Rishi Sunak springs to defence of '30p Lee' Anderson over comments the Government should just 'ignore' the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda migrant plan because they 'reflect the strength of feeling in the country'

Rishi Sunak has defended Tory Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson over his comments that the Government should 'ignore' the Supreme Court ruling about the Rwanda migrant plan because they 'reflect the strength of feeling in the country'. 

Mr Anderson said the Government should simply 'ignore the laws' and 'just put the planes in the air now and send them [migrants] to Rwanda'.

It comes after Supreme Court judges dramatically ruling the plan was illegal. 

Mr Anderson described the judgment as a 'dark day for the British people' and said ministers should 'just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda'.

'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,' he said.

'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.'

He added: 'I think we should ignore the laws and send them straight back the same day.'

Speaking at a press conference in No10, Mr Sunak said he 'absolutely' shared the 'frustrations' of colleagues and people across the country over the situation. 

Asked whether he would sack Mr Anderson over the remarks, Mr Sunak told a press conference at Downing Street: 'I think what Lee's comments and indeed the comments of others do is reflect the strength of feeling in the country on this issue.

'And I absolutely share actually in the frustrations that my colleagues and indeed people across the country have about this issue. Everyone should understand the strength of feeling.'

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Mr Sunak to get Parliament to designate Rwanda a 'safe' country.

He highlighted a Daily Mail column in which he argued that the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 include powers to make the change.

In his press conference, Mr Sunak vowed to end the political and legal 'merry-go-round' on the plan,  pledging a new treaty with the East African country and emergency legislation allowing Parliament to declare that it is safe for asylum seekers.

And in a nod to the fury of the Tory Right he insisted if that failed he is ready to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights rather than let 'foreign courts' stand in the way of action. 

Planes should start leaving for Rwanda next Spring, he said - although he would not guarantee the timetable. That would potentially be just months before a general election.

'Let me tell everyone now – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights,' Mr Sunak said.

'If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of Parliament I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to get flights off.

'I will not take the easy way out.'

The premier said he disagreed with the decision, but 'respected' it. 

He said once Parliament approved a new Treaty that will guarantee people sent to Rwanda are not returned to danger in their country of origin that must be the end of the matter. He warned that Brits' 'patience has worn thin' with the failure to tackle the Channel boat situation.  

The comments were immediately dismissed by Suella Braverman's allies as just another version of the previous strategy. 

In a statement, New Conservative co-chairmen Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates said: 'The Bill must disapply the Human Rights Act and ... restate the power of government to disregard interim rulings from Strasbourg.

'We have no time left. This Bill - which must come to Parliament within weeks - must have everything in it to ensure that flights are in the air within months.'

It came after the Supreme Court concluded unanimously that the scheme to deport arrivals immediately would break the law. It is a crushing blow to the government, which has already handed Rwanda £140million.

The decision - which ministers had feared for weeks was coming - immediately sparked Tory demands to loosen protections under the ECHR so the policy can go ahead.

However, critics pointed out the judgment suggested it would have been struck out on other grounds anyway. The case hinged on whether asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at 'real risk' of being returned to their country of origin and subject to mistreatment.

Mr Sunak denied that the government's handling of illegal immigration was a 'shambles'.

'We've made more progress in the past year than any Government has in any year since this small boats phenomenon came upon us, and I'm confident that we will keep making progress,' he said.

'But getting Rwanda working is an important part of completing the job, having the deterrence effect that we need. And as I said, legislation will help us do that. We are responding to the Supreme Court. As I said, I don't agree with the decision, but I respect it and accept it. Rule of law is fundamental to our democracy.'

At a PMQs session earlier, Mr Sunak tried to put a brave face on the Supreme Court's ruling, stressing that the principle of deporting asylum seekers to a safe third country had been upheld.

But Home Secretary James Cleverly risked further enraging right-wingers by insisting is it 'not necessary' to ditch the European Convention on Human Rights or UN Refugee Convention in order to 'take back control of our borders'.

Making a statement to MPs after PMQs, Mr Cleverly said the ruling was a 'temporary setback' and the upgraded treaty with Rwanda - which could come before Parliament in days - would toughen rules against repatriating asylum seekers.

During bruising clashes shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper swiped that ministers knew the policy was 'batsh**'.  

Mr Cleverly's predecessor Ms Braverman has already launched an excoriating attack on Mr Sunak's failure to do what it takes to tackle the Channel crisis, warning he has no 'credible Plan B'.

An ally of Ms Braverman said: 'This is a treaty which he's putting in legislation - it's just another version of Plan A. He'll be stuck in the courts again. More magic tricks from Rishi's magical thinking.' 

Even if the government is able to tweak the plan to the satisfaction of the courts MPs fear it could not happen in time to take effect before the election next year. 

Justices at the UK's highest court upheld an earlier High Court judgment on legislation announced 18 months ago to send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by unauthorised means to Kigali to have their claims heard there. 

In a summary of today's momentous ruling, President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed said there would be a risk of genuine asylum seekers being returned by Rwanda to the home country they fled from. 

Ministers have vowed to press on with the scheme regardless of the result today, with options including elevating the Rwanda deal to a treaty ratified in parliament - making it harder for the courts to block - and passing emergency legislation to disapply human rights laws. 

Making a statement to the Commons, Mr Cleverly said: 'Nothing in the Supreme Court judgment today dims our commitment.

'The Supreme Court has said there are issues with Rwanda's asylum system which could create the possibility of someone being returned to a country where they could face persecution.'

Mr Cleverly added the UK Government has a plan to address the concerns raised, noting: 'We anticipated this judgment as a possible result and for the last few months have been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the court demands.

'We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity and amend agreements with Rwanda to make clear that those sent there cannot be sent to another country than the UK.

'Our intention is to upgrade our agreement to a treaty as soon as possible. That will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg that the risks laid out by the court today have been responded to, will be consistent with international law and ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise it.'

Ex-minister Jonathan Gullis challenged Mr Cleverly on whether he was 'willing to disapply international treaties and conventions such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention in order to take back control of our borders, yes or no?'

Mr Cleverly responded: 'I don't believe those things are necessary.'

Tory MP Caroline Johnson said her constituents were disappointed by the court's ruling, adding: 'I understand his plan is to upgrade the treaty with Rwanda, can he advise the House how long will that take? Will that be potentially subject to legal challenge? And if so, how long could those legal challenges take?'

Mr Cleverly said he was not able to give certainty on timelines, and added: 'I wish that I could.'

Tory MP David Jones said: 'He's told the House that his department had anticipated the decision of the Supreme Court that was announced today, that being the case can he tell the House if he's made an assessment as to whether legislation will be necessary in order to remedy the problems that have been identified? And if so, when would he anticipate being in a position to introduce that legislation?'

In response, the Home Secretary said: 'We have already set in place the work to turn the MoU (memorandum of understanding) into a treaty, thus by addressing some of the concerns of their Lordships.

'The Prime Minister and I have made it clear if there needs to be legislative work domestically in order to ensure we do this, we are unafraid of bringing that forward.'

Ex-PM Theresa May pointed out that the 'fundamental judgment' made by the Supreme Court on the Rwanda policy was made 'regardless of the ECHR'.

Downing Street said a new treaty with Rwanda would be laid in Parliament in the 'coming days' that the UK Government believes 'addresses concerns raised by the court'.

However, it could take more than 40 sitting days to be approved, meaning that would happen well into next year at best.  

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'We will lay the treaty in Parliament in the coming days so that flights can commence as soon as possible.

'Obviously the text will be set out when it is published. I'm not going to pre-empt the text itself.

'But we believe it will provide the reassurances that the court has asked for.'

The No 10 official added: 'The court set out a number of issues around refoulement.

'We plan to lay a treaty which seeks to address the concerns raised by the court. At the same time, as the Prime Minister set out, if necessary we are prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks and international conventions as necessary.'

Mr Sunak spoke to Rwandan President Paul Kagame this morning following the judgment.

The PM 'expressed his disappointment at the overall outcome and recognised that there are challenges we must overcome', according to a No10 readout.

'He thanked President Kagame for his Government's work over the last 15 months and the extra assurances we have already agreed as they said they would continue to work together to address the Court's concerns,' the readout said.

'Both leaders reiterated their firm commitment to making our migration partnership work and agreed to take the necessary steps to ensure this is a robust and lawful policy and to stop the boats as soon as possible.'

Outside the Commons, former Cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke told Sky News that the UK should now consider leaving the ECHR.

'Today is a really serious challenge to who governs Britain and whether Parliament can deliver, when we say we want to address what is clearly, by anyone's standards, an unsustainable level of illegal immigration,' he said.

'For my part I think the gauntlet has now been thrown down and we are going to have to pass emergency legislation – at a minimum – to set out that the will of parliament will apply, notwithstanding the ECHR and the associated conventions that the justices referenced. But we may also have to consider, if that is not legally viable, withdrawal from the ECHR.'

He added: 'This is about whether Britain as a nation state can control who comes to this country and on what terms. It is a fundamental element of whether we are in practice able to govern Britain properly. And if our human rights framework makes that impossible then I am afraid it is the human rights framework that is going to have to change, rather than the policy.'

The New Conservatives group of Tory MPs said ministers must introduce legislation 'immediately' to override the ECHR.

Speaking after a meeting of the group with other Conservatives who share the same view, co-chair Danny Kruger said the Supreme Court judgment felt 'absolutely existential' for the party.

Options being suggested by the New Conservatives are a 'notwithstanding clause' to disapply the ECHR or initiating complete withdrawal from the ECHR.

He said the scope of the ruling meant that the UK's involvement in other treaties and conventions also needs to be considered.

'The Government should immediately announce an intention to do what is necessary to insist on our sovereignty. That means legislation to over-ride the effect of the European court, of the ECHR itself and of other conventions including the Refugee Convention if necessary.'

He added: 'This feels absolutely existential for our party … if this Government will not step up to do whatever it takes to do what the Prime Minister has promised he will, there is no reason for the public to trust us again.'

Dover's Tory MP Natalie Elphicke has said a deal with France is now the best way to stop small boats crossing the English Channel.

She said the Supreme Court's ruling on Rwanda 'means the policy is effectively at an end'.

'No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward,' she said.

'With winter coming, the timing of this decision couldn't be worse. Be in no doubt, this will embolden the people smugglers and put more lives at risk.

'A fresh policy is now needed: a new cross-channel agreement with France to stop the boats leaving and return those that do to the safety of the French coast. That should be David Cameron's top foreign policy priority.'

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said he hoped the Supreme Court ruling would cause the Government to 'reflect and reconsider its approach'.

Mr Welby said the Church of England had 'been clear in our profound concerns – moral and practical – about outsourcing our obligations to refugees to Rwanda'.

He added: 'We have been clear that the inefficiencies of our asylum system and its failure to treat all people with compassion and dignity must be addressed. Today's decision by the Supreme Court leaves our response to desperate people fleeing conflict and persecution in a state of limbo. I hope this judgment will give the Government the opportunity to reflect and reconsider its approach.'

Unveiling the judgment, Lord Reed said the 'legal test' in the case was whether there were 'substantial grounds' for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at 'real risk' of being sent back to the countries they came from where they could face 'ill treatment'.

He said: 'In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the Court of Appeal concluded that there were such grounds.

'We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion.'

Reacting to the news, Mr Sunak said today: 'We have seen today's judgment and will now consider next steps.

'This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

'Crucially, the Supreme Court – like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the Government's clear view from the outset.

'Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.

'Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won't get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats.' 

In their ruling, which the other justices agreed with, Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said Rwanda's history 'cannot be effectively ignored or sidelined' as the Home Office suggested.

The justices said there was 'no dispute' that the Rwandan government entered into its deal with the UK in good faith, with strong incentives to follow the terms of the arrangement.

They continued: 'Nevertheless, intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice.

'The central issue in the present case is therefore not the good faith of the government of Rwanda at the political level, but its practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term, in the light of the present deficiencies of the Rwandan asylum system.

'In agreement with the Court of Appeal, we consider that the past and the present cannot be effectively ignored or sidelined as the Secretary of State suggests.'

In a 56-page judgment dismissing the Home Office's appeal, Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said the High Court had wrongly dismissed the evidence of the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, about problems with the Rwandan asylum system.

They said: 'UNHCR's evidence will naturally be of greatest weight when it relates to matters within its particular remit or where it has special expertise in the subject matter.

'Its evidence in the present case concerns matters falling within its remit and about which it has undoubted expertise.'

The Supreme Court justices said there was 'evidence of a culture within Rwanda of, at best, inadequate understanding of Rwanda's obligations under the Refugee Convention'.

Lord Reed added that changes needed in Rwanda's asylum system to 'eliminate the risk' of refugees being returned to their countries of origin where they could face bad treatment 'have not been shown to be in place now'.

He said there was a legal rule that 'refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin, either directly or indirectly, if their life or freedom would be threatened in that country'.

'That rule is called the principle of non-refoulement,' he said.

The president of the UK's highest court added: 'We accept the Home Secretary's submission that the Rwandan government entered into the agreement in good faith and that the capacity of the Rwandan system to produce accurate and fair decisions can and will be built up.

'Nevertheless, asking ourselves whether there were substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of refoulement existed at the relevant time, we have concluded that there were.

'The changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now.'

Lord Reed said in his summary that the European Convention on Human Rights was not the only international treaty that was relevant to the Rwanda case.

He added: 'There are other international treaties which also prohibit the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin without a proper examination of their claims.'

These included the the United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he said.

Following this morning's ruling, the Liberal Democrats urged the government abandon the 'immoral, unworkable and incredibly costly' Rwanda scheme and 'get on with fixing the broken asylum system'.

Major of London Sadiq Khan said: 'The Government's Rwanda policy isn't just cruel, callous and morally reprehensible, the Supreme Court has today confirmed its unlawful too.' 

Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf said the Rwanda scheme was 'morally repugnant' and 'should be scrapped'. 

Human rights groups including Amnesty International and The Refugee Council hailed the Supreme Court's decision.  

Sonya Sceats, chief executive at charity Freedom from Torture said: 'This is a victory for reason and compassion. 'We are delighted that the Supreme Court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK Government's 'cash for humans' deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.'

Steve Smith, CEO of refugee charity Care4Calais, said: 'The Supreme Court's judgment is a victory for humanity. This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral, but, most importantly, it is unlawful.'

He added: 'Today's judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK's history to a close.

'Never again should our Government seek to shirk our country's responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.

'All the architects of the Rwanda plan may be gone but unless the Government changes course and introduces a policy of safe passage, then the rest should follow them out the door. There can be no more time wasted attacking the vulnerable when all they seek is our help.'

In an excoriating letter to the Prime Minister yesterday, Mrs Braverman warned he has no 'credible Plan B' if an earlier High Court ruling that the policy is unlawful is upheld. 

As of November 12, 27,284 people had crossed the Channel. 

Meanwhile, the 'legacy' backlog of UK asylum applications stood at 33,253 as of October 29, down nearly a half (47%) from 62,157 on July 30, according to new figures from the Home Office. 

Mrs Braverman's replacement, James Cleverly, outlined the possible outcomes during the first meeting of the Prime Minister's new-look Cabinet after the dramatic reshuffle that saw Mrs Braverman shown the door.

Senior ministers had wargamed responses to a defeat, but Mrs Braverman warned of a 'betrayal' of Mr Sunak's promise to do 'whatever it takes' to stop the crossings regardless.

The sacked Home Secretary wrote in the letter that if they lose he will have 'wasted a year' on the Illegal Migration Act 'only to arrive back at square one'.

'Worse than this, your magical thinking - believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion - has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible 'Plan B',' she said.

Downing Street has vowed to continue to work to tackle small boat crossings 'whatever the outcome' in the Supreme Court.

'The Prime Minister believes in actions, not words,' a No 10 spokeswoman said in response to Mrs Braverman's declaration of political war.

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights was not discussed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said.

Contingency plans have been 'discussed among Cabinet ministers', the spokesman said, and 'options for possible scenarios' have been prepared.

Last month, the Home Office challenged a Court of Appeal ruling from June that overturned the High Court's finding that Rwanda could be considered a 'safe third country' for migrants.

Lawyers representing people facing deportation to the east African nation argued Rwanda is an 'authoritarian, one-party state' with a 'woefully deficient' asylum system.

But the Home Office has said the policy to remove asylum seekers to a 'country less attractive' than the UK, 'but nevertheless safe', is lawful.

The Illegal Migration Act brought into law the Government's policy of sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda.

However, the plans announced in April 2022 have been held up in the courts, with no deportation flights having taken place despite £140 million already being handed to Kigali.

Whereas Mrs Braverman repeatedly signalled she wanted out of the 'politicised court', Mr Cleverly said while foreign secretary in April he was 'not convinced' the move is necessary. 

He said that the European countries that are not signatories - Russia and Belarus - are a 'small club', adding: 'I am not convinced it is a club we want to be part of.'

Mr Sunak has set stopping small boats of asylum seekers from arriving in Britain as one of his five pledges to the electorate.

But more than 27,300 migrants have been detected making unauthorised crossings of the English Channel so far this year, according to official figures.

The Right of the Tory party has insisted Britain must leave the European human rights treaty regardless of today's outcome. 

UK human rights laws need a major overhaul 'whatever the outcome' of the Government's last-ditch legal appeal, the New Conservative group of backbenchers said.

Co-chairmen of the New Conservatives Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger said in a statement they remained committed to seeing Britain leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

'We will continue to campaign for a new framework for asylum policy that fulfils our moral obligations to genuine refugees while restoring control of our borders,' they said.

'Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's judgment on the Rwanda policy, we remain of the view that the UK should reform our domestic human rights and equalities laws and leave the ECHR.'