MPs have openly mocked the Conservative Party’s failed attempt to preserve the discredited Safety of Rwanda Act. The initiative has been branded as disastrous, resulting in significant public expenditure with minimal outcomes. Key political figures criticized the government’s approach, emphasizing the dangers associated with Rwanda’s involvement and highlighting ongoing issues in border control and asylum policy.
A recent parliamentary session witnessed Members of Parliament (MPs) mock the Conservative Party’s attempts to salvage Rishi Sunak’s controversial Rwanda law, a move that many deemed futile. Labour Minister Dame Angela Eagle criticized the Tories, asserting that they are trapped in “fantasy land” after attempts to uphold the Safety of Rwanda Act were derided. The legislation, labeled as one of Parliament’s most disastrous, wasted over £700 million with limited results, securing only four volunteers for the scheme.
The Conservative frontbencher Matt Vickers’ amendment to preserve the Act was decisively rejected by a cross-party committee with a vote of 11 to three. SNP MP Pete Wishart condemned the government, stating, “The Tories should be apologising for the scheme and promising never to come up with anything as hare-brained again… they should be asking for forgiveness.” He criticized the Conservatives’ audacity in attempting to restore the legislation.
The Safety of Rwanda Act was initially enacted by Mr. Sunak following a Supreme Court ruling against sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. Notably, the law asserts that Rwanda is a safe country indefinitely, despite recent sanctions against it and allegations of its involvement in escalating regional conflict. Mr. Wishart further highlighted the dangers in Rwanda, detailing accusations of the nation supporting the M23 militia, which is implicated in serious human rights abuses.
Labour MP Kenneth Stevenson expressed concern regarding the government’s persistent errors, emphasizing that they continue to squander public funds. Mr. Vickers defended the partnership with Rwanda, stating its cancellation removes the “only deterrent” against small boat crossings. Fellow Tory Katie Lam maintained that the initiative was an earnest approach to a complex issue, although it received widespread criticism.
Dame Angela Eagle noted the dramatic increase in illegal crossings, with nearly 84,000 recorded prior to the Act’s repeal. She expressed dismay at the opposition’s assertions regarding the Act’s potential effectiveness, interpreting their claims as attempts to evade accountability for what she termed a “catastrophic” legislative failure. Labour’s Dover MP Mike Tapp labeled the project a “legal and moral dead end.”
Moreover, Foreign Secretary David Lammy denounced the Rwandan government for its flagrant disregard for international law. He warned of potential regional conflict stemming from such violations while announcing the halting of bilateral aid to Rwanda. In international discourse, Mr. Lammy called attention to the Rwandan Defence Force’s operations in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and stressed the need for accountability from President Kagame regarding breaches of sovereignty.
In summary, the parliamentary reaction to the Conservative Party’s effort to preserve the Rwanda legislation was overwhelmingly negative. MPs from various parties criticized the scheme as financially wasteful and morally indefensible. The ongoing fallout from the contentious law illustrates significant concerns about both the efficacy of government policies related to asylum seekers and the geopolitical implications pertaining to Rwanda’s actions in the region. Thus, the political landscape surrounding this issue remains fraught with controversy and criticism as Labour aims to repeal the Act through ongoing legislative scrutiny.
Original Source: www.mirror.co.uk
