Chamber and committees

I refer you to what happened when we voted to withhold consent to the 2023 act, which was that the UK Government proceeded with it anyway. You asked that question, Mr Kerr, but I think that you knew the answer.

You are asking about the distinction between conducting investigations and conducting inquisitorial proceedings. Is that right?

I have not had any direct engagement with the veterans commissioner on this matter, although I have on other matters in the past. I know that Mr Dey, the veterans minister, continues to engage with the commissioner on a whole range of matters, and that he is aware of the concerns expressed by the commissioners in Scotland and elsewhere. I am, of course, aware of the representations that all veterans commissioners have made to the UK Government in respect of its bill.

I am also aware of a commitment from the UK Government to continue to engage with the veterans commissioners, as we would all expect. Protections are proposed for veterans, including a presumption with regard to remote evidence, so that people do not have to travel to Northern Ireland. There are also protections against repeat investigations, the right to anonymity and the right to have veterans’ voices heard. There is a statutory advisory group associated with the bill, and there are other protections on the grounds of age and welfare.

I am just providing that by way of information rather than as commentary, as this is not a Scottish Government but a UK bill.

I will ask officials to come in on the detail of that, Mr Mountain. The only point that I want to clarify is that I am taking through the Parliament a legislative consent memorandum on the aspects of a UK Government bill that will impact devolution. The legacy commission is a UK-wide commission, which, as I understand it, has been established as an international body.

Nick Parton, is there anything that you could add about the functioning of the commission?

I will check on that, Mr Kerr. Officials have had a lot of engagement with the Northern Ireland Office. I do not know what correspondence exists, but I will go away and check. If there is information that we can share, there would be no reason for us not to share it.

09:45

Like many people who have never served on the front line, I do not have a comprehensive or complete picture or lived experience of what that is like. Like many Scots, I have a close family member who has served, but, of course, the knowledge and information that I have gained from them is only at second hand. From my engagement with the veterans community in my constituency, I am well aware of the long-term social, emotional and physical impacts that serving your country and being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice can have not just on those who serve but on their loved ones.

I come back to my position, which is that I am being asked to give a view on legislative consent with regard to how the bill impacts devolution, and there are three principles that I have to come back to. First, does the bill mitigate, avoid or limit the detrimental impact on the Lord Advocate that I was previously concerned about? In my view, it does. The other two principles are ones that apply to everyone in relation to the Northern Irish troubles, whether they have served or are a civilian. They are that those who have suffered should be able to obtain justice, and that those who are believed to have committed serious offences should be held to account. Those principles have to apply to everyone in relation to how they have been affected by the Northern Irish troubles, regardless of whether they have served or not.

We have to be fair to everyone. It will be for MPs—we all have MP colleagues—to scrutinise the detail of the bill and to ensure that the legacy commission, which is established as an international body, is robust and fair to all involved.

I am not actually sure about that.

Presumably, but I have not got past this week, never mind next week. [Laughter.]

Thank you, convener. Good morning. I am grateful for the opportunity to be with the committee to speak about the UK Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the associated legislative consent memorandums.

As committee members will recall, in 2022, the previous UK Government introduced the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. At the time, the Scottish Parliament withheld its consent to the bill due to a number of factors, including the bill’s potential impact on the powers and independence of the Lord Advocate, the view that it would not make it easier for victims of the troubles to obtain justice, and the view that its immunity provisions relating to those who come forward with information might breach compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. However, on that occasion, the UK Government chose to proceed with the bill, which received royal assent in 2023 in the absence of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent for relevant provisions.

It is useful to bear in mind that context when considering the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which will repeal and replace elements of the 2023 act. The changes include the establishment of a UK-wide legacy commission, the core function of which will be to investigate conduct that caused death or serious harm and formed part of the troubles. The commission will replace the body that was established under the 2023 act. The bill will also establish procedures for investigations by the legacy commission, amend arrangements for inquests in Northern Ireland into troubles-related deaths and require the legacy commission to produce a historical record of deaths linked to troubles-related conduct that were not otherwise investigated.

Our officials have had extensive engagement with the Northern Ireland Office on the bill, for which I am thankful. Our principles in respect of the new bill are clear and have not changed. Those who suffered during the troubles should be able to obtain justice, and those who committed serious offences during that time should be appropriately held to account. However, in seeking to achieve that, the new bill should avoid having a potentially detrimental impact on the Lord Advocate’s independence or constitutional position, or it should at least limit that impact as far as possible.

Our conclusion is that, although the bill is imperfect in places, it still represents a significant improvement across all those areas of principle. The proposed bill will have less of an impact on the Lord Advocate’s independence than the existing 2023 act. Importantly, it includes an express confirmation that the provision of information about troubles-related deaths to the new international body that will be established will not result in immunity from prosecution. Immunity in respect of troubles-related conduct was previously granted under a contentious provision in the 2023 act, which MPs have voted to repeal by remedial order due to its incompatibility with the European convention on human rights.

The position that is reflected in the new bill aligns more closely with the Scottish Government’s views on the rights of victims and the need for accountability for those who committed troubles-related offences. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s position is that the Parliament should give its full consent to the bill.

I want to be clear about what Mr Mountain is asking.