THE Scottish Conservatives have voted in favour of the UK Government’s proposed Illegal Migration Bill despite the Home Secretary being unable to confirm whether the legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
If passed, everyone coming to the UK via a so-called “irregular route” – i.e. crossing the Channel in a small boat – would have their asylum claim dismissed as “inadmissible”.
They would then be detained for 28 days before being sent back to their home country or a “safe third country” (such as Rwanda) if that is not possible.
However, on the first page of the proposed bill the government had to concede that it may not comply with European human rights regulations.
During the second reading of the legislation at Westminster on Monday evening, hundreds gathered on Parliament Square to protest – including leader of the SNP at Westminster Stephen Flynn.
READ MORE: Gary Lineker challenges Elon Musk over Twitter threat sent to his son
Although some Tory backbenchers expressed concerns – such as whether it would result in the deportation of children – MPs voted to progress the bill with a majority of 62.
They included the five Scottish Conservative MPs in attendance: Andrew Bowie, David Duguid, Alister Jack, John Lamont and party leader Douglas Ross.
David Mundell, the Scottish Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, did not cast a vote.
When approached by The National, a spokesperson for Mundell said: “David is in Nepal with the International Development Committee. Had he been present, he would have voted with the Government.”
It comes after a court of appeal judge in England ruled that a group of asylum seekers could bring a legal challenge to the Home Office over claims it failed to consider the potential risks of deporting them to Rwanda.
Ten asylum seekers from a range of countries including Syria, Iraq and Iran are involved in the case. All have been threatened with deportation to Rwanda.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel