Official Report 481KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2026 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies, and we expect to be joined by Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark shortly.
Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on a legislative consent memorandum and a supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the United Kingdom Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
In addition to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I welcome Nicholas Parton, from the Scottish Government’s veterans unit, and Clare McKinlay, who is a solicitor in the Scottish Government’s legal directorate.
I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 30 minutes or so for items 1 and 2.
As usual, I begin by asking the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the LCMs.
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.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Clause 28 is on matters relating to the investigation of deaths, and I am pleased that clause 28(10) will allow the Lord Advocate to request that the new commission investigates cases in which there is evidence of conduct that could amount to an offence under the law in Scotland.
I have a general question about the legacy commission’s functions, which will be to investigate conduct that caused death or serious harm and formed part of the troubles and to conduct inquisitorial proceedings into the circumstances of certain deaths. For clarity, will you outline the distinction between those two functions?
I will ask my officials to provide the details on that in a moment.
I wish to make the broader point that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s view on the bill is important, as you would expect. I go back to the point that the bill will have a reduced impact on the powers of the Lord Advocate, as the head of the independent prosecution service in Scotland. It is acknowledged that the provisions continue to encroach, but they are either no worse than the existing provisions or an improvement. It is important that we consider the context of current UK legislation when we are considering the bill. The removal of the immunity provisions addresses the point about incompatibility with the ECHR.
Do my officials want to come in? I do not know whether the question relates to policy or legal matters.
Clare McKinlay can come in, or I can give answering the question a go. Convener, can you remind me what distinction you are asking about?
The new legacy commission’s core functions will be to investigate conduct associated with the troubles that caused death or serious harm and to conduct inquisitorial proceedings into the circumstances of certain deaths that were caused as part of the troubles. Can you help us to understand the distinction between those two functions?
You are asking about the distinction between conducting investigations and conducting inquisitorial proceedings. Is that right?
Yes.
One distinction is that the investigations can relate to a wide range of criminal conduct, not only conduct that caused deaths, whereas inquisitorial proceedings are restricted to the investigation of the circumstances of certain deaths.
I do not have details to hand on the allocation process in relation to which proceedings would apply for certain deaths. However, the bill makes detailed provision for different procedures to apply to each process and for different members of the legacy commission with different functions to conduct those procedures.
If it would be helpful, we could certainly look to provide a bit more information to the committee following the evidence session.
That would probably be helpful for our understanding of the bill’s provisions, although we are limited in our time. I was just wondering whether the opportunity for inquisitorial proceedings flowed from the outcome of an investigation, if you like. If you could clarify that by way of follow-up, that would be helpful.
That is no problem at all, convener, and we will, of course, do that, but it is important to emphasise that this is not a Scottish Government bill—it is a UK Government bill—and our active interest in it is how it encroaches on devolved matters or otherwise.
Thanks very much.
My final question relates to some of the information in the memorandum. It seems to suggest that certain clauses confer powers on UK ministers to act in devolved areas but make no provision for the involvement of Scottish ministers. If I am reading it correctly, it seems that the rationale for the Government still recommending that the LCM be agreed to is that the clauses in question are unlikely to be applicable in Scotland, due to there being no known troubles-related deaths or serious injuries in Scotland that we are aware of. How can we be sure that that would remain the case and that, in the passage of time, we would not find such cases being uncovered?
That is an important point, convener, and we have continued to engage with the Crown Office on the matter. Obviously, the legislation relates specifically to past events that have taken place in Northern Ireland, and, of course, individuals from elsewhere in the UK could have been involved in those events.
As for events in Scotland—we have checked this with the Crown Office, which I believe has checked as far as it is possible to do so—no known deaths or major injuries have occurred in Scotland due to the troubles. Therefore, the impact on the Lord Advocate’s powers, for example, is believed to be minimal.
Thank you for that reassurance. I will hand over to Liam Kerr.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The veterans commissioners for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have expressed concerns about veterans protections, lawfare and historical narrative revision. Given that—indeed, in any event—has the cabinet secretary sought the views of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner? If so, what is her view?
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 am grateful. Have you had any direct meeting, or is there any correspondence that you can share, with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on either the substantive bill or the LCM?
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
I am grateful.
You will see a theme develop with my final question at this stage. I understand that the Scottish Government has had verbal engagement with Police Scotland about the bill, but there is currently no written record of that engagement. Have you met Police Scotland and discussed the bill? Is there any point at which we can see the written note of what Police Scotland’s view was in that verbal engagement?
I have not engaged with Police Scotland directly, person to person, on this, but I believe that officials have. Again, I can check what information exists in the records.
Mr Mountain, would you like to come in?
Thank you, convener. I am grateful that you have allowed me to join your meeting this morning. In my 10 years in the Parliament, it is the one committee that I have not attended.
I want to make a declaration up front, so that everyone knows exactly where I am coming from. I was a soldier for 12 years. I did not do an operation banner tour in Northern Ireland, but a lot of my friends served there, and I had friends who died there. In July 1982, in London, friends and colleagues in my regiment—Anthony Daly, Roy Bright, Jeff Young and Simon Tipper—were blown up, with their horses, while they were carrying out ceremonial duties. In 2020, a colleague, Dennis Hutchings, was dragged back to answer charges dating back to 1974. He was suffering from a terminal illness and died before his trial was completed. For a variety of reasons, I am emotionally invested in the bill.
Let us say that John Downey, one of the IRA members who planted the bomb in London, who was given an on-the-run ticket, was living in Scotland. Would the legacy commission, as set up by the bill, which the Government in Scotland is supporting, haul him in for justice in the same way that Dennis Hutchings was for an event in 1974?
I want to be clear about what Mr Mountain is asking.
A legacy commission is being set up by the bill, which you support. Will the legacy commission look at both sides of the argument, unlike what happened in the past, before the 2023 bill, when it was just soldiers and servicemen and women who were hauled before the legacy commission? Will people who were involved from—I will be careful with my terminology—the other side be hauled in front of the legacy commission?
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?
My understanding is that the commission can take information about any serious criminality that has occurred in relation to the troubles. That would include information relating to the sort of individual whom you describe, Mr Mountain—someone who is on the other side, as you put it, of the conflict. My understanding is that the commission could look at both sides.
I have one more question. Cabinet secretary, what I know is that the majority of us have no idea what it is like for the people whom we ask to serve their country and whom we throw into harm’s way. Decisions must be made in split seconds, when things go—excuse the vernacular—batshit crazy. You look left, you look right, you make sure the people on either side of you are all right, and then you do everything in your power at that stage to protect them. I struggle to understand how setting up a commission whose members sit in a warm room with cups of coffee and water and adequate food can look back dispassionately and make judgments about what people did at the time—things that people in those situations thought were the right things to do. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but, when you have things being thrown at you, you do not have that view.
Is the Scottish Government content that the bill will protect soldiers and servicemen and women from all the services who have done exactly what we have asked them to do in really difficult situations that are, for most of us, impossible to understand?
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 share the view of the cabinet secretary that the system should treat everyone equally. My fear is that the bill will make the situation unequal for those who have responded to the call of their country to do what they are asked to do. I do not need to mention that three Scottish soldiers—young lads—were hauled out of their barracks, shot and killed. No one has been called to justice for that. My view is that giving consent to a bill that does not ensure justice for both sides is fundamentally wrong. I urge committee members to reflect on that when, as I know that they will do, they give the issue the serious consideration that it needs.
Thank you for allowing me to make my point this morning, convener.
I have a quick question. What happens if the committee does not recommend consent to Parliament, and what happens if Parliament does not consent to the LCM? When do you anticipate that Parliament will be asked to give its consent to the LCM?
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.
When do you think that the Parliament will be asked the substantial question?
I am not actually sure about that.
Presumably it will be in the next session.
Presumably, but I have not got past this week, never mind next week. [Laughter.]
I had not intended to say anything—this is more of an observation than anything else. I take on board the points that Mr Mountain made: it is perfectly legitimate to take a wider view on the bill. We need to remember that we are being asked to look at a narrow part of the bill in relation to legislative consent. It strikes me that we should make sure that we protect the independence of the Lord Advocate, which is something that we should all reflect on as important.
Does any other member wish to come in? I see that they do not. That concludes our evidence session. I will now allow a short discussion through which, if they wish to, members can give me an indication of their views on the LCM before we move to the question of consent and any recommendations to Parliament.
I am not sure whether this is a separate part of the proceedings, but I do not think that the committee should recommend to the Parliament that, at this stage, the provisions be consented to. I have two reasons for saying that, which are rooted in the questions that I put to the cabinet secretary. First, the cabinet secretary’s helpful letter of 13 March concedes that the bill’s substantive timetable remains uncertain, and, when I asked about the veterans commissioners, the cabinet secretary referred to something that is in paragraph 26 of the LCM, which says:
“the latest joint statement from the Veterans Commissioners welcomes an indication from UK Government Ministers that further planned engagements with Ministers … should result in changes to the legislation”.
So, something could well change.
The second reason why I do not think that the committee should recommend agreement to the Parliament at this stage is that, from what we have heard—I make no criticism of the cabinet secretary; this is an observation—we have not got full consultation. I do not know what the Scottish Veterans Commissioner or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland think about it. I do not yet know what Police Scotland thinks about it. The cabinet secretary was helpful—she said that she might have something on that and that, if so, she would send it in—but I feel as though I am looking at the LCM in a vacuum. I do not have the information and I am being asked to make a recommendation to my colleagues in the Parliament. That concerns me, because I do not think that our Parliament in Holyrood should be giving a blank cheque to the UK Government.
We do not need to give consent now. As the cabinet secretary just said, the substantial question will be dealt with in the next session, by which time more details will have become available. I do not think that we should make that recommendation without knowing exactly what we are being asked about. Given that the issue will go into the next session, it seems that we—that is, our successor committee—will have time to get that information and make a fully informed and considered decision and, thus, recommendation to our Parliament.
Liam Kerr makes some valid points. However, I disagree, as I think that we should agree to make that recommendation to the Parliament. It is obviously a serious and sensitive issue and I would not want the Scottish Parliament’s role in it to be one that holds anything up.
Edward Mountain has made a strong case in relation to his own personal experience. He has brought to the table something that the rest of us do not have.
The question that I was going to ask predates Liam Kerr’s comments, which sort of changed the angle of the conversation. I was going to ask whether, if the committee decides to recommend consent, there is anything that we can do to make Mr Mountain’s views known to the relevant people in the UK Government.
10:00
Thank you. Do any other members want to come in?
I am not sure whether there will be another opportunity to comment, convener. If not, I will come in now.
I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about timescales and whether we need to deal with the issue today.
I thank Mr Mountain for putting his experience on the record, which has helped to put this relatively narrow legislative matter into its wider context. The purpose of the legacy commission is to investigate conduct causing death or serious harm that formed part of the troubles, and to conduct proceedings investigating the circumstances of certain deaths. I support that, but the clarity on the narrow nature of the LCM is helpful.
I am pleased that the issues around the independence of the Lord Advocate have been resolved, because the committee was extremely concerned about those issues when we discussed the matter previously. That was the major focus, so I am pleased that that seems to have been settled in a satisfactory manner.
I ask the cabinet secretary whether we have time to get further information or whether we should deal with the issue now, before the election.
I bring in the cabinet secretary to respond to the points that have been made.
There will be further legislative consent motions, because the aim is to have royal assent around autumn this year.
I am aware that the veterans commissioners have engaged directly with the Northern Ireland Office on the effects of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. In November, the commissioners stated that UK ministers had indicated that there were
“further planned engagements with Ministers and senior officials”
to work on changes to the bill that
“will provide an improvement for the veteran community.”
Obviously, I am not involved in that or in control of it. Our current understanding is that the UK Government will introduce a further package of amendments at committee stage to build on the existing safeguards in the bill. The Government will consider those changes when they are made. Therefore, there will be further LCMs.
I hope that that reassures colleagues. Obviously, the committee will come to its own view, but my view is that we should proceed with the LCM today, because it is a very discrete ask. We need to welcome the improvement in relation to the Lord Advocate’s position and the removal of the immunity from prosecution provisions, which removes the ECHR concerns.
My final point is that the bill already includes protections that do not currently exist, and the UK Government has signalled that it will introduce amendments to build on the existing safeguards in the bill. I support proceeding with the LCM now, but I expect the Government to return to the committee in due course.
Thank you.
It strikes me that there are two ways of looking at this. I hear some colleagues wondering why, as the bill is not going to get royal assent until autumn, there is all this urgency just now. However, I would take the counter-view and go back to the point that we are being asked to give legislative consent on a very narrow basis. We are being asked to give some indication to the UK Government with regard to the interests of the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Parliament, in relation to devolved matters. The most fundamental issue in that respect is that of the Lord Advocate’s independence, and, on that basis, we are satisfied.
I would just reflect on the cabinet secretary’s point that the Parliament will return to this matter. If there are wider issues that impinge and touch on devolved competence in relation to the very legitimate concerns that Mr Mountain, in particular, and Liam Kerr have raised, this Parliament will have plenty of opportunity to say yea or nay in giving legislative consent on those other matters.
I completely understand people’s instinct that we still have time, but in my experience, the UK Government is not likely to say, “We’re just going to stop and wait until the Scottish Parliament has consented to this element.” We are just indicating that, as far as this narrow area is concerned, we are satisfied, but clearly we can return to the subject in due course. On that basis, I suggest that we indicate our support in this particular area at this time.
Thank you very much. As no other members wish to come in, I just want to acknowledge all the points that have been made. We have covered quite a range of different aspects of the LCM, and I am grateful for that. Like Jamie Hepburn, I am grateful for the clarification that we have had, particularly with regard to the role of the Lord Advocate as it flows from the bill.
Given the different viewpoints that have been shared, I suggest that we have, perhaps, two options. We can continue with the process of agreeing the LCM, or we can hold off making a recommendation, but highlight some of the points that have been raised in today’s discussion in the report to Parliament that we will compile following this session and seek further information or clarity or raise any other points that members wish to raise.
I propose that we proceed to considering approval, but that we set out our position in our report to Parliament. Do members agree to that course of action?
I just want to be clear on what I am agreeing to. Are we being asked to recommend, in writing, to our colleagues in full Parliament that the LCM be agreed to?
Not quite. I am proposing that we proceed with the formal process that we are about to go through. Obviously, if members do not agree, we will go to a division, but thereafter, we will ensure that the points that have been raised by committee members are set out in the report that we share with Parliament.
Forgive me, convener, but I still do not understand. My position is that I do not feel able to say to my colleagues in full Parliament, “I think that this LCM should go through.” I think that we should take our time. As long as that is somehow clear, I will do whatever I need to.
I will bring Stephen Imrie in to ensure that I am covering the technicalities of the process.
If I understand correctly, convener, your proposal is for the committee to carry on in the usual fashion for an LCM, which is to ask the cabinet secretary to put the question on the issue of recommending consent to the Parliament. If the committee agrees to do so, that would be reflected in the committee’s vote and in its report. Additionally, if I understand correctly, convener, the report would reflect the views that have been expressed by various members.
The question of when the legislative consent motion would be voted on by the Parliament is more a matter for the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and the Parliamentary Bureau. My understanding is that the question on the legislative consent motion will not be put in this parliamentary session, and that it will be a matter for session 7.
In effect, at this point, the committee is being asked to recommend that the Parliament, in a future parliamentary session, give consent to the particular provisions in the cabinet secretary’s motion, while reflecting the views of different members in the committee’s report. That would highlight to members in the future parliamentary session what different members have said and some of their reservations about the process.
Is that clear?
Yes, thank you.
Would the views that you referred to include what Mr Mountain has brought to the table today or would they only be those of committee members?
They would include Mr Mountain as well. His views will be in the Official Report, and the clerks, with the convener, would reflect the flavour of the debate and make reference to the full Official Report, which members in a future parliamentary session could read.
I might be reiterating the point, but that strikes me as a sensible way forward. The concern that has been raised probably strays slightly wider than the strict area that we are being asked to provide legislative consent to. I would be content for us to say, “We are happy to recommend legislative consent to this narrow area, but here are some wider issues around the bill that we think the Parliament still needs to reflect on.” That would be a perfectly legitimate and sensible thing for us to do.
I am minded to support the legislative consent motion that is before us today, given the nature of its content, which seems to relate to the gathering of biometric evidence, legal representation expenses, evidence and records. Those are relatively ancillary matters rather than the principled issues that Mr Mountain has raised with us today.
However, I was surprised when I heard that we will not vote on the motion in this parliamentary session. It would be helpful to hear a bit more about the thinking and reasoning for that. I appreciate that that might not be something that the cabinet secretary has been involved with. I presume that the reason could be that there might not be a committee system up and running when the next parliamentary session begins, and that setting up committees would take some time. I know from our experience at the beginning of this parliamentary session that it took several months to set up the committees. Therefore, in any event, the motion would go straight to the Parliament.
That is the only argument that I can think of for this committee dealing with the legislative consent motion by making a report to members in the next parliamentary session. I would have thought that, ideally, a committee in the next parliamentary session would consider the issue, so that the members who are involved in the scrutiny at that point could take part in the wider parliamentary debate. It would be helpful to get the thinking behind that clarified. I appreciate that the people in this room might not be the ones who have that information.
As I say, I am minded to vote in favour of recommending the legislative consent motion.
I thank all members for their comments. I cannot answer that final question, but I will bring in Stephen Imrie again, if he has any information.
I will answer the question to the extent that I can. As I said, the scheduling of the legislative consent motion for the Parliament is a matter for the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and the Parliamentary Bureau. My understanding from the Parliament’s business team is that the legislative consent motion is not currently scheduled for this side of the campaign recess. I do not have any details of when it might be scheduled in session 7—that would be for members in the next parliamentary session and the new Parliamentary Bureau to decide.
Committees are normally established within two to three weeks of a new session, but that may take longer—I do not know for sure. That is a matter for the members in the next parliamentary session and it will be subject to negotiations between business managers.
I will try to find out more for members about the scheduling intent. However, as I said, those are mainly matters for the next session of Parliament and a new Parliamentary Bureau. I will ask the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans for an explanation of why the LCM is not being voted on in this session, and, if it is able to provide one, I will provide it to the committee.
Thank you, Stephen. I will move on and ask the question.
Do members of the committee agree to recommend to the Parliament that consent should be given for the relevant provisions covered by LCM S6-68 and LCM S6-68a?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
I am sorry, but does the cabinet secretary not have to move it first?
No, because it is an LCM.
It is a recommendation of the committee, not an affirmative SSI, so we do not need the cabinet secretary to move the motion as we would for an affirmative SSI.
Okay. That is fine.
In that case, we will go back to the beginning. That might be easiest.
Is the committee content to recommend to the Parliament that consent should be given for the relevant provisions covered by LCM S6-68 and LCM S6-68a?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
We are agreed that consent should be given.
Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a factual report outlining the points that have been raised today to the Parliament on the LCMs?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the cabinet secretary for attending. We will now suspend briefly to allow a changeover of officials.
10:17
Meeting suspended.
10:23
On resuming—
Previous
Attendance