- By Becky Morton
- Political reporter
November 16, 2023
Updated 58 minutes ago
The prime minister’s current Rwanda plan will mean no asylum seekers will be flown there before the next election, said former interior minister Suella Braverman.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Rwanda policy was unlawful.
Hours later, Rishi Sunak announced plans for emergency legislation and a new deal with Rwanda to allow the first flights to take off in the spring.
But Ms Braverman said a new deal would not solve “the fundamental problem” with the plan – that the UK’s highest court had ruled there was a risk Rwanda could send asylum seekers back to countries they had fled, which they said would put you at risk of harm.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said there were “significant reasons” to believe that people deported to Rwanda could be returned to places where they would be unsafe.
In her first detailed response to the ruling, Ms Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary on Monday, said she could not see how the government could keep its promise if the prime minister did not go beyond his current proposals before leaving parliament elimination time.
“Trying to deliver flights to Rwanda under a new contract would still require another trip to court, a process that would likely take at least another year,” she said.
“This trial could culminate in another defeat, for new reasons or for reasons similar to those on Wednesday: primarily because judges cannot be sure that Rwanda will abide by the terms of a new treaty.”
She added: “Therefore, the plan outlined by the Prime Minister will not allow flights to Rwanda ahead of an election when Plan B is merely a tweaked version of the failed Plan A.”
General elections are expected to be held next year and must be called by January 2025.
Ms Braverman said to prevent further legal challenges, the Prime Minister’s proposed legislation should ignore “the entirety” of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as other relevant international obligations, including the Refugee Convention.
To address the Supreme Court’s concerns, Ms Braverman argued that the UK must take practical steps to improve Rwanda’s asylum system, such as involving British observers or independent reviewers of asylum decisions there.
She said the legislation must also make it clear that those who enter the UK illegally will be detained until deported.
Ms Braverman added that a bill should be introduced by Parliament’s Christmas recess and that MPs should be called together to sit and debate it over the holidays.
In language softer than her recent public interventions, she said there was “no reason” to criticize the Supreme Court justices for their decision.
Instead, she blamed “the politicians who have failed to introduce legislation that would ensure the implementation of our Rwanda partnership.”
video caption,
Watch: Rishi Sunak tells BBC’s Chris Mason flights to Rwanda will operate until spring
The prime minister said the new deal would guarantee that Rwanda would not send migrants back to countries where they could be persecuted or harmed. He also proposes a law that would certify Rwanda as a “safe” country despite the Supreme Court’s findings.
The Rwanda policy is central to Mr Sunak’s plan to stop asylum seekers crossing the Channel in small boats – one of his key promises – as it aims to deter people from making the dangerous journey.
Downing Street said the legislation would be drafted “in the coming weeks”.
However, it is expected to face opposition in the House of Lords and many also expect further legal challenges in the courts.
It’s not immediately clear how Ms. Braverman’s plan would quickly work legally.
The UK and other countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights can only waive some of their protections in times of war or other emergencies. The key protection in the Rwanda case – that no one should be subjected to torture or inhumane treatment – is not one of the rights that can be swept away by a so-called “exemption.”
The UK has deviated from the ECHR only eight times in 70 years. Seven of these situations were related to the detention of paramilitaries during the conflict in Northern Ireland. The most recent case, in 2001, involved the detention of al-Qaeda suspects without charge – a move that the courts later described as unlawful.
During Boris Johnson’s time as prime minister, the government proposed restricting and replacing some human rights protections in a widely criticized replacement bill, which Rishi Sunak then scrapped.
A complete withdrawal from the ECHR would be a breach of the 25-year-old Good Friday Agreement, which is at the heart of Northern Ireland’s power-sharing peace agreement, and anger the UK’s partners across the Channel who may be involved in stopping boats cooperate Schwerer.