Tory Grandees Criticize Government’s “Dangerous” Rwanda Scheme
Ken Clarke Opposes Government’s Attempt to Revive the Project
Former Tory Home Secretary Ken Clarke has expressed his concerns regarding the Government’s controversial Rwanda scheme, labeling it as “extremely dangerous.” Clarke, who served as Home Secretary and Chancellor under John Major, as well as Health Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s administration, rebuked Rishi Sunak’s efforts to reintroduce the project, which had previously been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. Calling the latest Bill “preposterous,” Clarke emphasized his dismay at the Government’s approach.
Peers Criticize Safety of Rwanda Bill in the House of Lords
During a session in the House of Lords, peers heavily criticized the Safety of Rwanda Bill, with Lord Clarke highlighting the constitutional implications of the Government’s actions. He expressed disbelief at the Government’s decision to push for legislation declaring Rwanda a safe destination for asylum seekers, following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Lord Clarke underscored the need for a potential legal challenge to prevent the Bill from passing, emphasizing the significance of upholding constitutional principles.
Lord Deben Joins Criticism of the Rwanda Bill
Joining in on the criticism of the Rwanda Bill, Lord Deben, a prominent figure from the Thatcher era, voiced his concerns about the potential implications of the legislation. Formerly known as John Gummer, Lord Deben expressed his disappointment in the Government’s actions, particularly in light of the impact on modern slavery victims. He highlighted the importance of upholding conservative values, referencing the Modern Slavery Act and cautioning against undermining previous achievements in addressing such issues.
Continued Opposition to Rishi Sunak’s Bill
Several Tory grandees, including those who served under Mrs. Thatcher, have continued to condemn Rishi Sunak’s divisive Safety of Rwanda Bill. Lord Tugendhat criticized the government’s approach, likening their actions to those of “despots,” while emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law. The Bill, seeking to override the Supreme Court ruling on asylum seekers, faces significant resistance within the House of Lords, with concerns raised about its potential impact on vulnerable individuals.
Concerns Raised About Treatment of Afghan Allies
Labour peer Lord Browne highlighted the plight of Afghans who had supported British forces and fled persecution, emphasizing the need to protect individuals who have risked their lives for the UK. Former chief of the defence staff, Lord Stirrup, echoed these sentiments, questioning the government’s trustworthiness in light of their proposed actions. He emphasized the moral obligation to safeguard those who have served in difficult and dangerous circumstances, urging a reconsideration of the Bill’s implications.
Call for Reflection on Future Implications
As discussions surrounding the Safety of Rwanda Bill continue, concerns persist about the broader implications of the government’s approach towards asylum seekers and vulnerable individuals. Calls have been made to uphold legal and ethical standards, particularly in relation to the treatment of those who have offered their services to the UK. The ongoing debate underscores the complexities surrounding immigration policies and the government’s obligations to protect individuals in need.
