Parliamentarians Critique Conservative Efforts to Reinstate Rwanda Law
Members of Parliament have openly ridiculed the Conservative Party’s attempts to save the controversial Rwanda law initiated by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, labeling the effort desperate and ineffective. Critics, including Labour Minister Dame Angela Eagle, described the law as one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation, noting its substantial financial cost versus minimal results. The Act’s repeal is imminent under Labour’s new immigration bill, amidst ongoing accusations against Rwanda of violating international law.
Members of Parliament have openly criticized the Conservative Party’s attempts to sustain the controversial Rwanda law initiated by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. This effort, described as desperate, faced ridicule, with the Conservative Party labeled as “mugs.” Labour Minister Dame Angela Eagle condemned the initiative, asserting that it represented a departure from reality, as Conservative frontbencher Matt Vickers sought to maintain the legislation despite its evident failures.
Dame Angela Eagle characterized the Safety of Rwanda Act as one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation presented to Parliament, especially given that it cost taxpayers over £700 million yet garnered only four volunteers. In a decisive vote, a cross-party committee rejected an amendment proposed by Mr. Vickers aimed at preserving the Act by a margin of 11 to 3. SNP MP Pete Wishart emphasized the need for the Conservatives to apologize for the scheme and refrain from proposing similarly problematic initiatives in the future.
The Safety of Rwanda Act was enacted after a Supreme Court ruling prohibited the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda. This law controversially designates Rwanda as a safe destination indefinitely, despite recent sanctions imposed by the UK amid concerns about its role in regional instability. Wishart highlighted the ongoing accusations against Rwanda for supporting militant groups, further undermining the government’s assertions about its safety.
Labour MP Kenneth Stevenson remarked on the Conservatives’ persistent failures, criticizing their continual investment of public funds into ineffective policies. Mr. Vickers contended that terminating the partnership with Rwanda eliminated a crucial deterrent against small boat crossings, a sentiment supported by Tory Katie Lam, who deemed the Rwanda scheme a legitimate attempt to address complex issues surrounding asylum.
Dame Angela Eagle expressed dismay over ongoing claims that the Act was on the verge of success, suggesting that such claims may be a means for the opposition to evade embarrassment over a deeply flawed initiative. Labour Dover MP Mike Tapp criticized the project as a “legal and moral dead end,” noting that the Act is set for repeal under Labour’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently under review.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy condemned the Rwandan government’s actions as a flagrant violation of international law, indicating that such behavior could escalate tensions in the region. In his address to G20 foreign ministers, he denounced the Rwandan Defence Force’s involvement in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo as contrary to the UN Charter, warning that further violations would result in serious consequences.
In conclusion, the recent mocking of the Tory government’s attempts to reinstate the Rwanda law highlights significant discontent across political lines regarding the efficacy and ethics of the legislation. The law’s rejection underscores legislative failures and emphasizes the need for accountability in investment decisions that affect public resources. As pressure mounts from opposition parties and international observers, the future of the Safety of Rwanda Act remains uncertain, reflecting broader concerns surrounding immigration and asylum policy in the UK.
Original Source: www.mirror.co.uk
