European judges may be overruled on Rwanda deportations

Home Secretary in talks to ban ECHR injunctions that ground migrant flights

SUELLA BRAVERMAN could ban the European Court of Human Rights from grounding migrant deportation flights in a deal to pacify Tory rebels, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

The Home Secretary is locked in talks with up to 60 Tory MPs who are trying to strip Strasbourg of the right to interfere with Britain’s immigration policy.

In an attempt to quell what is set to be the biggest rebellion of Rishi Sunak’s premiership, ministers may agree to block the use of a mechanism the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) used to ground the first flight to Rwanda last June. It would mean that migrants who arrive in the UK illegally could be deported even if they challenge the Government under human rights law.

The plan comes ahead of a major rebellion from both wings of the Conservative Party over the Prime Minister’s Illegal Migration Bill tomorrow.

The largest group of rebels, from the Right of the party, believe the Bill is too weak and have joined an amendment that would ban British judges from using legal precedent from the ECHR when considering migration cases.

Ministers say they cannot leave the convention completely without breaching the UK’s international human rights obligations and “can work within it”.

Following calls between Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, and rebel ringleaders yesterday, it is thought a compromise could be brokered over emergency Rule 39 orders.

The orders are used to prevent the Government from deporting migrants when a human rights challenge is pending, delaying flights for months to make time for legal argument in Strasbourg.

Mrs Braverman could insert a clause into the Illegal Migration Bill banning the application of the orders in the UK, if an exemption for Britain cannot be negotiated with the court itself.

A Tory rebel source said the MPs who have signed the ECHR amendment may give Mrs Braverman “breathing room to fix the loopholes” but added it would “depend on how strong she is at the Dispatch Box” tomorrow.

A meeting is planned in No10 tomorrow before the committee stage of the Bill begins. Mr Sunak’s policy of deporting illegal migrants to Rwanda is on hold while it is challenged separately in the British courts.

The case is awaiting a hearing at the Court of Appeal after judges granted an appeal to the High Court’s original decision that the policy was lawful.

At the committee stage of his Bill tomorrow Mr Sunak will also face rebellions from Tories who feel the Bill is too harsh and want child refugees to be exempted from a policy to deport all migrants who arrive in Britain illegally.

Another moderate group hopes to force Downing Street to announce a long-awaited new “safe and legal route” for refugees. Mr Sunak has said he will not announce any new routes until he has “got a grip” on illegal migration.

The Telegraph understands that under draft plans, up to 20,000 refugees could eventually be settled in Britain each year as part of a new partnership with the UN’s refugee agency.

Parliament would be given a vote on a refugee cap each year. The scheme would come in addition to existing routes the UN runs for Ukrainians and Afghans, as well as a separate scheme for Hong Kongers.

As France descended into riots over the extension of the state retirement age, resulting in the postponement of King Charles’s state visit, there was a clear warning for the future of Britain. To some, the spectacle of France’s longstanding “revolutionary itch” returning in full force is an occasion to pat ourselves on the back. Can we not place Britain’s relative political stability in contrast to the fiery reception of Emmanuel Macron’s reforms?

Such comparisons have a long history. In 1793, an engraving by the great English caricaturist Thomas Rowlandson set French and British liberty side by side. Across the Channel, mob rule was busy fomenting rebellion, idleness and both national and private ruin. In our home islands, a prosperous calm reigned, with strong protections for private property and inheritance guaranteeing national prosperity.

In today’s something-for-nothing Britain, however, we cannot afford such easy consolation. France’s revolt against reality shows every sign of becoming our own overentitled future.

Happily, on pensions, we are not facing the same crisis as our Continental cousins. Our rules only require 35 years of work to qualify for the state pension, as opposed to 42 and rising in France. This has drawn some of the poison from increasing the pension age here.

If Mr Macron succeeds, the minimum age for receiving France’s state pension will rise from 62 to 64 by 2030. In the UK, we already have a minimum pension age of 66, set to rise to at least 67 by 2028, with no sign of guillotines being assembled in the streets of Westminster. Equally, our state pension spending in 2022-23 is only about 5.5 per cent of GDP, while France’s pension bill is nearly three times larger, hovering at about 14 per cent of GDP.

Yet on issue after issue, entitlement Britain is already engaged in its own revolt against reality. We rush into lockdowns without expecting the bill ever to become due. We insist on ever-higher house prices and refuse to build the homes that young people desperately need. We talk of growth, while chaining the economy down with record levels of taxation. We attack the wealthy, and demand that the state should spend more and more, as if one did not depend on the other.

Having recklessly committed ourselves to net zero, we have refused to support the fracking and expansion of nuclear power that could have made the transition practical. Instead, as green initiatives and Putin’s war sent our energy bills skyward, the cry went up for more tax-funded handouts.

Tumbrils and fiery protests have never been the British way. With rare exceptions, we have avoided such public rage by cultivating personal responsibility and reaping the collective benefits of economic liberty. The more we lose touch with these traditions, demanding instead that the state’s largesse solve every problem, the more we risk stumbling into a future racked not just by public disorder, but economic ruin.

Stopping the boats

As this newspaper reports today, the Government plans to offer a new safe and legal route for refugees. Which means a great many people owe the Home Secretary an apology.

Suella Braverman is no stranger to the brickbats that come with public office, but the Left’s treatment of her over her plans to stop the small-boat crossings has been a disgrace.

Her recent trip to Rwanda was mocked and mischaracterised from day one. Photographs were cropped to manufacture outrageous, insupportable narratives of Ms Braverman as a heartless caricature.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is one of the absurdities of this whole affair that those who have hounded Ms Braverman for using robust language to describe the small-boats challenge are nonetheless happy to demonise her position in the most incendiary of ways.

This whole controversy was built on wilful misrepresentation. The Government has always said that it would put in place a safe and legal route to replace the lethal, gang-ridden alternative. Its opponents have either chosen to ignore this awkward fact or have claimed that it was a lie, and that Ms Braverman and Rishi Sunak had no intention of following through on their commitment.

Now they are doing so. On top of Britain’s commitment to take in refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, the country will admit an additional 20,000 every year through the new safe route.

The Government is on the right side of public opinion. This is a generous and humane country, but many people are understandably concerned about high levels of migration. The public expects, in particular, that the process for admitting people to the country should be controlled and fair – and are justifiably angry when it appears that our generosity is being exploited.

Indeed, the current situation is a farce – and opponents of the Government’s sensible reforms ought to be more honest about the real logic of their positions. If they refuse to back any measure to bring order to the current chaos, they are implicitly supporting open borders. The electorate certainly has not voted for that.