The Conservatives should not go down the 'rabbit hole' of focusing on the European Convention on Human Rights but instead concentrate on the issues that the public really care about, a former lord chancellor has told the party conference.

The conference began yesterday in Birmingham under the banner 'Review and Rebuild', following the party's election defeat in July.

Former justice secretary Robert Buckland, who lost his South Swindon seat in July's election, described the ECHR as the 'reddest of red herrings' at a fringe event organised by thinktank More in Common, entitled 'Rights and Wrongs: Should Conservatives support or oppose the ECHR?'.

According to More in Common polling, immigration was one of the top three issues for voters. The European Court of Human Rights, which enforces Convention rights, is a 'proxy for how we get a grip on immigration', More in Common's UK director Luke Tryl said.

Read more

Sticking with the ECHR is not just a political issue

Buckland said ECHR membership is immaterial to issues of fact when it comes to legal and illegal migration.

Robert Buckland CPC

Buckland speaking at the Conservative Party conference fringe event

'The decision made about Rwanda was not about the interpretation of ECHR law. It was about our own domestic law and the concept of a safe country given by the 1951 Refugee Convention... I'm just worried that if we go down this rabbit hole, seeking to leave the ECHR, we just look weird.

'We're not talking to people about the issues they really care about - the cost of living, whether or not their children are going to school in safe surroundings, whether or not their neighbourhood is a place they can be proud of. These are the issues that matter to people.'

Asked during Q&As whether lawyers were frustrating the will of the people, Buckland said: 'No. The Conservatives are nothing if we do not believe in the rule of law. We stand for traditional institutions in this country. We should reassert our belief in the rule of law.'

Most of the Strasbourg court's judgments are not binding on the UK unless the UK is a party to the case, Buckland noted. Where the party needs to be 'vocal and vigilant is the overreach of the court'.

He added that when the UK signs up to a treaty it gives up some of its sovereignty and the UK lives in a world where it has international obligations. 'Let's just grow up and get over it,' he said