We are ready to discuss human rights law changes, top ECHR boss tells BBC

The political head of the body that oversees the European Convention on Human Rights told the BBC he was “absolutely ready” to discuss reforms in the face of pressure from Britain and other countries on immigration.

Alain Berset, secretary general of the Council of Europe, predicted in an exclusive statement to the BBC that abandoning international human rights law would leave Britain “alone” on the world stage.

He acknowledged that human rights laws “may need to change or adapt” and that institutions largely created by the British after the Second World War were vital to peace, security and justice.

Berset’s remarks ahead of the Convention’s 75th anniversary are the clearest evidence that the institution can thrive amid growing debate about its future across the continent. There is also public recognition that he needs to talk to England about his future and potential change.

The council, which has nothing to do with the European Union, international political body Supervising and implementing its work in Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights.

The court decides how to interpret human rights law in its 46 member states. In the UK the government and judges are required to consider these decisions, but they are not bound by decisions that are not closely relevant to our circumstances.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government has committed to changing the way the government interprets privacy and family life rights; thus, these rights cannot be used to prevent illegal immigrants from being removed from the country.

In a speech in Strasbourg earlier this year, Shabana Mahmood, then justice minister and now interior minister, said the contract itself must evolve to maintain public trust.

The Conservatives and Reform are calling on Britain to withdraw from the deal, claiming Strasbourg’s human rights law is an impediment to managing borders.

Nine EU countries, led by Denmark and Italy, have also called for major changes that would require the agreement of all member states.

In a rare interview about the EHRC’s relationship with the UK at the council’s headquarters in France, Berset told the BBC: “I’m ready, I’m absolutely ready and I’m really open to participating in all the political discussions, seeing what we need to discuss, maybe changing it or adapting it.”

“Let’s deal with immigration issues and see what we need to address and perhaps change.

“The most important point is to be ready to talk about all issues without taboos… and see what the possible consensus might be among member states.”

Critics of the ECHR say the advantage of going to the UK would be to take back control of human rights law.

However, Berset said: “The opposite is true. I see that there is more risk in being a little isolated. This means not participating in all discussions about immigration, but having influence.”

While Berset said that he would not comment on domestic politics in England, he stated that the discussion at the ECHR should return to “facts”.

He denied being a friend of terrorists or illegal immigrants, following criticism that the court was increasingly blocking the deportation of illegal immigrants and criminal immigrants.

He said the UK should also consider how leaving would affect Northern Ireland’s power-sharing agreement and the post-Brexit deal with the EU; Both of these involve a legal commitment to common human rights principles.

He argued that leaving would send a “really negative signal” to Ukraine because of the central role of the Council of Europe, supported by the United Kingdom, in preparations for war crimes trials.

“Churchill was the father of the European Council and the congress,” Berset said.

“It’s pretty hard to see, and it’s going to be really hard [the UK quitting]. There is no alternative. “We need a room, places where we can discuss together.”

He added: “It will be an interesting test for all of us. In this phase of division that we are witnessing now, can we avoid wars to make sure that we achieve rapprochement, that we take control of what we want to have as a collective future?”