Jenrick accuses Government of ‘sophistry’ as MPs debate Rwanda Bill

Robert Jenrick said he wants the Rwanda Bill to work but accused the Government of “sophistry”, suggesting it may not empower ministers to ignore attempts from Strasbourg to block flights carrying asylum seekers.

The Conservative former immigration minister told the Commons ministers must have the “full power of Parliament” to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights, but suggested the Government’s plan would not deliver that outcome.

In accusing the Government of sophistry, Mr Jenrick appeared to be suggesting he believed the part of the Bill relating to ignoring interim injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights is deceptive.

In 2022, the Strasbourg court granted an injunction, via Rule 39, which effectively grounded a flight sending asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda.

Mr Jenrick was speaking in the Commons as MPs debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill for the first time.

The proposed law’s passage through the Commons is being seen as a key test of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority, and, with Mr Jenrick having resigned over the issue, the former immigration minister’s verdict has the potential to influence others.

Mr Jenrick told the BBC on Sunday that he would not vote for the Bill, but that he felt the situation could be fixed.

He told the Commons on Tuesday that it is “not a bad Bill” but insisted the public will judge his party’s performance on the single question of “will it work”.

He said: “It is inevitable… in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, that the Strasbourg Court will impose further Rule 39 interim measures… We have to stop that; it is a matter of sovereignty for our country that ministers acting on the instructions of Parliament do not allow those flights to be delayed.

“The provision in the Bill is sophistry. It is the express policy of the Government that Rule 39 injunctions are binding and to ignore them would be a breach of international law.

“So, we are being asked to vote for a provision which it would be illegal to use.”

He said he does not want ministers “to be in that position”. adding: “We as a House are giving them a hard deal. We are doing them a disservice if we allow the Bill to continue in that way. They must have the full power of Parliament to ignore those Rule 39 injunctions and to get those flights in the air.”

Home Secretary James Cleverly had earlier told the Commons: “Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the intended removal of someone to Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of the Immigration Act, a minister of the Crown – not a court, or a tribunal – a minister of the Crown alone will decide whether the UK will comply with that interim measure.”

Earlier in the debate, Conservative former justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland suggested the balance between Parliament and the courts risks being tested to “breaking point” by the Rwanda plan.

He said: “Is there not a danger that, in pursuing quite stringent measures in this Bill, we are really testing the principle of comity to breaking point?

“This Parliament is sovereign, but we also have the independence of the courts and the rule of law to bear in mind, and restraint on both sides by the judiciary and by this place is essential if we are to maintain the balance of our constitution.”

Mr Cleverly replied: “I want to give him complete reassurance that we have looked very carefully at the balance that he speaks about.

“We absolutely respect the importance of that. We genuinely believe this does get the balance right, although, because of the growing nature of this extreme and perverse trade in human misery, we have to take firm action.

“We are therefore acting in a way that maintains that balance, but it is novel. He says it is contentious, it is true, but we are doing it because we have to break this business model.”