Ministers have dismissed clamouring from Tory MPs to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights after the Home Office was forced to abandon its inaugural flight deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda.
It comes after a handful of migrants won a last minute legal reprieve from an out-of-hours judge at the European Court of Human Rights, blocking ministers’ attempts to relocate them on a chartered flight costing taxpayers around £500,000.
The international court indicated to the UK that a Iraqi national should not be removed to Rwanda until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision at a judicial review on the legality of the policy.
Championed by Priti Patel, the home secretary, the divisive policy has been condemned by church leaders, but Conservative MPs have turned their anger on the ECHR after the ruling on Tuesday evening.
The international court was set up in 1956 to rule on individual or state applications alleging violations of civil and political rights, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
One Tory MP, Greg Smith, said: “There have been multiple occasions this Parliament of legislation passed with great speed.
“What last night showed is we now need the same speed and urgency to bring in a UK Bill of Rights and remove all power of the European Court of Human Rights over our sovereign decisions.”
Jonathan Gullis, a Conservative MP who is also a ministerial aide to the Northern Ireland secretary, said his constituents will be “frustrated” the first flight to Rwanda was abandoned on Tuesday evening.
He claimed: “This policy was always going to face mass action from lefty lawyers and activists. It is clear that the ECHR prevented the flight from departing, after efforts in the UK courts were exhausted.
“The ECHR has no place in the UK judicial system. The government needs to free itself from it entirely!”
Another Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) and Tory MP Danny Kruger told his colleagues: “Ultimately we need to leave ECHR or return to the original concept of human rights as drafted by Conservative Brit lawyers in the 50s to give post Nazi Europe the same rights and liberties as UK had enjoyed for centuries”.
Another backbencher Stephen McPartland said it was “clear” that ministers “must look at how they can keep the protections in the Human Rights Act, but have decisions made by British not European Courts, otherwise what was the point of the last six years since the vote to leave!”
But cabinet minister Therese Coffey insisted she is not aware of any moves to to withdraw, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I don’t think that’s even a question that I’m aware that’s on the table at all”.
She also insisted that the Tories’ 2019 manifesto included no such policy, adding: “I’m not aware of any decisions or hints of leaving the ECHR”.
Another minister in Ms Coffey’s department, Guy Opperman, also told Times Radio: “I don’t believe it is our policy, nor would it be something I will be advocating for withdrawing from the ECHR.”
He added: “This is not necessarily a final prevention that has taken place last night. This is a temporary delay whilst matters are considered in more detail by the UK courts.
“And I think that is the thrust of it, that the ECHR has basically said that there needs to be more time to consider the applications involved and that the UK courts should do that.”
Their remarks came after the prime minister appeared to hint he may be ready to take the ECHR to ensure continued operation of the scheme.
Asked if the controversial move was on the table, he replied: “Will it be necessary to change some laws to help us as we go along? It may very well be and all these options are under constant review.”
