Commons rejects modifications to the Rwanda measure as legislative ping-pong begins.


The phrase “parliamentary ping pong” refers to the process by which the Commons and Lords exchange bills with modifications in an effort to reach an agreement on a course of action.Additionally, they want the evidence on Rwanda’s safety to be taken into consideration by lawmakers and judges, something that the new law forbids.

Another proposed modification would shield former members of the British military forces from deportation to Rwanda in the event that they entered the country without authorization.

Before voting started, the Commons discussed the modifications for about four hours. Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak were present when divisions started.Speaking in favor of the changes suggested by the upper house were members of the opposing benches.

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow minister for the Home Office, stated: “They each serve to make this shambolic mess of a Bill marginally less absurd, and as I will come to in a second, they would serve only to put into statute what ministers have actually promised from that despatch box.”Joanna Cherry of the SNP expressed her opposition as well, saying, “I remain of the view that Rwanda is still not a safe country for asylum seekers based on the evidence I have read, and the evidence the Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard so far, based on what I heard and saw on the ground in Kigali.”The law is a “extraordinary and profound attack” on constitutional democracy, according to Caroline Lucas of the Green Party.

The “absolutist, if not eternalist, nature of the wording of the bill” also “troubled” former Conservative minister Sir Jeremy Wright.

Former Tory minister Sir Robert Buckland stated that he was willing to back a few of the modifications and had actually voted for the second and fourth.

Nonetheless, during the discussion, the government’s backbenchers voiced support for it.One of the amendments, according to Sir Bill Cash, was “one of the most serious and dangerous clauses that I have seen in recent statutory history” and challenged legislative sovereignty.

Additionally, Richard Graham stated that the changes were “not relevant” to the goals being pursued by the administration.

On Wednesday, the Lords will review the measure with the amended language deleted.With the signing of a new treaty, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson reaffirmed the government’s assessment that Rwanda is secure.

This attempted to address issues brought up by the Supreme Court’s ruling that earlier legislation was in conflict with human rights laws.”The treaty, the bill, and the published evidence pack together demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for individuals who have been relocated, and that the government’s approach is firm but fair and legal,” Mr. Tomlinson stated.

“The government is clear that we’ve assessed Rwanda to be safe and we’ve published evidence to substantiate that point.”

About The Author

Leave a Reply