Ministers are being urged to close loopholes (Image: Getty)
Foreign criminals using “very vaguely worded” human rights laws to avoid being deported will be tagged like suspected terrorists to protect the public.
Dangerous offenders and security threats face electronic tags, night-time curfews and exclusion zones, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will announce.
These could be used for both convicted offenders and those deemed a threat to the British public.
The new powers are modelled on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM), which enable the Home Secretary to impose restrictions on suspected terrorists including GPS tags, curfews, exclusion zones and curbs on their use of phones, internet or contact with associates.
:
Yvette Cooper will introduce new restrictions (Image: Getty)
Ministers do not believe they contravene human rights laws.
It comes after warnings that are exploiting human rights laws that are “very vaguely worded”.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp warned said Parliament is being “circumvented” and “trumped” by the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Philp warned that judges are not using enough “common sense” when assessing immigration cases.
The will on Monday table a series of amendments to Labour’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, calling for tougher measures to end “mass low-skilled low-wage immigration into the UK.”
Migrants will not be able to bring their partners to the UK for at least two years, the will propose, and foreign workers will have to earn at least £38,700.
The party will also propose revoking someone’s asylum claim if they return to their country of origin – even for a holiday.
Mr Philp told Trevor Phillips on Sky News: “We think that the way UK judges are applying the ECHR in our domestic UK courts has become out of control. They’ve stretched these definitions so far.
“Some of these ECHR articles are very vaguely worded. Things like a ‘right to a family life’ or ‘freedom from degrading treatment’. Now, what do those mean in practice? Well, they mean whatever a judge says they mean.
“If judges interpret those reasonably, that’s fine, but what we’ve seen in the last few years in the UK courts is judges have expanded these definitions wider and wider.”
It follows a series of hugely controversial decisions, including one where an Albanian criminal avoided deportation after claiming his son didn’t like foreign chicken nuggets and a Pakistani paedophile jailed for child sex offences who escaped removal from the UK as it would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
Mr Philp added: “The Human Rights Act allows judges in the UK to apply their interpretation of these very vague ECHR articles and they’ve stretched these definitions so far that in some cases it just defies common sense.
“We don’t think UK judges should do that any longer for immigration cases. Instead, those judges should just apply the UK law passed by Parliament, so we can restore some common sense.”
The Conservative Party announced it would table an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which would ensure the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR, cannot be used to appeal deportation or other immigration decisions.
It wants to ensure the Act does not interfere with the Government’s ability to deport illegal migrants.
If this amendment passes, the UK will still be in the ECHR, but last month Mrs Badenoch suggested the UK would “probably” have to leave if it stops the country from doing “what is right”.
Mr Philp added: “I think it’s for Parliament, the democratically-elected Parliament, to set laws and for the courts then to interpret them.
“But because the ECHR is so vaguely worded, it means Parliament essentially can’t legislate precisely to say what should and should not kind of count as a right, and who should and should not be allowed to remain.
“Parliament has essentially been circumvented and trumped, as it were, by the way these ECHR rights are being interpreted.”
The will on Monday argue migrants must earn at least £38,700 to live and work in the UK.
Other suggested changes include anyone who has been granted a work visa will be unable to apply for any form of benefits from the Government, including housing support.
The will also propose an annual cap on family visas, adding that no one country should be able to take up more than 7% of the total allocation.
There were 86,049 family visas issued in 2024, 7% higher than in 2023.
The said it will ensure migrants are “self-sufficient and do not rely on the state”.
Conservative Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “We need to dramatically reduce immigration. The numbers coming into the UK on family visas have been far too high, and these measures will fix that.”
It will also attempt to put the Conservative policy of people only being granted indefinite leave to remain if they have been in Britain for at least 10 years in to law. This would double the current five-year threshold.
Mr Philp added: “For too long we have seen mass low-skilled low-wage immigration into the UK. We now know that actually costs the taxpayer money, puts pressure on services and undermines social cohesion.
“The are under new leadership. Mass immigration must end, and instead I want to see far, far smaller numbers of genuinely high-skilled migrants.”
A Home Office source said: “The ‘ nonsense amendment means completely bypassing British courts and handling all decision-making on asylum cases to Europe.
“They left the asylum system in utter chaos, and now, instead of putting forward viable plans to clear up the mess they made, they’re proposing outsourcing control of our asylum system to EU courts.”