Hansard

Mr Mountain, I am trying very hard not to have a politicised debate, given the matters that we are discussing. I am aware of the sensitivity of the issues for many members across the political divide, but I have a duty, as a member of this Parliament, to point out issues regarding access to justice for people who reside in Scotland and who may wish to pursue civil or criminal action in Scotland. I have a duty to stand up to any legislation, irrespective of its purpose, if it interferes with the long-standing constitutional right of the Lord Advocate.

I will go on to reflect on some of the most sensitive matters, and on what we understand of the views of the political groups and community groups of interest in Northern Ireland.

The decision on whether to prosecute someone for those offences should always remain with the Lord Advocate. To remove the decision-making process from that office and place it with another body has the potential, in our view, to adversely impact the long-standing position of the Lord Advocate. It is also our view that the bill will not make it easier for victims who suffered during the troubles to obtain justice.

It is not only the Scottish Government that has serious concerns over the bill, which has been reflected on in the debate. There has been widespread opposition to the bill. As I said to Maggie Chapman, all the political parties in Northern Ireland oppose the bill, as do key stakeholders such as Amnesty International. Many victims groups have raised serious concerns about the bill and its ability to help deliver justice and reconciliation, including the Widows Against Violence Empower 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 results showing that 87 per cent of UK adults thought that people should still be prosecuted for serious crimes such as murder even if they were committed decades ago. Grainne Teggart, Amnesty International UK’s Northern Ireland deputy director, has said that the UK Government’s plans for the bill are

“an affront to decency, human rights and the rule of law and must be scrapped.”

In addition, Mark Thompson, chief executive of Belfast-based Relatives for Justice has said that the bill is

“anti-rule of law, anti-victim, anti-Good Friday Agreement, anti-international human rights law.”

He went further and said:

“It denies the right to a basic investigation and truth and accountability”.

We have heard that the DUP strongly opposed the introduction of the bill, and Sir Jeffrey Donaldson wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to scrap the bill. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said:

“Reconciliation will not be achieved by sacrificing justice. Access to justice must be preserved”.

Micheál Martin, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence in the Irish Government has said that he is deeply worried that

“the enactment of this 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”.

Presiding Officer, although I note the opposition to the bill, as a Government minister, it is for the reasons that I have already outlined that I urge all members of the Parliament to support the Scottish Government’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament does not pass a legislative consent motion in relation to the UK Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.