After the supreme court’s comprehensive mauling of the government’s £140m plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, leaving the policy defunct, we examine the government’s options.
New treaty with Rwanda
The government is seeking to upgrade a memorandum of understanding with the authoritarian east African country to a full-blown treaty ratified by parliament and therefore, in theory at least, less vulnerable to legal challenges.
UK officials are already in talks with the Rwandan government. To bypass a key concern that asylum seekers sent there are at risk of being deported to and abused within their country of origin, they hope to get Kigali to promise to house all those deported there, even if they are not given refugee status.
This raises awkward questions, yet to be answered. Will rejected refugees be free to leave Rwanda? What will their status be? How much more will the UK government have to pay for this service, given that the Rwandan government has already spent the entire £140m on “community projects”?
Whitehall sources have already raised concerns that such a deal could take months to be ratified by parliament and even longer to fight in the courts.
Will it actually happen? Possibly. It depends on whether legal challenges are successful.
Leave the European convention on human rights
Hard-right Tories are convinced that leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR) would ensure the UK could send asylum seekers to a number of countries.
The British government is bound by European court of human rights rulings, which was established by the convention, including injunctions that have prevented passengers from boarding a flight to Rwanda.
The recently sacked home secretary Suella Braverman has been in favour of running a “Quit the ECHR” election campaign, similar to Boris Johnson’s 2019 “Get Brexit Done” campaign.
Ministers have been given legal advice on a number of domestic legislative options, including amending the Human Rights Act (HRA) so that it no longer applies to illegal immigration.
But it is extremely rare for a country to withdraw from the ECHR’s jurisdiction. Russia was expelled after its invasion of Ukraine, Greece temporarily left following a military coup, while Belarus is not part of the convention.
Leaving the convention would deeply concern Joe Biden’s administration and the Irish government because it underpins the Good Friday agreement. Rishi Sunak and the new home secretary, James Cleverly, have both questioned the need to leave the ECHR in order to send asylum seekers to a third country.
Will it happen? Unlikely under a Sunak premiership.
Block off the ECHR and the HRA
Braverman is demanding that Sunak introduces “emergency legislation” blocking off the convention after the Rwanda policy was scuppered by the supreme court.
She wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday that the government must “legislate or admit defeat” as she called for measures to override both the ECHR, the HRA and other “routes of legal challenge”.
Her argument is an extension of the scathing departure letter she sent to Sunak on Tuesday. In that letter Braverman said the prime minister had failed to curb human rights law, which had meant the Rwanda policy was derailed by legal challenges.
Compromises from Sunak during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, she wrote, had left the policy “vulnerable” to legal challenges under the ECHR even if the supreme court declared it lawful.
If the ruling goes against the government, Braverman added, he would have “wasted a year” on a law to stop small boat crossings, “only to arrive back at square one”.
No 10 is unlikely to adopt any ideas coming from Braverman after her departure from the Home Office.
Will it happen? Unlikely under a Sunak premiership.
Send people on a flight regardless or push back boats
Lee Anderson, the deputy chair of the Conservative party, on Wednesday urged Sunak to “ignore” the supreme court’s ruling and “just put the planes in the air now”.
The Ashfield MP put pressure on the prime minister to send asylum seekers to east Africa “the same day” they arrived in the UK despite the Rwanda policy being ruled unlawful.
Anderson said: “I think the British people have been very patient, I’ve been very patient, and now they’re demanding action. And this has sort of forced our hand a little bit now.
“My take is we should just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda and show strength. It’s time for the government to show real leadership and send them back, same day.”
Jonathan Gullis, who like Anderson is a member of the New Conservatives grouping, said there was a range of options the government could consider, including physically pushing small boats back into French waters in the Channel.
Their demands have been brushed aside by Downing Street. A spokesperson said No 10 appreciated that “our MPs have strong views” on the Rwanda judgment when asked about Anderson’s suggestion.
“I think we appreciate that our MPs have strong views on this because, frankly, the country cares about this,” Sunak’s press secretary said.
Will it happen? Highly, highly unlikely.
