Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Official Report 1079KB pdf

---

LGBT+ Veterans

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11225, in the name of Keith Brown, on Fighting With Pride and advocacy for LGBT+ veterans. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament supports the work of Fighting With Pride (FWP), the LGBT+ military charity; commends what it sees as the opportunities provided by FWP’s Pride in Veterans Standard (PiVS) programme, which provides training for veterans organisations, including those operating in the Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency, on how best to support LGBT+ veterans; understands that the charity was set up to mark the 20th anniversary of the end of the ban on LGBT+ personnel in the Armed Forces; notes with concern the comprehensive findings of the final report of the UK LGBT Veterans Independent Review, published in May 2023, which it considers highlights in meticulous detail the experience of LGBT+ veterans; welcomes the UK Government’s apology to all LGBT+ veterans affected by the so-called “gay ban”, and notes the calls for the UK Government to do more to respond to the concerns raised by the LGBT Veterans Independent Review, including specifically by not introducing a £50 million cap on funds allocated to compensate for lost earnings and pension entitlements, as well as for the profound distress caused by the so-called “gay ban” and the actions of the Armed Forces in implementing it.

17:33  

Earlier this year, I attended an event at the University of Stirling, which is in my constituency, for the official launch of Fighting With Pride in Scotland. Fighting With Pride is a veterans charity that works closely with veterans organisations across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to improve the support that is available to LGBT+ armed forces veterans. I am grateful to all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place, and I welcome those in the public gallery from Fighting With Pride.

In my constituency, Fighting With Pride has worked with veterans organisations such as the Wee County Veterans and with LGBT organisations such as the Forth Valley Lavender Room, and it has supported LGBT education in schools such as Dollar academy. Fighting With Pride also works symbiotically with national veterans groups such as Legion Scotland and Poppyscotland to better support LGBT+ veterans across the country.

Fighting With Pride’s mission statement is to improve the support that is available for LGBT+ veterans. One of the most critical aspects of doing that is campaigning to right the wrongs that were perpetrated on LGBT+ armed forces members during the so-called gay ban—the ban on LGBT+ service members in the UK armed forces, which ended only in 2000, just 23 years ago.

In my view, the so-called gay ban and the way in which it was implemented discriminated against LGBT+ members of the armed forces in our society, notwithstanding the difficult social and legal situation that all LGBT+ people faced at that time. Although homosexuality—to use the term of the time—was decriminalised for civilians in England in 1967 and, shamefully, not until 1980 for those in Scotland, the ban on LGBT people being members of the armed forces remained in place until 2000.

That meant that LGBT+ members of the armed forces—and they alone—were prevented by statute from loving those whom they chose to love or from living a life in which they were true to themselves. It was for that exact reason that Fighting With Pride was set up in 2019. As I mentioned, a number of Fighting With Pride’s members and supporters are in the public gallery today. That includes the charity’s operations manager for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Dougie Morgan, who is a resident of my constituency.

I have met Dougie a few times and he has described to me in his own words—not least at my first meeting with him at the event that I mentioned at the University of Stirling—how he had felt very different from a young age, although he did not, at that time, recognise that as being gay. Although he did privately know of his sexuality when he joined the armed forces in 1979, he had no concept of there being such a thing as a gay ban in place.

However—again, to use his own words—Dougie quickly came to realise the treatment that LGBT+ people could come to expect in the armed forces during that time, such as homophobic bullying, jokes and mistreatment and, in the most extreme cases, violent physical abuse, unfair detention or predatory sexual behaviour. That was not necessarily a direct result of the ban itself but a result of the culture that was aided and abetted by the ban’s presence.

After almost all instances in which someone was outed as being LGBT+, their time in the armed forces was ended, almost always with immediate dismissal from the service. That meant a sudden end to their chosen career, simply because of who they were attracted to, who they loved or how they identified themselves. As a result of that experience, after leaving the forces, Dougie—in his own words—lived his life as someone else, masking his sexuality and pursuing a life that he felt would be socially acceptable in a way that being gay at that time simply was not.

During that period of his life, and because of what he had witnessed in his time in the forces, Dougie lived with complicated psychological issues, which were compounded by a challenging relationship with alcohol. I understand from my discussions with Fighting With Pride that Dougie’s story is, unfortunately, far from unique.

After being forcibly outed in 2009, Dougie met his husband. Both of them were subject to a significant homophobic attack in 2016, the same year in which they were married. I mention that because Dougie’s story shows not only how far we have come in terms of LGBT+ rights and acceptance in a comparatively short time, but how far we still have to go. It was in the aftermath of that attack that Dougie felt that it was necessary to do something to ensure that others would not be forced to hide their sexuality and live a parallel life that was not true to who they were, and he wanted to support LGBT+ veterans specifically. From that point onwards, Dougie began to share his experience in schools and with other groups. That eventually led to his involvement with Fighting With Pride, which, as I said, was founded in 2019.

Dougie’s story is just one of the stories from thousands of LGBT+ veterans across Scotland and the rest of the UK who have been affected by the gay ban. I am grateful to Dougie for telling me his story and allowing me to use it in my speech to illustrate just one example of the adversity faced by LGBT+ veterans who served in the armed forces prior to 2000.

In July this year, the UK Government published the “LGBT Veterans Independent Review: Final Report”. As the name suggests, it was an independent review into the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served in the armed forces prior to 2000. The report is comprehensive and detailed, and I, for one, welcome it—in fact, I contributed to it.

In my view, the most pertinent part of the report is the veterans’ stories section, which ranges from pages 51 to 142. That section presents a vast number of testimonies that set out the lived experience of LGBT+ veterans who served during the ban. Those testimonies outline a picture of homophobic attitudes and jokes exacerbated and enabled by the ban; betrayal and disownment by friends and family as a result of being forcibly outed or dismissed from the service; post-traumatic stress disorder caused by homophobic and transphobic emotional and violent physical abuse while in the service; lifelong shame and guilt for being forcibly removed from a job that they loved simply because of their sexuality; and careers, families and livelihoods destroyed, all for no good reason.

I know that some members interact with a number of elements of what we might call the defence and veterans establishment. To my mind, substantial remnants of the attitudes that I have described are still present in those organisations. This is a case that has not yet been won. I do not want to name any charities, defence organisations, parts of the Ministry of Defence and so on, but we have more to do to change those attitudes. I would like to see a much more proactive approach from those organisations across the board.

I recommend that everyone in the chamber and everyone listening to the speeches in this debate take the time to read the pages of the report of the independent review. Although such reports are useful for informing debates such as this, they are only as good as the action that they produce. The report of the independent review is helpful in that regard, as it outlines, for the devolved Governments and the UK Government, a number of recommendations and suggestions to better support LGBT+ veterans.

For my part, I have sought to bring awareness and action to the support that we give to such veterans. In bringing this members’ business debate to the Scottish Parliament, I note the suggestions and recommendations to the Scottish Government that were made in the report, and I will work, as an MSP, in pursuit of those suggestions. I encourage others to do the same.

As for the United Kingdom Government’s response, warm words have been forthcoming and an official apology has been issued, which is absolutely right and long overdue. However, one of the most significant long-term impacts of the so-called gay ban for veterans, other individuals and their friends and family, and for those in the institutions of government that are ultimately responsibility for the ban, is the harm that has been caused. The UK Government therefore has a particular obligation to LGBT+ veterans.

On Monday, I was dismayed to read a BBC report showing that the UK Government had dropped a debate on the LGBT veterans independent review in the UK Parliament, which had previously been promised by the UK Secretary of State for Defence not long after the publication of the report of the independent review. I understand that that decision has now been overturned and that there will be a debate in the House of Commons in the new year, which is very welcome.

Given the special obligation of the UK Government on the issue, I echo the words of Fighting With Pride’s open letter to the UK Prime Minister, which was published on Monday. The letter urges the UK Government to allow that debate to be held and, perhaps most importantly, it calls—as does the motion for our debate—for the UK Government to scrap the proposed £50 million cap on the fund for distribution to LGBT veterans affected by the gay ban. The obvious issue will be the amount of compensation available within the cap to individual veterans affected by the gay ban. The cap means that the more veterans who apply to the fund, the more the amount that individual veterans can obtain will inevitably decrease. That just stands to reason, given the maths. It is fairly clear that that amount will not be sufficient to compensate individual veterans properly.

In my view, the so-called gay ban is a shameful part of Scotland’s and the UK’s military history. Those who were prepared to serve their country with loyalty and distinction were not met with the same loyalty in return. That cannot be justified, and both Scotland and the UK must atone for that. I urge the UK Government to do so.

As a Parliament, we must stand united behind our LGBT+ veterans, and we call on the UK Government to do the same. We support Fighting With Pride and the immense amount of work that it does to support LGBT+ veterans. Crucially, we should implement the recommendations of the report of the independent review. Lastly, and most importantly, we should scrap the cap.

17:43  

I thank the member for that excellent speech and for securing this debate in the Scottish Parliament.

I have a unique and privileged position in a debate such as this, because so many of the key protagonists in this sorry saga are very good friends of mine. They are armed forces veterans who were denied so much by the cruel, homophobic, transphobic and unfair policies and attitudes of yesteryear. I want to use my time today to tell their stories, because they deserve to live in our Official Report for posterity.

Simon Ingram joined the Royal Air Force in 1987. He was talented, and he was posted to RAF Kinloss with 201 squadron. He knew himself to be gay and, like any lad in the forces in the 1980s, he threw himself into squadron life and kept his secret close. Simultaneously, however, Simon was being covertly investigated by military police.

He was treated like a dissident, not a soldier. He was hauled out by military police in front of his squad, asked obtuse and obscene questions over several days and discharged in August 1993. When he went to the jobcentre, they said to him, “Sorry, Mr Ingram, we don’t have much work going for international submarine hunters these days.” Aged just 26, he found himself with no career, his house repossessed by the bank in negative equity, his pension removed, his medals gone. It took 15 years before he recovered from this discharge financially; he still does not have a decent pension pot, although he tells me that he is working on it. Simon is my friend.

Patrick Lyster-Todd served at the Clyde submarine base in my West of Scotland region. He described his life in the army in the way that many gay men of that era will recognise—as a Jekyll-and-Hyde existence. In 1988, he met his first ever partner, Dennis. Dennis was HIV positive, and they both knew deep down that they had very precious little time together, such was the death sentence of the virus. Patrick faced the abominable and inhumane choice of his career or his partner. Staying in the forces simply was not an option. He applied to leave the navy, citing a spurious reason. Why? Because it would have been a criminal offence to tell the truth. Patrick gave his one-year notice, but two days before his last day in the navy, Dennis passed away. No one even knew what Patrick was going through, never mind being there to support him. Patrick is my friend, too.

Ed Hall was another former sub-lieutenant who was discharged from the navy for being gay. He founded Armed Forces Legal Action in 1993, and, working with the rank outsiders group and so many others, aimed to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military. By 1994, he had finished writing a book, the aptly, imaginatively, and quite tongue-in-cheekily named, “We Can’t Even March Straight”, which catapulted the treatment of LGBT soldiers right into the mainstream media. By 1999, he himself had helped over 100 veterans lodge complaints with employment tribunals, and because of the work that he and so many other brave activists carried out—so many that I simply do not have time to mention—the ban was finally repealed in 2000. He is my friend, too.

That brings me to today’s debate, which, of course, comes off the back of the monumentally important Atherton report. Credit is due to the UK Government, which ensured the report’s passage, and which offered very frank apologies to those who suffered at the hand of state-sanctioned discrimination. However, for far too many today, an apology simply is not enough. There is still no justice and still no compensation for the lost careers, the lost livelihoods, the broken relationships, the lost income, the cancelled pensions, and more important, the lost dignity and respect.

After all, these are the people whom we expected to man our nuclear submarines and warships. These are the people who flew warplanes over our heads, who cared for injured soldiers, who marched over the hills of the Falklands and who were all lauded as heroes upon their return. They were expected to take a bullet through the heart for their Queen and their country but not to give their heart to the person whom they loved. They spent their days delivering humanity and were rewarded with the most appalling inhumanity. They were expected to keep state secrets right up to their death but were forced to expose the secrets of their own lives. They lost their jobs, their money, their medals, their houses, their pensions, their lovers and their friends. Some paid the ultimate price with their health and even their lives.

If it were up to me, I would give them back not just their medals and their honours. Every single one of them should get a civic honour for their efforts against this injustice. So, to Duncan and Dougie and Graham and Elaine, Ed, Patrick, Simon, Craig, Caroline, to everybody else in the gallery behind me, and to every veteran who has suffered, I say: I would not just pay these veterans the money that they deserve. We owe them so much more than that—no caps, no limits, no ifs and no buts. Morally, it is simply the right thing to do.

I am also a realist, though. We are in politics. I know that Governments do not write blank cheques; the UK Government has said as much, and the Scottish Government knows it, too. Having worked carefully and closely on the historical abuse redress scheme, I know that although it was, indeed, uncapped in theory, it was capped in reality.

We all know that there is no blank cheque. It is not a simple ask, but it is a fair one. All that I can hope for is an honest and co-operative discussion between the Government and those who represent the veterans and that they will sit round the table and make progress. I am pleased to hear that Andrew Murrison has agreed to a full and proper Westminster debate on the issue. I also hope that what is said in the Scottish Parliament this evening forms a crucial part of that.

I am so lucky that, for the most part, despite some of the crap that I get on social media, I can be a gay man in public life and not have to choose between my freedom and my career and whom I love. However, let me say that that great privilege did not happen overnight, and I dedicate my words today to those who gave up their freedom for mine.

Thank you very much. I know that emotions are running high, but I urge members to stay within the bounds of parliamentary protocols.

17:50  

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate Keith Brown on securing it. Jamie Greene has just delivered a powerful contribution. I am pleased to follow him in the debate and I want to thank him very much for speaking today.

Keith emphasised the fantastic work of Fighting With Pride, and I join him in welcoming that work on connecting LGBT+ veterans to organisations that can help them with whatever their needs are. I welcome members of Fighting With Pride to the public gallery this evening.

Fighting With Pride was established on the 20th anniversary of the complete lifting of the gay ban on LGBT+ service personnel—the UK Government even called it the gay ban. Fighting With Pride supports LGBT+ veterans and serving personnel and their families, particularly those who were affected by the ban, which was ultimately lifted on 12 January 2000. Before then, thousands of LGBT+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and abandoned, as has been described already.

The ban on LGBT+ service personnel was wide ranging and deeply hurtful to all those who were impacted. Some of those who breached the ban were either dismissed following a court-martial or administratively discharged. Others resigned or did not extend their contract due to the impact of the requirement to continually hide their sexuality. The policy was not enforced uniformly across the armed forces but, where it was enforced, it was usually carried out in a rigorous and often brutal way with long-term damaging consequences.

An independent review of the impact of the ban was published, and the statements that were taken as part of the review present shocking evidence. The testimonies demonstrate a culture of homophobia, bullying, blackmail, sexual assaults, abusive investigations into sexual orientation and sexual preference and disgraceful medical examinations, including conversion therapy and discharges without appeal. That led to appalling consequences in terms of mental health and wellbeing and homelessness. That takes me back to the days of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that was introduced in the United States of America, when I lived in Los Angeles. That policy was ended in 2011 by President Barack Obama. Such policies and practices have no place in any society, and I welcome the fact that we have moved on and that reparations have been made to those who were impacted.

I want to touch on the work of organisations across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish borders to support veterans and service personnel who are part of the LGBT+ community. The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Families Association is a trusted source of support for serving personnel, veterans and their families in their times of need. It was founded in 1885, and the Dumfriesshire and Stewartry branch of SSAFA continues to do fantastic work for veterans. Its support covers regulars and reserves in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the British Army and the Royal Air Force as well as their families, including anyone who has completed national service. The team in D&G knows and understands the unique demands of service life in the UK and overseas and, in times of need, they enable forces families to thrive.

I am interested in the work that SSAFA has been doing with the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which has awarded a grant, on behalf of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, to assist with the delivery of specialist support on the Forcesline helpline. Funding of £25,000 is being allocated to Forcesline to uplift and fully support any additional and specific needs from the veteran LGBT+ community that might result from the pre-2000 homosexuality ban. I remind folk that the Forcesline number is 0800 260 6767.

That work is also publicised by the Veterans Garden in Dumfries, which is run by army veteran Mark Harper—no relation. Mark is doing an amazing job at that garden at the Crichton, which provides a safe space for veterans, regardless of their sexual orientation. I hope that the minister will visit the garden to see its updated premises.

I again welcome the debate and thank Keith Brown for all that he does to champion veterans’ affairs.

17:55  

I thank the member for Clackmannanshire and Dunblane for lodging the motion and bringing this incredibly important debate to the Parliament. I particularly compliment Mr Greene, one of the Conservative members for West Scotland, for his moving speech, and I pay particular tribute to those from Fighting With Pride who are present in the gallery.

Although the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK began in 1967 and was extended to Scotland in 1980, those in the armed forces had to wait far longer to be treated as equals, and the so-called gay ban was not lifted until many years later, in January 2000. In the years between decriminalisation and the lifting of the ban on LGBT+ personnel serving in the armed forces, thousands of servicemen and servicewomen were dishonourably discharged. In many cases, that destroyed their lives, and it gave rise to a culture that enabled bullying, homophobic abuse, sexual assault and conversion therapy to run rampant across the forces.

LGBT+ servicemen and servicewomen had their medals and honours stripped from them when they were wrongfully dismissed from service. It was therefore right that, in 2021, it was announced that LGBT+ veterans would be able to claim their medals back. Although the onus is on the individual to make that administrative process happen, restoring honours and medals to those who served this country with distinction is a move in the right direction.

We can take some degree of solace in the progress that has been made, perhaps most symbolically by the current governor of Edinburgh castle, Major General Alastair Bruce, who, like Keith Brown, is a Falklands war veteran. He served in the Scots Guards and, in July 2021, became the highest ranking officer in the British Army to have a same-sex wedding, when he married his partner of 20 years. It was sad to listen to his testimony about how he had to conceal who he was and change his lifestyle for many years because of the culture in the forces and about how insidious that became. I nonetheless congratulate him on living as his true self by getting married in full dress uniform, and I further congratulate him on his recent appointment as honorary colonel of the 52nd Lowland and sixth battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, my former unit. I am sure that he will be a fantastic honorary colonel.

Lord Etherton’s review, which was published in July this year, is a welcome step forward in realising the experiences of many LGBT+ veterans. The subsequent apology from the Prime Minister for what he described as the “appalling failure” of the British state was also a welcome intervention, but much more must be done to right the wrongs of the past.

Before the ban was lifted, LGBT+ members of the armed forces were dismissed from service with no income or pension and, in some cases, no roof over their head, as was so harrowingly described by Mr Greene. More than 1,000 submissions were made in response to Lord Etherton’s call for evidence, including 301 from veterans who had been dismissed or discharged due to their sexuality, 297 from veterans who felt compelled to end their service because of the ban and 38 from family members and friends of personnel, some of whom had taken their own lives as a result of the discrimination that they faced.

Some of the testimony is truly shocking. Here is one example:

“When serving in the MOD I was unable to declare my sexuality. My partner at the time (now my wife) was diagnosed with aggressive cancer. I was unable to speak to anyone about it at a very stressful time for fear of recriminations. My boss at the time was particularly vindictive and probably knew about my sexuality. He deliberately blocked my selection for a post graduate master degree already approved.”

Another response said:

“Military police would often wait outside known gay venues and follow those who looked like sailors back to the dockyard. Raids would often follow the next day. Even joking around in the mess and calling someone a poof would result in an investigation by military police involving locker searches.”

Another commented:

“The hatred for homosexuality was institutionalised. I joined at 17 and a half not fully aware of my own sexuality but you quickly learn to conceal it or face bullying and harassment or worse physical abuse especially for any male members which was almost normalised and encouraged from senior officers.”

Although, rightly, we are having this debate in the Scottish Parliament, it was disappointing to learn that the British Government was reluctant to have a debate in Government time in the House of Commons, as this is an important issue that MPs should also debate. However, I am pleased that it has been reported tonight that that is being reviewed by the UK Government and that its position will change, because key recommendations in the Etherton report need to be challenged, such as the £50 million cap on the funds that will be allocated to compensate wrongfully dismissed veterans.

LGBT+ servicemen and servicewomen were treated abhorrently before the ban was lifted in 2000. It is absolutely right that we look at ways to right the wrongs of the past, by returning honours to servicemen and servicewomen and by recognising the important and continuing role of LGBT+ people in our armed forces. Fighting With Pride, which was established on the 20th anniversary of the lifting of the ban and which, as the member for Clackmannanshire and Dunblane so eloquently expressed, continues to advocate for LGBT+ veterans and their families, is pushing for those who were wrongfully dismissed or mistreated to get the recognition and recompense—the reparations—that they truly deserve.

I invite Graeme Dey to respond to the debate, for around seven minutes.

18:00  

I was going to say that I am pleased to be closing the debate on behalf of the Government, but I am not at all sure about that. Truth be told, although I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute, as others have done, to Fighting With Pride—and I thank Keith Brown for giving me and others that chance—I struggle with the issue at the core of the debate.

The work of Fighting With Pride to shine a light on the impact of the pre-2000 ban on homosexuality in the armed forces has been outstanding. However, should all of us not be deeply uncomfortable, as I certainly am, that those serving personnel were ever placed in those circumstances? I will be unequivocal. The Scottish Government is clear that the ban was abhorrent and should never have been in place.

Many veterans and their families who were impacted by the ban still bear the mental scars from the discrimination and treatment that they faced, and it is vital that we remain committed to supporting them in the courageous battles that they still face. As did every other veteran, those brave individuals served to protect the liberty and freedoms that we all enjoy today. They should never have faced the cruel treatment—in some cases, it included dishonourable dismissal—that they faced, with all the lifelong impact that that has had.

Keith Brown highlighted the experiences of Dougie Morgan. In a powerful and moving contribution, Jamie Greene talked of his friends Simon Ingram, Patrick Lyster-Todd and Ed Hall. Yesterday, in responding to a veteran who had written to me, I re-read his letter, which laid out his experiences in the military. Those were as horrific as they were heartbreaking.

Keith Brown, Jamie Greene and Paul Sweeney are right that we need actions, not apologies or warm words, to demonstrate our collective contrition over the shameful treatment of those men and women, some of whom, as we have heard, are in the public gallery today.

I did not intend to contribute to the debate, but listening to members across the chamber has made me think.

When it comes to the condemnation of and the scrapping of the cap, everyone has come together in the spirit that they should. Will the minister consider asking the First Minister and the leaders of all the other parties to write to the UK Government before the debate that was mentioned, asking it to scrap the cap and to recognise what all these veterans have gone through?

Minister, I can give you the time back for that.

That suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration. I have raised the issue directly with my UK Government counterpart. Given the strength of feeling that has been aired tonight, and the common cause, we should take that issue away and consider it.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Government welcomed the publication of Lord Etherton’s independent review. As we have heard, the report was an emotive and at times extremely difficult read, but it is hugely important that people have had the opportunity to share their experiences. I acknowledge the bravery of all those who did that.

As I said, it is now imperative that action is taken on the report’s recommendations. I understand that, earlier today, the UK Government made a statement to Parliament on that. Having been in the chamber for most of the afternoon, I look forward to catching up with the detail of that statement.

It is important that the UK Government takes a pragmatic and flexible approach to delivering the recommendations, particularly when it comes to financial compensation and any associated cap on the value of individual payments.

The point that the minister made about financial compensation seems to be at the heart of a lot of the debate. I agree with Jamie Greene that no Government can say that unrestricted financial resources are available. However, the minister knows that somebody who was dishonourably discharged from the Royal Air Force, for example, would have been unable to get a job with a commercial airline and to use the vital life skill that they had learned as a pilot. That kind of thing also has to be compensated for. That should be the limit—it should be about what compensation is relevant to the individual concerned. That is where we will get the cap. Does the minister agree?

I agree. I would also make the point that, for a great many of those individuals, there is no record of the reason why they left the service. In some instances, they were just hauled out and told that it would be better if they resigned. Identifying all those individuals is a challenge.

On that point, I understand that Fighting With Pride has offered to assist with the process to ensure that the integrity of the financial awards scheme is maintained. That speaks volumes for the organisation and should be embraced. This is not an issue for party politicking—Jamie Greene set the tone for us in that regard. It is just about righting a wrong.

For our part, the Scottish Government is giving careful consideration to how best to deliver on the two suggestions in the Etherton report that were directed at Scotland. The first suggestion is that we ensure that appropriate training and policies are in place among veterans’ mental health providers and housing organisations so that LGBTQI+ veterans do not face any repeat of the homophobic discrimination that they suffered in the armed forces. The second is that we put in place a form of kitemark for those organisations to demonstrate their commitment to being welcoming and inclusive to all.

We are not limited to taking forward only those actions. There is always more that we could and should be doing to support veterans, and the LGBTQI+ community more widely. For example, I have asked officials to look at making that kitemarking a requirement, from next year, for all organisations that receive grant funding through the Scottish veterans fund. I hope to be able to make a fuller announcement on the details of that in due course.

I am also delighted that, for the past two years, we have had the opportunity to fund directly Fighting With Pride’s journey home project through the veterans fund. I take the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s thanks to Craig, Caroline, Dougie and the rest of the team for the work that they have put into developing the pride in veterans standard, which I hope will eventually ensure that all organisations are committed to delivering the absolute highest standards for LGBTQI+ veteran inclusion. LGBTQI+ veterans deserve to feel confident and welcomed in accessing services and support. I am delighted that, since the launch of the standard, the number of organisations that have signed up to it has increased and continues to do so.

The Scottish Government remains committed to advancing equality for LGBTQI+ people more generally, which is why we fund a range of projects to tackle inequality and realise the rights of LGBTQI+ people across all areas of Scottish life. In this financial year alone, funding of £1.1 million has been provided to organisations that work to promote equality in Scotland.

Our armed forces personnel and veterans deserve the utmost respect and recognition, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They are—all of them—an integral part of our communities today and will remain so in the future.

Meeting closed at 18:08.