Next Monday, a new Bill of Rights aimed at expediting the deportation of Channel migrants is likely to be introduced.
Dominic Raab revealed yesterday that the law will include provisions to essentially ignore European Court of Human Rights injunctions.
Judges in Strasbourg used such rulings to cancel the maiden flight to Rwanda on Tuesday night.
However, it is believed that important modifications to the planned big legislation would be blocked by peers.
Despite being a Government manifesto pledge, Lords members predicted that it would meet “a lot of hostility.”
Mr Raab’s comments come after the Mail reported yesterday that he was looking into the idea of ignoring last-minute Strasbourg injunctions.
However, he stated that the UK will remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights, despite requests from Tory backbenchers for the UK to withdraw from the convention.
‘I don’t think it’s proper for the Strasbourg court to presume a power of injunction and then use it, either in this instance or in general,’ said Mr Raab, who is also Deputy Prime Minister.
‘It is not based on the Convention, and I do not believe it is appropriate as a matter of policy.’
They should not, in my opinion, have legal force in the United Kingdom.’
He stated that the measures could not be ignored as long as the Human Rights Act is in effect. He did say, though, that “we will handle this directly with the Bill of Rights,” which will replace Labour’s widely reviled legislation.
The bill would also include provisions to make deportations and other sorts of removals simpler to carry out. It is intended, for example, to limit foreign offenders’ use of the ‘right to private and family life.’
‘I’m sure the Bill of Rights will find resistance in the Lords, but not from me,’ Conservative lord Lord Blencathra, a former Home Office minister, told the Mail.
‘With socialists on the crossbench, Labour, and a large number of lawyers in the Lords, it will very certainly meet opposition.’ Despite the fact that the Human Rights Act was Labour’s error, they view it as sacred.
We must make every effort to guarantee that local law takes precedence, especially in light of Strasbourg’s meddling this week.’
He anticipated that the Bill will wind up being a ping pong match between the two Houses, and that “we will have to rely on the Commons to reject plenty of Lords changes.”
Due to widespread resistance in Parliament, the Bill, which is already unlikely to become law until next year, may take considerably longer to enter the Statute Book. ‘The Government may expect difficulty,’ one peer remarked.
‘How Labour responds to this will determine if there is significant problems, and they must be cautious given sentiments toward immigration in marginal seats.’
‘The lawyers’ gang in the Lords will not buy the Bill of Rights at all,’ the crossbencher continued.
‘They believe that so-called advancements in human rights legislation should be protected, and that anything the current government develops is likely to damage current law.’
Following a series of legal challenges in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court on behalf of asylum seekers scheduled to be sent on a one-way trip to East Africa, the Rwanda flight was grounded.
All three British courts turned down the request to intervene.
The first flight, however, had to be canceled after attorneys representing six refugees on board moved to Strasbourg courts at the eleventh hour.