Nigel Farage said he would scrap the Human Right Act. (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has promised to scrap the Human Rights act and deport thousands of migrants if he becomes the next prime minister. The Reform UK leader instead wants to bring in the British Bill of Rights, which would only apply to British citizens and those with the legal right to live in the UK.
It would focus on terms such as protection of liberty and free speech, with no reference to human rights. This would also mean the country leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other international agreements. Mr Farage explained that his proposed bill would give people “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The move would facilitate the deportation of thousands of migrants. (Image: Getty)
He said: “The opposite to that is the concept of human rights, which are state given. We have got academics working on it. There is a huge amount to do.”
The system would mean people who come to the UK would have no right to claim asylum, and be arrested and detained in facilities on former military bases.
Another “fallback” option would be to send people to British Overseas Territories, such as Ascension Island in the South Atlantic.
Britian would also have deals with the countries where most asylum seekers are coming from, and third countries to send people if they cannot return home.
Mr Farage described it as a “carrot and stick” approach that would give people six months to “self-deport” via an app. There would be a £2,500 payout from the government for doing so, as well as covering the cost of their flight.
Reform claimed this would cost £10 billion but ultimately save the government money.
This comes after Sir Keir Starmer was urged to suspend the EHCR to allow for the deportation of migrants.
Former Labour education secretary Lord Blunkett said the move would facilitate the deportation of thousands of rejected asylum seekers currently in hotels.
He urged ministers to consider the “radical” approach, pointing to Germany as an example of where it has worked previously.
Nigel Farage Pledges to Scrap Human Rights Act to Prioritise British Citizens
Nigel Farage has renewed his pledge to repeal the UK’s Human Rights Act and replace it with a new British Bill of Rights, placing the proposal at the centre of Reform UK’s wider plans to overhaul immigration, border control and the relationship between Parliament and the courts.
The Reform UK leader has argued that Britain’s legal system should give greater priority to the rights and interests of British citizens, particularly when questions of immigration and deportation are involved.
The proposal represents a significant constitutional change. It would not simply alter immigration policy; it would affect the legal framework through which people in Britain can rely on human-rights protections and challenge decisions made by public authorities.
Reform’s own published immigration legislation states that a future Reform government would leave the European Convention on Human Rights, repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The party links those changes directly to its proposed Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.
Farage’s argument for change
Farage has repeatedly argued that Britain’s existing human-rights framework can make it difficult for governments to enforce immigration laws.
His position is particularly focused on people who have no legal right to remain in the UK, foreign offenders and people arriving through irregular routes.
Reform’s proposed legislation would create what the party describes as a legal duty on the Home Secretary to remove people who do not have valid leave to remain, subject to specified exceptions. The proposal would also seek to change the application of several international conventions.
For Farage and his party, the issue is therefore connected to a much broader argument about sovereignty.
They contend that elected governments should be able to implement immigration policies supported by Parliament without being prevented from doing so by interpretations of human-rights law.
That argument has become one of the defining features of Reform’s immigration programme.
What the Human Rights Act actually does
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK domestic law.
It allows people in Britain to rely on Convention rights before UK courts and requires public authorities to act compatibly with those rights, subject to the legal framework established by Parliament.
The Act does not itself mean that every person automatically wins a case against the government.
Nor does it prevent Parliament from passing immigration legislation.
Instead, it provides a legal framework through which courts can examine whether public authorities have acted consistently with protected rights.
Repealing the Act would therefore change the way those rights are enforced domestically.
Reform says its proposed British Bill of Rights would provide an alternative framework more explicitly centred on Britain’s constitutional arrangements.
The precise content and legal powers of such a Bill would ultimately depend on legislation passed by Parliament.
The ECHR is a separate issue
One of the most important distinctions in the debate is between the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
They are connected, but they are not the same thing.
Repealing the Human Rights Act would change the domestic mechanism through which Convention rights operate in UK law.
Leaving the ECHR would be a separate step involving Britain’s international obligations.
Reform’s published proposals call for both.
The Institute for Government has examined the party’s immigration plans and identified leaving the ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and introducing new mass-deportation legislation as separate elements of the proposed programme. It also highlighted the legal and practical obstacles that could arise.
This distinction matters because simply repealing the Human Rights Act would not automatically remove Britain from the European Convention.
A future government seeking the complete legal change proposed by Reform would therefore have to deal with both domestic legislation and international commitments.
Immigration is at the heart of the proposal
The Human Rights Act debate has become closely linked to immigration because Reform sees the existing legal framework as one of the barriers to its proposed deportation programme.
The party wants significantly larger detention capacity, faster removals and a new deportation command.
It has also proposed leaving the ECHR as part of its wider approach.
The objective is to make it easier for a future government to remove people who have no legal basis for remaining in Britain.
That would mark a substantial departure from the current system.
The Institute for Government has noted that Reform’s proposals could involve disengagement from several international treaties and major changes to domestic legislation.
The practical consequences would depend on exactly what Parliament enacted and how the courts interpreted the resulting legislation.
Supporters say Parliament should have the final word
One of the central arguments behind Reform’s approach is parliamentary sovereignty.
The party argues that elected politicians should ultimately determine Britain’s immigration rules rather than courts applying international human-rights standards in ways that ministers believe restrict their ability to enforce those rules.
This argument is not limited to Reform.
Debates about the ECHR, the role of courts and parliamentary sovereignty have featured in British politics for many years.
What distinguishes Reform’s position is the extent of the proposed changes.
Rather than seeking individual amendments to the existing framework, the party proposes leaving the ECHR and replacing the Human Rights Act altogether.
Its supporters argue that this would give Parliament greater freedom to establish immigration and deportation rules.
Critics warn of wider consequences
Opponents of Reform’s plan argue that human-rights protections are not simply an immigration issue.
The rights protected by the European Convention cover matters including freedom of expression, privacy, family life, fair trial rights and protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Changing the legal framework would therefore affect a much wider range of cases.
The Institute for Government has also pointed to possible consequences for Britain’s international relationships, including the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, if Britain were to withdraw from relevant international commitments.
That is why the debate cannot be reduced simply to the question of whether Britain should deport people more quickly.
The constitutional implications extend much further.
The question of British citizens
Farage’s language about prioritising British citizens reflects Reform’s broader approach to welfare and public policy.
In August 2026, Reform announced a separate proposal to restrict welfare benefits primarily to British citizens, with limited exceptions including some Armed Forces service and contributory state pension arrangements. The party described the policy as an attempt to put British taxpayers and citizens first.
The same political philosophy appears in its immigration proposals.
Reform argues that citizenship should carry particular responsibilities and privileges and that access to state support should be more closely connected to citizenship and contribution.
The party has also proposed major changes to the route through which foreign nationals acquire permanent residency.
In September 2025, Farage announced plans to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain for future applicants and replace it with renewable work visas, while making citizenship more difficult to obtain.
Taken together, these proposals indicate a much broader attempt to redefine the relationship between citizenship, migration and access to state services.
The legal challenges would be substantial
Changing the Human Rights Act would not automatically guarantee that every Reform immigration policy could be implemented without legal challenges.
The Institute for Government has identified several possible obstacles surrounding the party’s proposals, including international treaty obligations and the practical operation of new legislation.
There could also be challenges involving devolution.
Immigration itself is largely a reserved matter, but the effects of immigration legislation can intersect with responsibilities held by the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Constitution Society has noted that a future Reform government could face legal and political challenges involving devolution if it attempted to implement its immigration programme. It also highlighted the potential importance of parliamentary sovereignty if Westminster sought to legislate in areas affecting devolved governments.
The result would be a complicated constitutional debate rather than a simple legislative change.
What would replace the Human Rights Act?
Perhaps one of the most important unanswered questions concerns the proposed British Bill of Rights.
Repealing an existing law is relatively straightforward in principle.
Replacing it requires Parliament to decide what protections should take its place.
Reform has made clear that it wants a British framework, but the precise balance between individual rights, parliamentary authority and judicial interpretation would depend on the eventual legislation.
Would British citizens have stronger protections?
Would foreign nationals have different rights?
Would courts have fewer powers?
Would Parliament have greater authority to override judicial interpretations?
These questions would need to be answered in the legislation.
Until then, the phrase “British Bill of Rights” describes a political objective rather than a complete legal framework.
The deportation programme
The proposed constitutional reforms are particularly important because they are connected to Reform’s mass-deportation plans.
The party’s immigration document proposes an Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill and a legal duty on the Home Secretary to remove people without valid leave to remain, subject to specified exceptions. It also proposes disapplying certain international conventions in what it describes as a national emergency.
That would be one of the most far-reaching changes to Britain’s immigration system in modern times.
The government’s ability to remove people would depend not only on domestic law but also on documentation, nationality, diplomatic agreements and the willingness of other countries to accept people being returned.
Legal challenges could also continue under whatever rights framework replaced the current system.
A constitutional choice as well as an immigration policy
Farage’s pledge therefore goes beyond the politics of immigration.
It represents a proposed change to Britain’s constitutional settlement.
At its heart is a disagreement about where ultimate authority should lie.
Reform argues that Parliament, as the elected legislature, should have greater control over immigration and other major policy areas.
Critics argue that courts and international human-rights commitments provide important safeguards precisely because governments can sometimes make decisions affecting individuals’ fundamental rights.
Both sides are therefore discussing more than deportation.
They are debating the relationship between Parliament, ministers, judges, international institutions and individual citizens.
The wider political context
The proposal comes as immigration remains one of the most prominent issues in British politics.
Reform has built a substantial part of its political platform around controlling migration, stopping small-boat crossings and increasing removals.
The party’s current policy platform describes Operation Fortress, which would involve using the armed forces in the Channel, alongside its wider Operation Restoring Justice immigration programme.
Farage’s pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act fits into that wider strategy.
The party argues that Britain’s existing institutions have made it too difficult for governments to enforce immigration rules.
Its proposed answer is a combination of new legislation, a different domestic rights framework and withdrawal from the ECHR.
What happens if such a policy reaches Parliament?
If a future government attempted to implement these proposals, Parliament would have to debate and pass the necessary legislation.
The exact wording would be crucial.
Parliament would determine the powers given to ministers, the rights protected by any new Bill of Rights, the circumstances in which deportations could take place and the relationship between the new legislation and Britain’s international obligations.
Courts would then interpret the legislation.
That means even a government with a clear political mandate would still have to translate broad campaign promises into detailed legal provisions.
The process could generate extensive parliamentary debate and legal challenges.
A major dividing line in British politics
Nigel Farage’s pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act has become one of the clearest expressions of Reform UK’s broader political philosophy.
The party wants immigration enforcement to be strengthened, citizenship to carry greater significance and Parliament to have greater freedom to determine national policy.
Its critics argue that human-rights protections exist precisely to place limits on government power and protect individuals regardless of nationality.
The disagreement is therefore about both immigration and constitutional principles.
Reform’s proposal is clear in its direction: repeal the Human Rights Act, leave the ECHR and replace the existing framework with a British Bill of Rights.
The unresolved questions concern the precise content of the replacement system, its relationship with international law and how courts and Parliament would interact under the new arrangements.
For Britain, those questions would have consequences extending well beyond immigration.
They would determine how individual rights are protected, how governments exercise power and where the boundaries of parliamentary authority lie.