Criminal migrant rights could be axed

Foreign criminals may no longer be able to avoid deportation by claiming a "right to family life" under proposals announced by the home secretary. Theresa May pledged to rewrite the immigration rules to prevent "misinterpretation" of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She told the Tory party conference that the move would help "restore sanity" to the immigration system. She also reiterated her desire to scrap the Human Rights Act. The Tories want to replace the Act, which incorporates the European Convention into British law, with a British Bill of Rights but their Lib Dem coalition partners have insisted that it must remain in place. Announcing the immigration rules review on Tuesday, Mrs May said existing arrangements had "constrained" the UK's ability to remove foreign criminals from the country. Official figures show that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was used successfully by more than 100 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants last year.The home secretary is examining how to make clear in the immigration rules that a foreign national can be deported when they have been convicted of a criminal offence, breached immigration rules or set up a family life while in the UK illegally. Although everyone has a right under Article 8 to respect for their private and family life, Mrs May said it was legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, for public protection or national security. "The right to a family life is not an absolute right and it should not be used to drive a coach and horse through our immigration system," she said "The meaning of Article 8 should no longer be misconstrued. So I will write it into our immigration rules that when foreign nationals are convicted of a criminal offence or breach our immigration rules, when they should be removed they will be removed."MPs are not expected to get a chance to vote on the change as it is contained in secondary legislation. Home Office sources do not claim the rule change will mean the government can deport everyone it wants to, but it will "rebalance" the system. Ahead of Mrs May's speech Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC: "We believe that the courts are currently giving too much attention to that [the right to family life], rather than the protection of the United Kingdom. "And you are able to change the immigration rules and ask them to look more carefully about the danger these individuals pose. The right to family life is not an inalienable right in the European Convention, so we believe this change can work." Aides have stressed that the policy has been cleared by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as well as Justice Secretary Ken Clarke - seen as another liberal voice on criminal justice. The Conservatives are already on a collision course with the Lib Dems over plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. The prime minister and Mrs May both say they want to scrap the Human Rights Act but cannot act as quickly as they would like due to Liberal Democrat opposition. A commission set up to examine the policy, which is enshrined in the coalition agreement, is due to report later this year but Mr Clegg told his party conference last month that the Human Rights Act was "here to stay".A spokesman for Nick Clegg said the deputy prime minister welcomed the home secretary's review of immigration rules as part of a wider debate about the "details of how the Act operates". "Article 8 is a right which is supposed to be balanced against the public interest and we need to make sure that happens properly in immigration cases," he said. Several high-profile cases have attracted criticism, including that of Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit-and-run in Blackburn in 2003. He was jailed but allowed to remain in the UK after he and his wife had two children following his release from prison. Ibrahim's lawyers successfully used Article 8 to argue for his right to stay and judges at the Court of Appeal refused an application to appeal against that decision in April this year.