It is a privilege to be here in Strasbourg – the living symbol of Europe’s post-war promise: that freedom, dignity and the rule of law would never again be aspirations, but guarantees.
It was here we took our first steps together, to create from the ashes of war a Europe bound not only by treaties and peace, but by shared principles.
The United Kingdom is proud of the role it has played in keeping that promise.
We helped found this council. We helped draft the Convention. And I can confirm that we remain firmly committed to both.
But commitment is not the same as complacency.
And across the continent, trust is being tested. Rules are increasingly being broken and undermined.
And the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – once widely assumed – now face distortion, doubt, even hostility.
In this context, the recent letter from nine European leaders demonstrates a desire for open conversation about the future of the Convention.
And I welcome that dialogue.
But as the Secretary General has said, that discussion needs to happen amongst us as member States.
He went on to say that we must ensure that the Convention holds liberty and security, and justice and responsibility, in balance.
I agree and I want to reflect today on what that means.
Because our Convention was never meant to be frozen in time.
It has been amended, extended and interpreted over decades – responding to new threats, new rights, and new realities.
And we must consider doing so again. That is why the UK is not only open to this conversation, we are already actively pursuing it in how we implement the convention domestically – not to weaken rights, but to update and strengthen them.
This is not a retreat from principle. It is the very essence of the rule of law.
In these increasingly turbulent times, that phrase is often repeated, sometimes diluted.
But the rule of law is not a vague ideal.
It means simply that laws are clear and apply to all; that power is exercised within limits; and that everyone – government included – is bound by the rules.
That principle runs through the United Kingdom’s legal tradition.
It’s why my parents chose to make their lives there – because they believed in a country where institutions were independent, where power was accountable, and where justice didn’t depend on who you were, but on what was right.
And it is not only our tradition.
Every nation in this Council shares the practice of using written rules to underpin our democratic societies – we pay our taxes, respect others’ property and uphold due process.
These rules bind not just people within a state, but the behaviour of states towards one another – as was made clear at the Luxembourg Ministerial.
I commend strongly the speed with which the Council expelled Russia following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the extensive work to set up the Register of Damage and towards creating a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.
These are not symbolic acts. They are proud declarations that the rule of law still matters.
To support this, I can today announce our contribution of €100,000 to the Council of Europe Ukraine Action Plan.
This will support Council of Europe activities that are strengthening democratic governance and the rule of law in Ukraine.
When I came in this morning, the Ukrainian and Council of Europe flags were at half-mast, and it is a sobering reminder of the daily horrors that the Ukrainian people are suffering.
But the successes of our Convention cannot be taken for granted. Because when rules are broken with impunity, trust collapses – not just in states, but in the idea of democracy itself.
And across Europe, public confidence in the rule of law is fraying.
There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.
That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them.
This tension is not new. The Convention was written to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state.
But in today’s world, the threats to justice and liberty are more complex.
They can come from technology, transnational crime, uncontrolled migration, or legal systems that drift away from public consent.
Again, I commend the good work that is going on.
We must work together with the Secretary General to ensure that the Democratic Pact helps meet these challenges and builds on existing work such as the Reykjavik Principles on Democracy, the Venice Commission, and GRECO.
But when the application of rights begins to feel out of step with common sense – when it conflicts with fairness or disrupts legitimate government action – trust begins to erode.
We have seen this in the UK in two particularly sensitive areas: immigration and criminal justice.
If a foreign national commits a serious crime, they should expect to be removed from the country.
But we see cases where individuals invoke the right to family life – even after neglecting or harming those very family ties.
Or take prison discipline. Being in custody is a punishment. It means some privileges are lost.
But dangerous prisoners have been invoking Article 8 to try to block prison staff from putting them in separation centres to manage the risk they pose.
It is not right that dangerous prisoners’ rights are given priority over others’ safety and security.
That is not what the Convention was ever intended to protect.
To be clear, this is not a critique of the Court of Human Rights.
It was my pleasure yesterday to meet the new President of the Court, and he and his colleagues have my full support in their role of interpreting and applying the Convention.
But when legal outcomes feel disconnected from public reasonableness, it is our job to respond.
Because when people come to believe that rights only exist to protect the rule-breaker – not the rule-follower – those who would undermine the entire idea of universal human rights – the populists – will seize the space we leave behind.
So, what should we do?
We cannot leave these questions to the courts alone.
If judges are being asked to solve political problems that parliaments avoid, we weaken both institutions.
That is why reform must be a shared political endeavour amongst us as member States – to preserve our Convention by renewing its moral and democratic foundation.
None of us can walk away from that discussion.
In the UK, we are restoring the balance we pledged at the birth of our Convention: liberty with responsibility, individual rights with the public interest.
There must be consequences for breaking the rules.
Which is why we are clarifying how Convention rights – particularly Article 8 – operate in relation to our immigration rules. The right to family life is fundamental. But it has too often been used in ways that frustrate deportation, even where there are serious concerns about credibility, fairness, and risk to the public.
We’re bringing clarity back to the distinction between what the law protects and what policy permits.
Prisoners claiming a right to socialise – under Article 8 – is not just a legal stretch. It damages the public perception of human rights altogether.
These are the reforms we are pursuing at home. The question for all of us now is whether the Convention system, as it stands, has the tools to resolve these tensions in a way that keeps the public with us.
As I have said, our Convention has evolved before, through new protocols, new rights, and new interpretations. Always to reflect changing times, while staying true to its purpose.
The rule of law and human rights are part of one system of thought.
But when rights feel remote from fairness, or we appear to protect the rule-breaker over the rule-follower, trust disintegrates – and with it, the foundations of democracy.
That is why this dialogue matters. Because the Convention matters so much.
We can preserve rights by restoring public confidence in them rather than give ground to populism.
The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the great achievements of post-war politics.
It has endured because it has evolved.
Now, it must do so again – as the Secretary General said, so it is strong and relevant
And as it is our convention, it is our responsibility. It will not always be easy. But this is a conversation we need to have.
I look forward to that conversation, today and in the months to come.