ASYLUM seekers at risk of being deported are not being removed from Scotland to England to deny them legal aid, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has said.
During justice questions in the Commons, SNP home affairs spokeswoman Alison Thewliss questioned if it was the Government’s “deliberate policy” to move asylum seekers in order to prevent them challenging a potential removal, including to Rwanda.
READ MORE: SNP MP hits out at Glasgow Labour leader's 'brass neck' on finance
In England and Wales, 25% of the population is eligible to receive legal aid, in contrast to Scotland, where 75% of the population is eligible to receive legal aid, according to a report from the Signet Library.
The Government is seeking to get flights to send migrants to Rwanda off the ground by July, after the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act became law last month.
Thewliss (above) said: “Can I ask the minister is there a deliberate policy to remove people from Scotland to England to prevent them accessing legal aid, as they’d be able to be due to do so in Scotland and would be fully entitled to do so? What guidance has been issued to lawyers in this respect?
“And lastly, what right do MPs have to intervene in cases of removal, because I’ve been told that MPs have been requested to have wet signatures from people who have been removed to immigration removal centres in England?”
Chalk replied: “The first answer to the first question was no, that isn’t correct.
“But the point about legal advice is really important. People should get legal advice so that they can make their points, that’s why we’re investing heavily.
“When the IMA (Illegal Migration Act) comes into force, there’ll be a 15% uplift, we’ve invested £1.5 billion to re-accredit senior case workers, and also we’re paying for travel time.
“We recognise, of course, this is robust legislation, necessarily robust. We’re also ensuring that people get the legal advice they need.”
READ MORE: 'Independence activists could be referred to counter-extremism programme'
In the Commons at the beginning of May, SNP Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) said that a 21-year old migrant in her constituency was detained in Scotland and taken to England, adding that she was unable to get information from the Home Office in relation to his status.
On Tuesday, SNP justice spokesperson Chris Stephens said one of his constituents from Glasgow South West had been “removed from Scotland to England and threatened with deportation”.
He said: “Can (Chalk) answer this question, why are MPs being denied access to their constituents? That seems quite outrageous.
“And does he not think it’s unacceptable that lawyers and their elected representatives should not be impeded with arbitrary barriers when accessing their constituents threatened with deportation?”
Chalk replied: “Of course, MPs should have access in appropriate circumstances, but the critical point is going to be for individuals to get legal support, with no discourtesy to (Stephens) as a constituency MP, that legal support is important.”
Provisional Home Office figures show more than 9000 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel so far this year.
This is up 35% on this time last year, when 6691 crossings were recorded, and a 16% rise compared to the same period in 2022 (7801), according to PA news agency analysis of the data.
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 here