Holyrood urged to withhold consent for controversial Troubles amnesty
HOLYROOD has been urged to withhold consent to controversial UK legislation to end prosecutions, inquests and civil court challenges related to the Troubles.
Justice Secretary Keith Brown has said the Scottish Government cannot recommend MSPS back the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill as it risks denying justice to those who lost loved ones during the bloody conflict.
The minister also warned that the new legislation “makes novel and unwelcome changes to the functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate”.
The law – which is opposed by all parties in Northern Ireland – grants an effective amnesty to all of those accused of killing or maiming people during the 30 years of violence.
It also sets up a new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (Icrir) as an alternative means to seek justice.
Mr Brown told the committee: “We believe that the Bill is incompatible with the Scottish Government’s view that those who suffered during the Troubles had the opportunity to obtain justice and that those who committed offences during that time are appropriately held to account and/or punished.”
He added: “The Bill would effectively be an amnesty for those who have committed serious offences such as murder and crimes involving abuse and torture, and we’re not the only ones who hold this view.”
Mr Brown said he did not think his opposition to the Bill should be seen as “political”, adding: “If someone has been subject to torture or abuse, I think it’s very important that those things can receive due process and this would be inserting a new body into this process that we think undermines the independence of the Lord Advocate and this Parliament’s role.”
On the impact of the Bill on the role of Lord Advocate, he said: “The basis on which the Lord Advocate’s role is constructed is undermined by this. If she is suddenly no longer able to say, ‘I think there’s a crime here which is in the interest to be prosecuted’, then somebody else is able to say no – it’s that fundamental change to the position of our Lord Advocate which we think is detrimental.
“This would be the first time, I think, you would see that power being fettered by another body.”