Reform's Deportation Policy - 10's of Billions to UK Taxpayers?

REFORM and Deportation- The costs
Liz Lucy Robillard

The Real Legal Limits of the “Restore Britain” Deportation Plan

A new paper by Restore Britain calls for mass deportations of everyone living in the UK without legal status.

It sounds decisive and patriotic, but the plan breaks far more laws than it fixes — and would very likely collapse in the courts before the first charter flight took off.

This post unpacks what’s lawful, what isn’t, and who would actually make or lose money if any of it went ahead.

1. What They Want

The Restore Britain report demands:

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998;

Repealing the Equality Act 2010;

Introducing a “Great Clarification Act” letting Parliament override judges;

And deporting up to two million people within three years.

2. What the Law Actually Allows

Most of those measures are unlawful under existing UK and international law.

Here’s why.

A. Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

Courts, not ministers, decide if a detention or deportation is lawful.

Cases such as R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 and R v Secretary of State ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 confirmed that no minister may overrule the courts or act contrary to fundamental rights without explicit parliamentary authority.

B. Unlawful Detention

The Hardial Singh principles (R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Hardial Singh [1984]) limit immigration detention to what is reasonable and necessary for removal.

Abolishing these limits would not legalise indefinite detention; judges would apply habeas corpus instead.

C. Equality and Fair Treatment

Even if the Equality Act 2010 were repealed, the courts would still enforce fairness through the common law (see R v Home Secretary, ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539).

Race-based or nationality-based mass removals would remain unlawful.

3. Leaving the ECHR: What It Means and Doesn’t

Restore Britain argues that leaving the ECHR would “unshackle” the UK from Strasbourg judges who block deportations using:

Article 3 – protection from torture or degrading treatment;

Article 8 – right to family life.

They are half right: those articles do restrict deportations.

But quitting the ECHR would not suddenly make mass removals legal.

Under Article 58 of the Convention, the UK must give one year’s notice before withdrawal.

During that year, all judgments still apply.

Withdrawal would also:

1. Breach the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, which embeds the ECHR in Northern Ireland law;

2. Undermine the UK–EU Trade & Cooperation Agreement, which assumes ECHR membership for security and data exchange;

3. Trigger legal chaos — the courts would still apply domestic fairness and proportionality tests even without the ECHR label.

So even outside Strasbourg, deportations would still face judicial review under UK common law and other treaties such as the UN Refugee Convention and Convention Against Torture.

4. The Only Lawful Parts

Not everything in the paper is impossible.

A few narrow reforms could legally accelerate deportations — but only for people whose cases are completely finished.

A. A “Returns Act” for Final Cases

A statute could allow a 28-day maximum detention window for people who have no remaining appeals, with:

72 hours’ notice before removal;

Automatic bail review by the Immigration Tribunal.

This would speed up removals and reduce costs while still respecting due process.

B. Expanded Voluntary Returns

Redirecting part of the Home Office budget into Voluntary Return Schemes is both lawful and effective.

These programs pay for travel and small reintegration grants.

They cost less and face no human-rights litigation because participation is voluntary.

C. Smarter Data-Sharing, Not Treaty Breaches

Instead of suspending EU data rules, the Home Office can use Prüm II and ECRIS-TCN databases to verify identities.

This works within the forthcoming Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, already cleared as “adequate” by the EU.

D. Legal Cover for Officials

When actions rest on Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, civil servants are protected from misfeasance or false-imprisonment claims.

Everything else — like acting without court authority — remains personally risky and uninsured.

5. Who Would Benefit Financially

If mass deportations went ahead:

Private security and detention contractors (e.g., Serco, Mitie, G4S) would receive multi-billion-pound contracts for transport, catering, and guards.

Charter-flight operators and insurers would gain large emergency-service fees.

Litigation firms and human-rights barristers would also profit, because the volume of challenges would explode.

Taxpayers would foot the bill — estimates run into tens of billions over five years.

If the UK stayed within the law:

Home Office caseworkers, immigration tribunals, and voluntary-return contractors would still be paid, but at far lower public cost.

The Treasury would save money through faster processing and fewer lawsuits.

Britain would retain access to EU criminal-data systems and international trade privileges.

In short:

Leaving the ECHR might enrich contractors and create months of expensive legal drama; staying in, and using lawful fast-track removals, saves many billions and keeps the UK compliant.

6. Bottom Line

Only the court-supervised parts of the Restore Britain idea —speeding up removal of failed asylum seekers and expanding voluntary returns —can be done legally.

Once the plan moves into mass, automatic, or race-based expulsions, it becomes unlawful, uninsured, and politically explosive. Can't work.

Sources:

Immigration Act 2016

Nationality & Borders Act 2022

Human Rights Act 1998

Equality Act 2010

Key cases: ex p Hardial Singh (1984), Simms (2000), Pierson (1998), Evans (2015)

Treaties: European Convention on Human Rights, UN Refugee Convention 1951, Good Friday Agreement 1998

As with all stuff here- content subject to change

Liz Lucy Robillard

See my post on leaving the echr- who really benefits...

Who benefits from leaving the echr?