Sunak will use emergency legislation to start flights to Rwanda

Rishi Sunak at a Downing Street press conference on Wednesday where he promised a new deal with Rwanda. Photo: Simon Walker/No. 10 Downing Street

Rishi Sunak announced “emergency” legislation to circumvent a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that his plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal.

On Press conference at Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to conclude a new treaty with Rwanda and pass an “emergency” law declaring the country “safe” for refugees.

Downing Street argued that the new treaty and law would address the Supreme Court's concerns by making clear the absence of asylum. a job seeker deported to Rwanda will then be sent home.

Threatening European Court of Human Rights judges who previously suspended deportation flights to the east African country, Mr Sunak said: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.”

Mr Sunak said he wanted flights to Rwanda to open next spring but had failed three times to guarantee this would happen before a general election expected next autumn.

One Conservative MP called it a “last chance salon.”

Five Supreme Court judges ruled that the government's underlying policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda on small boats for processing was unlawful. Lord Reed, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed there were «substantial» reasons to believe that there is a “real risk” of refugees from Rwanda being deported to their countries of origin where they may face “abuse”.

At a press conference, Mr Sunak said he respected the court's decision, while unveiling his Plan B to reinstate the deportation flight policy, which he said would «end the merry-go-round».

He said a new deal with Rwanda, which government officials had been working on for weeks, would be struck to make it clear that asylum seekers sent there from Britain would not then be sent home.

Then he laid out emergency laws that «will enable Parliament to confirm that Rwanda is safe under our new treaty.»

“This will ensure that people cannot continue to delay flights by filing systemic claims in our national courts, and will prevent our policies from being permanently blocked,” he added.

Number 10 believes in both the treaty and the new law, which they accept. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament before the spring, which will allay the Supreme Court's concerns and mean the policy is considered legal.

But Mr Sunak continued to raise concerns that the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, ruling on The ECHR may intervene and block flights even after the adoption of a new law.

In June 2022, the European Court of Justice intervened and blocked flights from departing to Rwanda on the grounds that it might violate the ECHR. What followed was a long battle over the legality of the policy.

The Prime Minister said: “Let me tell everyone now — I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.”

“If the Strasbourg court decided intervene against the express wishes of Parliament, I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to cancel the flights. I will not take the easy way.”

It was a clear warning that if the new UK law declares Rwanda a safe country, it may ignore the European Court's demands to overturn deportation flights.

The decision prompted warnings from Tory MPs about a «trust» problem in Mr Sunak's «leadership.»

Simon Clarke, a Conservative MP and former Commons secretary, said the decision presented «an issue of confidence in his judgment as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party.»

Dame Andrea Jenkins, former Education Secretary , who submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister following Monday's cabinet reshuffle and said six colleagues were preparing to follow her.

Suella Braverman demanded that the government introduce emergency legislation that would «block» legal action to implement the Rwanda policy she led before she was sacked as interior minister on Monday.

The day after after accusing Sunak of betraying the nation over his failure to tackle the small boat crisis, she tweeted:

Today's Supreme Court decision is not a surprise. This was predicted by a number of people close to the process. Given the current state of the law, there is no reason to criticize judges. Instead, the government should pass emergency legislation. 1/3

— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) November 15, 2023

She added: “Those who, like me, believe that effective immigration controls are vital need to understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it: there is no chance of curbing illegal migration within the current legal framework. We must pass laws or admit defeat.»

Although many later welcomed his plans, he still faced calls from Tory MPs to go further, including from Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates, Tory MPs and co-leaders of the right. -support for the New Conservative faction.

Their joint statement said: “Glad the Prime Minister is bringing forward emergency legislation. But this will require more than a declaration that Rwanda is safe.

“We cannot wait for the ECtHR to intervene: we must act now to ensure that this time, at last, there is simply no way to defend rights on deportation claims.”

“The bill would repeal the Rights Act person and put the policy into effect despite the ECHR and the Refugee Convention. It must confirm the government's right to ignore Strasbourg's temporary decisions.”

Statement by the co-chairs of the New Conservatives @danny__kruger and @miriam_cates

Glad the Prime Minister is bringing forward the Emergency Bill. But this will require more than just a declaration that Rwanda is safe. We can't wait for the ECtHR to intervene: we must act now to ensure that this time…

— The New Conservatives (@thenewcons) November 15, 2023

Letter to The Telegraph, Dame Priti Patel, former minister Home Affairs said: “Sometimes it is easier said than done, but I will support them in implementing.”

Mr Clarke said: “This was a welcome announcement from the Prime Minister, but we are in a last-chance salon here.

“Emergency legislation must be so clear, specific and unambiguous – ideally written in terms of the “notwithstanding” conventions on which today's ruling is based – that it is not susceptible to judicial intervention.”

A Downing Street source responded to these calls by saying such moves would leave the government open to more legal challenges.