 I won't get close to maybe myself… The next item of Business is a debate on motion 97722 in the name of Angela Constance on northern Ireland troubles legacy and reconciliation Bill, UK legislation. I'd invite members wishing to participate to press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I invite Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion, Cabinet Secretary, around eight minutes please. President например, this is an opportunity for the Parliament to consider a suplementary legislative consent ond dwi'n iawn i Gwyrraedd nôr i NZ, strategic casino ac preloedd gan Firdig Newberry. Lünkist ledwn fersiwyd o uwch yn 17으로 – ddiwethaf 2022 o blaethu oddi yn angehid o nôr i obiadau a adreid y register y newidiaeth gan Firdig Newberry a growren. Sinhonthussian o'r flynyd hip-hysol yng Nghymru wedi aço byd. recovery. It seeks to limit criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints and extends the prisoner release scheme in the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998 and provides for experiences to be recorded and preserved and for events to be studied and memorialised. After consideration of the bill, the Scottish Government concluded that a legislative consent memorandum should be lodged in the Scottish Parliament due to the impact it will have on devolved areas of competence with the recommendation that consent be refused. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. She has outlined the principles of the bill and I was wondering what conversations her Government has managed to have with those on the ground in Northern Ireland about her views of the bill and how they think it will affect things on the ground in Northern Ireland. What I can say to the member is that I am aware that the bill has been opposed by every political party in Northern Ireland, including the DUP and key stakeholders such as Amnesty International relatives for justice and widows against violence and power. The latter being the largest cross community victim group in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government advised the Scottish Parliament to refuse consent on 20 October 2022 on the bill when the first legislative consent memorandum was lodged. The majority of the criminal justice committee voted to support that position when they published their first report on the bill on 10 January 2023 with two members voting against the Scottish Government's recommendation. Since then, the UK Government has proposed further amendments to the bill, the most recent of which the UK Government only published and provided in full to the Scottish Government on 8 June. We have considered those new amendments and it is still the position of the Scottish Government, which includes the Lord Advocate and the Slicer General for Scotland, that the recent amendments still do not resolve the concerns that resulted in the recommendation that that Parliament should not pass a legislative consent motion in relation to the bill. In the bill's current forum, despite the amendments tabled by the UK Government, it still gives rise to three key areas of concern for the Scottish Government that I appraise the criminal justice committee on 21 June. Firstly, it will limit the ability of victims of the troubles to seek just as through Scottish courts if required. Secondly, it does not respect devolution and provides power to the Secretary of State to amend devolved legislation without first discussing with or obtaining consent from this Parliament. Thirdly, it has the potential to impact on the powers of the Lord Advocate as independent head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. The criminal justice committee has now published its final report on the bill on 23 June, now with no members voting against the Scottish Government's recommendation to withhold consent. In its current forum, the bill still allows the granting of immunity to people who apply for it, even though they may have committed serious offences during the troubles. Effectively, the bill could mean an amnesty for those who have committed offences such as murder and crimes involving abuse and torture, including where those crimes were conducted by agents of the state. For those who have been directly affected by the troubles and are seeking justice, those amendments will not increase the opportunity for them to obtain justice or ensure that those who committed offences during the troubles are appropriately held to account. In its current forum, the bill also provides the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with the ability to amend devolved legislation without having to make the Scottish Government aware of that, let alone to seek the Scottish Parliament's agreement to do so. If the UK Government respects devolution, it should not be exercising powers within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament unless doing so is specifically agreed. Even with the concessions made by the UK Government, the bill continues to encroach on the role of the Lord Advocate as the independent head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. The principle that the Lord Advocate takes decisions in their capacity as head of the systems of prosecution and investigations of deaths independently of any other body predates devolution and is protected by section 48.5 of the Scotland Act 1998. The power to grant immunity proposed for the independent commission created by the UK Government's bill therefore potentially undermines this principle by adversely impacting on the Lord Advocate's ability to take decisions on whether to commence prosecutions. As I laid out to the Justice Committee last week and previous iterations of the bill, it was the case that, even where immunity was not granted, the Lord Advocate would not be able to commence a prosecution unless and until the commission decided to formally refer the cases to the Lord Advocate's office. Therefore, I welcome the amendment proposed by the UK Government, which means that the Lord Advocate can now direct the commission to refer such a case to the Lord Advocate's office when it is considered appropriate. I understand that the minister general met Lord Keane to discuss that amendment. However, as I have already stated to the Justice Committee, at the heart of the bill is the power given to the commission to grant immunity from prosecution for the most serious offences. That power to make decisions on whether an individual should be prosecuted is something that, in Scotland, we would expect to be exercised by the Lord Advocate acting independently in the public interest. Despite the recent amendments to the bill, the commission's power to grant immunity still has the potential to cut across the independent decision making of the Lord Advocate. In effect, it will be the commission who has the discretion to decide whether a prosecution can be raised and not the Lord Advocate. The Scottish Government does not think that it is wise or appropriate for the UK Government to alter the Lord Advocate's constitutional position in this way, and it is not something that this Parliament, in my view, should consent to. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to review UK Government legislation that will impact on the devolved powers of this Parliament and review any amendments made. We have done so, and it is our recommendation that Parliament maintains its position to withhold legislative consent to the amended Northern Ireland's Troubles, Legacy and Reconciliation Bill. Therefore, I urge all members to support this position that is backed by the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. If you could move the motion. I grew up with the troubles on my TV screen for families in Northern Ireland, it was their lives. Today it can be easy for us to forget the daily backdrop of terror and devastation and death. I recommend the recent five-part BBC documentary once upon a time, which expertly tells the stories of some of those who suffered, but also some of those who inflicted the suffering. This series is a timely reminder that for many individuals and families, memories remain fresh and losses remain raw. The legislative consent motion before us today relates to an independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, which would investigate deaths and serious injuries relating to the troubles. Individuals involved in the troubles can come forward and be provided immunity under certain strictly defined conditions if they provide information relating to an event that took place leading to death or serious injury. Those could be about identifying the location of remains of those who were taken away to be tortured and executed by terrorists or, for example, for anyone who might be harboring knowledge about one of the many bomb plots that claim the lives of civilians or military personnel. Edward Maynard. I thank the member for giving way. We all need to be very careful at how we talk about this and consider this, but I want to make the following point. On 20 July 1982, four soldiers from my regiment riding horses down the South Carriageway at Hyde Park were blown up by a man who planted a bomb surrounding it by nails in a car next to their route. Mr Downey was accused and found guilty of that but has never been bought of justice because he has a way of avoiding it. In the same time, just two years ago, one of my colleagues was charged in Northern Ireland for murder, Dennis Hutchins, who in 1974 shot somebody. The argument of whether that is correct or not is neither here nor there, but he was dragged to Northern Ireland where he was prosecuted and subsequently died during the trial. My question to the member is, and my question will say that I would like the Government to reflect on. Will the commission bring peace to those people who are left behind? We need to do that. I thank Edward Mountain for his intervention. I know that, as a former soldier, he knows more than most the extent of the troubles and horrors that he has involved. That is indeed the sentiment behind the legislation. It is about truth, reconciliation and closure for families who remain very badly affected. It is, indeed, modelled on the truth and reconciliation approach that has worked very successfully in post-apartite South Africa, albeit under different circumstances. That is a sensible bill with a legitimate aim and crucially with a consistent approach across the United Kingdom. That is why I find it concerning that the SNP Government is seeking to essentially interfere in an issue that is primarily, if not exclusively, affecting Northern Ireland. There would be an outcry from the SNP of Stormont, for example, who decided to consent to a bill here and denied consent to a bill produced here in Holyrood, which was about Scotland. Northern Ireland's history is unique. It should not be used for political purposes. It should certainly not be exploited to create any kind of constitutional grievance, I will. Keith Brown. I don't know if you heard what the cabinet secretary said, but all the parties in Northern Ireland believe that this undermines the rights of victims to seek redress. It undermines devolution and, crucially, for the first time I can remember, it undermines the independent role of a Lord Advocate. Does none of that concern him? There are many views about the legislation in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, but it is vitally important that a UK-wide approach is taken. Thousands of lives were lost during the Troubles, thousands more were damaged through the crushing impact of the violence and everybody wants to move on from that time. Northern Ireland today has nothing like Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. Quite why we would want to get involved in what is really an internal issue for the people of Northern Ireland is beyond me and it would be wrong if this was simply another chance to pick a fight with the UK Government. That bill would play an important role in helping Northern Ireland to further consign the violence of the past into the history books. The UK Government has addressed some of the concerns raised by the Lord Advocate and it is clear that it is willing to continue to address outstanding concerns. When I questioned the cabinet secretary about some of the concerns, it inspired that there are no live troubles related police investigations in Scotland. There do not appear to be any troubles related prisoners in Scotland. It is therefore a largely theoretical question. There appears to be a slim chance of the commission's work impinging on Scotland, but while there remains any chance, I believe that we should support this bill and today vote against the Scottish Government's LCM. I now call Pauline McNeill, around five minutes. The Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill proposes an effective amnesty from prosecution for troubles related offences in exchange for co-operation with the tooth retrieval body, and the bill would also halt future civil cases at inquest linked to killings during the conflict. Establishing a new independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery is responsible for reviewing deaths and other harmful conduct forming part of the troubles for publishing its findings. The bill would seemingly effectively draw a line under offences in the troubles area across the UK by ensuring that long-running cases that have not been resolved are closed and closing avenues for justice in cases which did not involve death or serious injury. However, this is not the view shared by virtually all the political parties and victims groups across the island of Ireland, as Keith Brown formally said, and North and South have slammed the substance of the bill. The democratic unionist party is against it. In fact, one of the few issues that all sides of the political debate in Northern Ireland seem to agree on is that this proposal should not proceed. I agree with Edward Mountain that there are great sensitivities, and for the people of Northern Ireland, are about their history, but it is for that reason that we must recognise that it does not have consent of the people. On top of strong opposition in the north, the Republic of Ireland Government is also against the bill, and in a press release, Irish Foreign and Defence Minister Michael Martin urged that the bill be paused because it would potentially set back peace in Northern Ireland. The families of victims of the troubles have also expressed deep concerns about this bill, and some have said that it is designed to cause pain and hurt to families seeking the truth about what happened to their loved ones. The Council of Europe has warned that the bill would diminish rights and accountability in a country that has seen precious little. The Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, Dunja Metafrydge, stated that she was repeatedly warned—she has repeatedly warned Westminster—that the bill would undermine the human rights of victims as well as truth-seeking reconciliation and justice efforts. Because of such opposition, I am also worried deeply that the bill opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland and by victims and survivors of the troubles across national and union committees will be a setback for Northern Ireland. The bill threatens to undermine or did until I heard the cabinet secretary say that there has been a last-minute change to the powers of the Lord Advocate. That is to be welcomed, although I would prefer to see that about earlier, because the committee has scrutinised this over a large number of weeks and has made the same point that a major objection to this is the powers of the Lord Advocate being removed. I had the privilege of representing Scottish Labour on the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which includes parties from across all those political parties. This year, the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly marked a 25-year since-the-good Friday agreement, which largely ended the bloodshed that left 3,600 people dead. I had the privilege of listening to Bertie Herm, former T-Shuck senator George Mitchell and former civil servants who spoke of the incredible coming together of those people to ensure the good Friday agreement. I will take an intervention from Paul O'Kane. I am very grateful to Paul O'Kane for giving way and she knows my deep personal interest in this issue. Indeed, she will know that I had the great honour of hosting three people deeply involved in the architecture of the good Friday agreement in this Parliament as we marked 25 years of the agreement. They were very clear, as we have heard already in the debate today, that this bill will not work in terms of trying to seek the consensus on reconciliation that is required. It does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland. Crucially, it is relevant to people here in Scotland because of the strong diasporic links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will she agree with me that we have to respect the people of Northern Ireland in this? I hold heartedly agree with Paul O'Kane that, while the substance before this is whether or not we would give legislative consent, because it cuts across to all powers, I think that it is important to take the view that it also does not have the political support of organisations and parties in Northern Ireland. Britain's exit from the European Union is further complicated peace process creating political tensions that have rattled the foundations of the good Friday agreement, and, as today in Northern Ireland, has been without a sitting assembly for nearly one year and a half. If pass the bill only threatens to further drive a wedge between all political parties in Northern Ireland, I, for one thing, think that we have a duty as MSPs of a devolved Parliament to collectively oppose anything that threatens the Northern Ireland peace process. As I said earlier, I do welcome the late change in the bill in relation to the Lord Advocate's powers. However, in principle, I think that the proposals do not have the consent of the community, and I think that for those reasons we absolutely will support the Government on the LCM and not ask the Parliament not to recommend the support for the legislative consent motion this evening. The Government does indeed recognise the great sensitivity of the matters that we are discussing today and have proceeded on that basis at all times. In essence, the proposed amendments from the UK Government have not gone far enough to remedy the issues that were raised by the Scottish Government and its committees when it was initially recommended in October of 2022 that the Scottish Parliament should not pass a legislative consent motion in relation to this bill. The amendments tabled by the UK Government on 8 June, although welcome, do not alleviate the three major concerns that we have about this bill. The Scottish Government cannot support a bill that reduces or eliminates the ability of victims of crime to seek justice through our court system. That position is backed by the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee. Let us not forget that the bill will provide the commission the power to grant immunity from prosecution for some of the most serious offences, including abuse, torture and murder. The decision on whether to prosecute someone for those offences should remain with the Lord Advocate and to remove the decision-making process from that office and place it with another body. No, thank you. In our view, has the potential to adversely impact the long-standing position of the Lord Advocate? I am very grateful. There are some people who have already been prosecuted who have got letters from a previous UK Government called on-the-run letters, which allows them to avoid prosecution. The existence already happens. Do you think that that is right? By doing what you are doing, by preventing this going forward, it will aid in resolving the problems that those letters have produced? I am trying very hard not to have a politicised debate about this, given the matters that we are discussing. I am aware of the sensitivity for many members across the political divide on that, but I have a duty as a member of this Parliament to point out issues in terms of access to justice for people who reside in Scotland, who may wish to pursue similar criminal action in Scotland. I have a duty to stand up to any legislation irrespective of the purpose of that legislation if it interferes with the long-standing constitutional right of the Lord Advocate. I will, of course, go on to reflect some of the most sensitive matters and what we understand in terms of the views around the political groups and also the community groups of interests in Northern Ireland as well. As I said, the decision on whether to prosecute someone for those offences in our view should always remain with the Lord Advocate and to remove the decision-making process from that office and place it with another body in our view that has the potential to adversely impact the long-standing position of the Lord Advocate. It is also our view, Presiding Officer, that the bill will not make it easier for victims who have suffered, as I said, during the troubles to obtain justice. It is, of course, not only the Scottish Government, which has serious concerns over the bill that has been reflected upon this afternoon. There has been widespread opposition to the bill, as I said earlier, to Maggie Chapman, all political parties in Northern Ireland. Opposed the bill, as do key stakeholders, as previously mentioned, such as Amnesty International. Many victims' groups have raised serious concerns on the bill and its ability to help to deliver justice and crucially reconciliation, including the widows against violence and power trauma centre, which is the largest cross-community victims group in Northern Ireland. Amnesty International conducted polling to gauge opinion about the bill and released the results that showed that 87 per cent of UK adults should still be prosecuted for serious crimes such as murder, even if that was committed decades ago. Graham Taggart, Amnesty International's UK Northern Ireland deputy director, has said that the UK Government's plans for the bill are, and I quote, an affront to decency, human rights and the rule of law and must be scrapped. In addition, Mark Thompson, the chief executive officer of the Belfast base relatives for justice, has said that the bill is, and I quote, anti-rule of law, anti-victim, anti-Good Friday agreement, anti-international human rights law, and he goes further to say that, and I quote, it denies the basic right to an investigation and truth and accountability. I have also heard that the DUP has also strongly opposed the introduction of this bill with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson writing to the Prime Minister, urging him to scrap the bill, and he also said that reconciliation will not be achieved by sacrifice and justice. Access to justice must be preserved. Michael Martin, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence in the Irish Government, has also said that he is deeply worried that the enactment of the bill, opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland and by victims and survivors of the troubles across communities, will set back the essential work of reconciliation. While I note the opposition to the bill, as a Government minister, it is for the reasons that I have outlined that I urge all members of the Parliament to support the Scottish Government's recommendation that the Scottish Parliament do not pass a legislative consent motion in relation to the UK Government's Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill. That concludes the debate on the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.