This week the Supreme Court will start its hearing on the Government’s Rwanda scheme. It’s likely to be next month before we find out the outcome.

The High Court backed the legality of the Rwanda scheme but the Appeal Court, via a split decision, raised concerns about the processing of asylum seekers under the scheme.

My understanding is that the Government has worked hard to alleviate these concerns and that they are cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will back the legality of the Rwanda scheme.

Crucial to the Supreme Court’s determination will be our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

In fact, even after the Supreme Court stage, there is a risk that European judges in Strasbourg could try and use the ECHR to block the Rwanda scheme.

Let us not forget that it was a European Court of Justice judge using the ECHR that grounded the first flight that the Government at the time looked to send to Rwanda.

I believe strongly in the need to take robust action to deter illegal migration including the small boat crossings and believe that the only way you can do this is to have a workable deterrent, such as the Rwanda scheme.

I also strongly believe that as a country we ought to be able to control our borders and do hope that this is possible to do within the ECHR.

It really ought to be but ultimately, if it’s not, all options should be on the table.

To be clear, I do not support being subscribed to any international convention if it prevents us from being able to effectively control our own borders and deter dangerous, illegal small boat crossings.

I don’t think that the 58% of Ipswich residents who voted to leave the EU, partly to take back control of our borders, would be overly thrilled if I said that this still wasn’t possible in its entirety due to our membership of another pan-European body.

Let us be in no doubt, delivering the Rwanda scheme, the only planned deterrent in sight, is crucial to us controlling our borders and stopping the boats.

A lot of lazy arguments have been made attacking the prospect of us reviewing our membership of the ECHR. Some have pointed out that only Russia and Belarus have left it, two countries that aren’t established democracies and don’t have their own independent judiciaries.

There are many other established western liberal democracies across the world that have never been in the ECHR.

These would include United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name but a few.

Yes, Winston Churchill led us into the ECHR and played a key role in establishing it (72 years ago).

However, the world we live in now it a totally different place. I also happen to think that he’d be alarmed at how the ECHR is currently being manipulated to frustrate the ability of established democracies to control their own borders.

Last week I came across some interesting polling, the question asked was:

“Replace the current European system of human rights laws applied in Britain with new British laws that protect rights like free speech but enable the Government to promptly deport illegal migrants.”

In total 54% of those polled supported this proposition, and 27% opposed. A key point being here that if we were to leave the ECHR it’s not that we wouldn’t be replacing it with anything.

I hope that the Supreme Court sides in favour of the Rwanda scheme next month and also believe that this will be possible within the ECHR.

However, the Prime Minister was right to state last week that we should do whatever it takes to stop the boats.