A former Tory Attorney General has lashed out at controversial plans to allow the Home Secretary to disregard court orders that might slow down Rwanda deportations.
In a bruising encounter in the Commons, Sir Geoffrey Cox demanded to know why the move was needed amid concerns over the power it would give Suella Braverman.
The Government, bowing to pressure from right-wingers, has proposed giving ministers more power over ignoring orders from the European Court of Human Rights, used to ground Rwanda-bound deportation flights.
But Tory grandee Sir Geoffrey - who has previously been dubbed 'Tory Gandalf' like the Lord of Rings wizard because of the respect he commands - wasn't buying it.
He questioned amendments to the controversial Illegal Migration Bill who insisted there was already no legal obligation to follow the measures.
He told Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick: "He's effectively asking this House to give legislative sanction, to at least the possibility, that a minister of the Crown will deliberately disobey the international law obligations of this country... isn't that really the effect of what is been asked?"
And in his scathing critique, he continued: "Why then does it need legislation if what in fact is not being asked, that this House should approve quite consciously and deliberately a deliberate breach of our obligations under the convention?
"That is the truth. The minister could ignore it and it would be a matter between states, but this provision invites this House to give legislative authority to the minister doing that if she chooses to do so."
Justifying the move earlier, Ms Braverman told the BBC: "We saw last year an unacceptable situation whereby the Home Secretary made a decision to relocate people to Rwanda and that decision was upheld in the courts, injunctions were refused by the English courts and, at the 11th hour, pursuant to an opaque process in which the UK was not represented, a judge in Strasbourg overruled that decision, undermining a democratically-elected government and a decision to take appropriate action.
"We want to avoid a re-run of that scenario. That's why we have included measures in our Bill to afford the Home Secretary a discretion to consider the case upon its particular merits and circumstances."
Following Sir Geoffrey's intervention, Mr Jenrick responded: "This clause does not mandate a minister to ignore rule 39 indications. It says clearly to ensure that there is no doubt whatsoever that the minister has the discretion to do so, it gives a non-exhaustive list of reasons that they should consider, and in doing so clearly, as I have said on a number of occasions, they would take their treaty obligations very seriously."
Shadow Home Office minister Stephen Kinnock could be seen miming the motion of digging with a spade as Mr Jenrick answered.
The European Court of Human Rights was able to use what is called a rule 39 order to block the inaugural deportation flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda last year.
Mr Jenrick said: "The Strasbourg court is itself carrying out a review of the rule 39 process at the encouragement of a number of member states, including ourselves, and the former deputy prime minister ( Dominic Raab ), then the Lord Chancellor, and the current Attorney General (Victoria Prentis) have had constructive discussions with the court about reform, including rule 39."
Mr Jenrick said new clause 26 would confer a discretion on the Home Secretary or any other ministers to "suspend the duty to remove a person where an interim measure has been indicated on an individual case".
