face an ‘existential threat’ is alarmist, exaggerated, and that makes it harder to achieve consensus around sensible reform that we want politicians to be aiming for.
“We need to have a serious debate about immigration, about how to tackle the refugee crisis, but we need to do it in a calmer way with more measured language.”
Tobias Ellwood, another Conservative MP, shared similar concerns.
“We’ve earned our permanent seat on the United Nations security council because we’ve helped shape international law. We actually support it, we advance it. What we don’t do is then run roughshod through it,” Ellwood told ITV’s Peston programme.
He continued: “I distance myself from some of those comments that I’ve just heard now, which are clearly designed for a particular audience and it doesn’t do the prime minister any good, indeed as we lead into our own conference.”
Ellwood called Braverman’s intervention “a distraction” and said it would be “absolutely wrong” to pull out of the ECHR – though added that, given it is more than 70 years old, it could be “advanced”.
Other countries such as France and Germany were experiencing the same migration challenges, Ellwood said.
He added: “The reason why these people are fleeing countries such as Libya. Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and so forth is because we wandered into these countries and then somehow things haven’t worked out and we’ve then departed. If we start to fix the problem at source, then we will deal with this refugee migrant crisis. Until we look at it that way around, this problem will continue.”
In a highly unusual intervention, the UN high commissioner for refugees defended the refugee convention in the aftermath of Braverman’s speech, saying it remained “as relevant today as when it was adopted”.
The UNHCR said: “Where individuals are at risk of persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is crucial that they are able to seek safety and protection.”
Braverman was defended by Richard Holden, the roads minister and a 2019-elected MP in the “red wall” seat of North West Durham. He told Times Radio that the refugee convention was “signed before most of my grandparents, all of whom are now dead, could even vote”. He added “this is something from a totally different era” so it was important to “improve our international agreements … so they’re fit for the modern times”.
Braverman will continue her three-day visit to the US, during which she is expected to meet representatives of the Biden administration.
