Minister suggests Sunak could quit ECHR if government loses Rwanda court case

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick says government ‘will do whatever it takes’ to ensure Rwanda flights take off ahead of showdown court verdict

Robert Jenrick has said Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan will go through with “no ifs, no buts” – suggesting the government could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The immigration minister hinted that the government was open to pulling out of the landmark international convention if the Supreme Court rules against ministers on Wednesday.

The UK’s highest court is to give its decision on whether the Sunak plan to send asylum seekers arriving on small boats on one-way flights to Rwanda is legal.

Asked whether leaving the ECHR was part of the plans if the case was lost, Mr Jenrick told The Telegraph: “I’ve been clear that we have to do whatever it takes.”

Speaking in the wake of Suella Braverman’s sacking as home secretary, the immigration minister said: “Be assured that as a prudent government, we have been thinking through what further steps we could take.”

“I worked closely with the former home secretary on a range of options. But at the heart of this is the deep conviction that you have to inject deterrence into the system.”

Mr Jenrick added: “We have to ensure the Rwanda policy succeeds before the next general election. No ifs, no buts, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that happens.”

James Cleverly was appointed as Ms Braverman’s replacement as home secretary on Monday, a tumultuous day which saw former PM David Cameron take up his role as foreign secretary.

Mr Cleverly has publicly opposed leaving the ECHR. Asked if his appointment of Mr Cleverly might mean quitting the convention is no longer an option, Mr Jenrick said: “I’m looking forward to working with James … I’m sure that he shares our belief that we have to stop the boats.”

Robert Jenrick says government ‘will do whatever it takes’ to see Rwanda flights take off (PA Wire)

Mr Jenrick also claimed that the Sunak government aims to “stop the boats in their entirety” by next year’s general election – and admitted that it could not be done with the Rwanda plan.

“If the UK wants to turn the good progress we’ve made this year into stopping the boats entirely, we have to implement the Rwanda policy,” he said.

Asked if that meant no crossings in the English Channel, he said: “That’s what it means ... the crucial point here is that that’s why half measures aren’t enough. That’s where you have to inject a major deterrent into the system and you have to get the flights off.”

Grilled on whether the boats could be stopped, as Mr Sunak has promised, without the Rwanda flights, Mr Jenrick replied: “No.”

The Supreme Court is to give its decision on whether the government’s plan to send asylum seekers arriving on small boats to Rwanda are lawful on Wednesday.

Last month, the Home Office challenged a Court of Appeal ruling from June that the multimillion-pound deal was unlawful.

The Illegal Migration Act brought into law the Sunak government’s policy of sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda. However, the policy announced in April 2022 has been held up in the courts, with no deportation flights having taken place.

The first planned flight to Rwanda in June 2022 was grounded minutes before take-off following a ruling by a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was downbeat on the chances of Mr Sunak overriding the European Court of Human Rights if the government loses the Rwanda case because of Mr Cleverly’s appointment.

“I think it almost doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court rules now because the power to override the section 39 injunction for want of a better word has to be exercised by the home secretary. The law provides for that,” the right-wing former cabinet minister told the BBC.

Mr Rees-Mogg added: “So the injunction will remain in place regardless of what our own courts rule. Now, I’d be delighted to be proved wrong, but I think it is made the Rwanda solution much, much, less likely to occur.”