Chamber and committees

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 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?

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 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.

Before you disappear, cabinet secretary, you have engaged with the committee quite heavily over the past few years on land reform and various other matters. Disappointingly, I did not always get my way on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but I—and, I think, the committee—have appreciated how you approached matters when you came before us, which was with great seriousness, but also in a manner that made it easier for us to deal with things. For that, we are extremely grateful, and I have been asked to record our best wishes to you as you move on to your next job.

Cabinet secretary, would you like to respond? You always like to have last words, so perhaps that is appropriate. [Laughter.]

Thank you, cabinet secretary. As you have had the last word, we will briefly suspend the meeting before we move on to the next item of business.

09:18

Meeting suspended.

09:20

On resuming—

Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The next agenda item is consideration of an SSI that has been laid under the negative procedure, which means that it will come into force unless the Parliament agrees a motion to annul it. No such motion has been lodged, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on the instrument. Do members have any comments?

Item 5 is consideration of the proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to UK Government legislating in devolved areas, as set out in the UK statutory instrument proposal for the Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Regulations 2026. The proposed regulations would introduce a mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme for certain domestic water-using products, such as taps, showers, toilets, washing machines and dishwashers.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s position on consent. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in this area, and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so. If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In doing so, the committee also has the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or to ask to be kept updated on particular matters. However, if the committee is not content with the proposals, it may make one of the recommendations that are outlined in the clerk’s note. I will not read those recommendations.

The proposed labelling seems very similar to that used for electricity, including electricity used only for water, and we are used to seeing such signs—A, B, C, D and so on—on machines, so it seems to make sense.

No member has any comments on the proposal, so I will move to the substantive question on the item. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I will ask a very simple question. The instrument talks about “Scottish persons” and the responsibilities of the Scottish Government. What does it mean for policing? Will the Scottish Government be responsible for policing or prosecuting Scottish persons?

Do committee members agree to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of the report for publication?

Members indicated agreement.