AN MSP was barred from asking the First Minister if there should be resignations over the UK Government’s unlawful Rwanda policy – because it relates to a reserved matter.
Maggie Chapman, an MSP for the Scottish Greens, had the last question during FMQs on Thursday.
“The First Minister will be aware of the Court of Appeal’s ruling this morning that the UK Government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda to make their applications while being held in detention centres are unlawful,” she told the Chamber.
“This plan to remove some of the most vulnerable people, women and children among them, was always immoral and unjust.
“Today we learn it is also illegal,” she went on.
Chapman then asked Humza Yousaf if the court’s decision means Home Secretary Suella Braverman “must resign” – sparking applause in the Chamber.
As Yousaf prepared to answer, he was interrupted by Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone who instructed him to sit back down.
“The Parliament’s standing orders provide that First Minister’s Question Time gives members the opportunity to put questions to the First Minister on matters that fall in the responsibility of the First Minister and of course the responsibilities of the Government,” she explained.
Johnstone argued that as a question relating to immigration, a reserved issue, it may not have met the requirements of the Parliament’s standing orders.
READ MORE: Nearly £170,000 cost to remove each migrant under small boats Bill – estimate
The Greens are calling for Braverman to step down from her role, or be sacked, in the wake of the court's decision.
“If the Home Secretary Suella Braverman had any ounce of decency she would resign. If the Prime Minister had any kind of authority, he would sack her," said Chapman.
But speaking on Thursday afternoon, Braverman said she remains “fully committed” to the Rwanda policy and was “disappointed” with the Court of Appeal ruling.
“The British people want to stop the boats, and so does this Government. That’s what I am determined to deliver and I won’t take a backward step from that," she said in a statement.
The UK Government plans to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court.
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