Chamber and committees

The proposals that Jamie Greene refers to are one or two among a whole list of proposals that seek to address a number of concerns, not least those that he has raised in relation to, for example, the high remand population. It is always true that discretion in these areas lies with the courts, which, when they pass sentence, can take into account the issues that Jamie Greene has mentioned. These matters are dealt with by the courts—that is the way that it should be.

We want to have a genuine discussion that is based on the almost consensual concerns that have been expressed by members from across the Parliament.

It is also true to say that, if we could further reduce the prison population, the amount of time and effort that could be spent on individual prisoners would be greater, thereby reducing even further the recidivism rate. The continuation of our policies that have led to some of the lowest recorded crime rates ever and the lowest number of recorded homicides ever is consistent with the proposals. However, we will wait to see what people come back with.

The member says that he presumes that something is in the consultation: he obviously does not know. He should read those things before he comes to ask questions.

It is the case that discretion will remain with the courts. That is how we do things in this country. Independent courts decide on those things. It is also true that remand is at a very high level in Scotland. The member is right to be concerned about the backlog of cases, which is not peculiar to this jurisdiction and is due to the pandemic.

He made a point about automatic early release. It was the Conservatives who brought in automatic early release but then voted against it the last time that this Parliament voted on it. I do not know where the Tories are on justice. I do not think they have a clue what is meant by “soft justice”. We want smart, effective justice that ensures that the right people are in prison and that people are given the rehabilitation opportunities that they should have, so that we can continue to drive down the levels of recidivism, as we are successfully doing.

The member asks an important question—one that has already been alluded to by Jamie Greene. Parliament has been clear, in recent years, that too many people are being held on remand. That belief is shared by all the parties.

It is right that courts should make such decisions on the basis of the individual cases that come before them. The consultation looks afresh at the legal framework within which those decisions are made. If people do not accept that, perhaps they can offer an alternative way forward, but I believe that it is where the Parliament wants to concentrate its activities. We want remand to be used only when it is absolutely necessary.

The proposals emphasise the importance of putting public safety and victim safety at the forefront of decisions about remand. When an accused person does not pose a significant risk but requires additional support such as drug treatment or supervision in the community, bail should be the default option, with the necessary enhanced support provided.

I am grateful that the Criminal Justice Committee, of which the member is the convener, has focused on the issue, and I look forward to working with members during the consultation and the bill process. I appreciated the opportunity to have an early discussion of the issue when I attended a committee meeting in September. At that point, I welcomed Jamie Greene’s comments that there are human rights aspects to the matter, particularly in relation to the length of time for which people are held on remand.

I remind members that remand is now at 30 per cent of the prison population, which is too high. I urge those who have an interest to respond to the proposals for reform.

As the member knows, I cannot speak for the judiciary, but they are aware of the alternatives that they can use. We sometimes have to ensure that people have confidence in those alternatives.

I hope that the consultation will shed some light on another issue with remand, which is what we can do to protect victims when those who are accused are placed on remand. There is more work to do on that.

The member has previously raised the issue of the high number of people on remand. We intend to address that issue, and I am grateful for comments that the member has made about that in the past. We all seem to agree that the situation must be addressed. If others have ideas about how to address the situation, they should come forward with those proposals and we will listen to them.

I acknowledge that point. I note that I am not asking anybody to be on the side of the Scottish Government; rather, I am asking people to be on the side of veterans. If we pursue more money for things that we think are legitimate for veterans because of the actions—sometimes legitimate actions—of the UK Government, I would hope that we would get generalised support for that.

I will say one more thing, because it has not been mentioned and I think that it will become increasingly important. The way that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who were in the armed forces were treated—some of them were drummed out of the service, disgraced and all the rest of it—has had a huge impact on their lives. In particular, how women were treated will be a very big issue. When I went to Veterans First Point in Fife, which David Torrance mentioned, I talked to a woman who was one of the first Wrens to serve on a ship. Her experience was absolutely horrendous and she attributes her post-traumatic stress disorder to it. Such matters will become very important. Having spoken to the Secretary of State for Defence earlier this week, I know that he shares that view.

I will conclude with a couple of comments on remembrance, as it is remembrance day.

Pam Gosal may have left the chamber, but she made an important point about the contribution of people from the British Indian Army. Earlier this year, I was pleased to go up to where my family comes from in the north of Scotland—to Lairg, Brora and Dornoch. We went to a place in Lairg called the tin church, which was used as a makeshift mosque during the second world war by Force K6 soldiers, as they were known, who were mostly from the Punjab area of Pakistan. They came from Pakistan at Churchill’s request for the D day landings, then went to Wales and then Scotland, where they were asked to do mountain arctic warfare training. Many of them died during the process.

As I said, the tin church, which was previously a Free Church of Scotland church, was used by Muslim soldiers as a mosque. The very thought of the call to prayer coming out of the tiny church first thing in the morning in Lairg, with hundreds of shoes sitting outside it is an amazing part of our cultural history.

Pam Gosal was absolutely right. We do not do nearly enough to recognise the contribution that was made by people from Pakistan, from India—of course, it was one army at that time—and from the rest of the Commonwealth and further afield. Two and a half million men volunteered for the Indian army during the second world war, and many millions of others from elsewhere in the Commonwealth also made a huge contribution. We in Scotland are happy to work with the organisation Colourful Heritage, which seeks to ensure that we do not forget the contribution that was made.

This day, 11 November, is the day when we all pay attention at 11 o’clock, with the two minutes’ silence. Sunday will be a huge day as well, and I think that all members said that they intend to be involved then.

I confirm that the Scottish Government values and appreciates our relationships with Scotland’s diverse south Asian communities and our faith communities. We welcome the contribution that is made by service personnel wherever they have come from.

Armistice day and the remembrance day period serve a vital purpose in allowing everyone in Scotland a moment to pause and be thankful. We will all have people in mind at this time, and many members said who that is, for them. For me, it is the four members of my troop who died during the Falklands war, and others. We all remember relatives who served in different parts of the armed forces, too. Remembrance day is a time for reflection, and there should always be time within it to reflect on our personal links to the past.

It is important that we continue to remember those who served and lost their lives in conflicts, not to glorify war—Maggie Chapman was quite right about that—but to recognise the sacrifices that were made to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today and, as members said, to make sure that we do not make the same mistakes again.

The debate has been very interesting. That applies, not least, to Stephen Kerr’s speech, which was markedly different from that of Liz Smith, who rightly talked about the consensus that we usually have in such debates, and have had for a number of years. There is a real value to that. I know that the many veterans and armed forces personnel who watch these debates take a lot of comfort from that.

However, it is also true to say—especially in relation to veterans—that they have real needs and that they are not unwilling to engage in an argument. Therefore, members should—as Stephen Kerr and Paul Sweeney have done—make trenchant criticism of the Scottish Government when they feel that it is appropriate to do so, and I will respond to it. It might be a bit odd to have a debate that covers remembrance and veterans, which means that it will be hard for me to respond to all the points about veterans that have been made today. For my part, I would be more than willing to attend any debate on the subject of our veterans. I do not think that I have ever had a request for a debate of that nature, not that it is for me to decide whether the Parliament should have such a debate. I would be happy for us to have one.

A number of criticisms have been made, to which I will return, but first I want to mention a number of speeches by back benchers, several of which Stephen Kerr mentioned. I apologise if I miss anybody out.

With regard to Alexander Burnett’s point about graveyards, I am not sure that I agree that we should just give a dollop of further cash to local government and hope that that will effect the change that he seeks. It is also true to say that, as his colleague Edward Mountain said, any graves in graveyards that are for fallen personnel can be looked after by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, although not in every case. If there are any such graves that Alexander Burnett is aware of that are not being looked after, he should feel free to raise that with the commission. One grave in Kingussie cemetery came to mind when it was mentioned by Edward Mountain. That is the appropriate way to deal with that issue.

Alexander Burnett will know that it is the practice of the UK and Scottish Governments not to fund war memorials. However, a number of years ago, we introduced a fund to help people to maintain and improve war memorials, where that was required.

Gordon MacDonald spoke about his great-grandfather and expressed his support for Jackie Dunbar’s point that, once a Gordon, always a Gordon. He liked that a huge amount. It was a very good point about the Gordon Highlanders. It is amazing how many people in different parts of Scotland claim to be Highlanders—today, I was at a remembrance event in Glasgow for the Glasgow Highlanders—and I dare say that that is to do with the reputation of Highlanders around Scotland.

Christine Grahame mentioned the situation at Glencorse barracks. It is bizarre that the MOD would close a facility that had £60 million spent on it only recently. When I previously had responsibility for veterans, I talked to a former UK veterans minister—he has long since left the position—who told me confidentially that he could not understand the decision, that it was totally Treasury mandated and that it made no sense whatsoever. Like Christine Grahame, I hope that further thought will be given to that decision. The former UK minister believed that it would shortly be reversed and that the facility would be maintained. I hope that that will be the outcome.

In a really interesting contribution, Maggie Chapman quoted Hamish Henderson. I should make it clear that I am not a pacifist; from what she said in her speech, I think that Maggie Chapman probably is. She mentioned “half-wit stunted ill-will”, which is a fantastic description—so much of Hamish Henderson’s writing is fantastic—of those who are happy to send other people to war. She made an important point.

My comments are not necessarily in the order that I would want to make them. Liz Smith made a number of points about education; Stephen Kerr’s point also feeds into this. It is fair enough to demand of the Scottish Government that we should do more in relation to education—as it happens, my constituency has the only school in Scotland that is devoted to the children of military personnel, which is Queen Victoria school in Dunblane. However, in a situation in which the UK Government decides, as it did about five years ago, to move people from Germany to Scotland to Northern Ireland within the space of 18 months, subjecting children to such disruption and three different education systems, I am not sure exactly how the Scottish Government is meant to respond to those demands. There is of course more that we should do.

Jackie Baillie’s points—

Vast numbers of people in the armed forces did not benefit from the treatment that Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon both received at Craiglockhart. During their time there, they taught at Tynecastle high school, which is one of the best schools in the country.

That is a good point, which has been made to me by a number of personnel and, more often, their spouses. That is true, and I am pleased that Liz Smith has acknowledged that work has been done. As she said, it was a GTCS issue rather than a Scottish Government bar, if you like. It is a fair point and is well made.

I will come back to remembrance, but there is so much more that I want to respond to.

Paul Sweeney’s speech was a real departure from the Labour Party’s approach to these debates.

If members want more money to be spent on veterans and if, as seems to be the case, their position is that we should not seek that money from the UK Government, I would like to point out one or two anomalies. The Welsh Government is about to have imposed on it by the UK Government a commissioner for veterans, which the UK Government will fund. We did that first—it was my idea—and we have established and paid for the Scottish Veterans Commissioner. If there are continuing demands as a result of UK Government actions, such as those that I mentioned in relation to children who might get moved around the education system or, as Paul Sweeney mentioned, the calamitous drawdown from Afghanistan that produced an immediate demand on mental health services, we must have a way to plan for that, which is more difficult to do if we are not part of the discussion.

I thank the member for taking an intervention and agree with virtually every word that he has said. In relation to funding, however, will he acknowledge the fact that we receive no funding either for the work that we do to support the armed forces and their families or veterans? If that is the priority that all Administrations think it should be, surely that should be recognised in the settlement that we get from Westminster. Does the member agree?

I am delighted to present to the Parliament the Scottish Government’s fifth annual update on support for the veterans and armed forces community.

Since 2017, we have committed to returning to the chamber annually to update members, to showcase the work that we are doing to improve support and ensure that our veterans face no disadvantage as a result of their service, and to show that Scotland is the destination of choice for our service leavers and their families. First, however, I would like to thank my predecessor, Graeme Dey, and acknowledge the excellent progress that he made in his time as veterans minister.

I welcome the opportunity to deliver our update this year and provide the chamber with detail on the work that is being undertaken. This week, we published “Scottish Government Support for the Veterans and Armed Forces Community 2021”, which details the work that we have undertaken over the past 12 months, including the actions that we have taken on the commitments that we made as part of our response to the veterans strategy.

Despite the numerous challenges that we have all recently faced, we have achieved a great deal in those 12 months and, as always, that has been made possible only because we have worked collaboratively and productively with partners and the public, private and third sectors. Almost two years ago, we published a response to the veterans strategy that detailed how we intended to deliver our commitments through to 2028. As we continue to emerge from the pandemic, I believe that it would be prudent to take stock and to take the opportunity to review our commitments. I can confirm that, in 2022, we will be refreshing our strategy response and looking at the extent to which existing commitments remain valid and where there may be opportunities to add more detail to existing elements, or, indeed, add new ones.

As always, I am grateful to all our partners across all sectors who continue to work with us to improve the lives of veterans and armed forces families. I also acknowledge and recognise the support of our armed forces in providing military aid to civilian authorities in Scotland throughout the past year.

Members will certainly be aware of the acute challenges that the charitable sector has faced over the past 12 months and of the impact of the pandemic on their ability to conduct fundraising activities. Across the United Kingdom, estimates suggest that there might be a shortfall of £250 million in fundraising compared to a normal year. To counter that in Scotland, in June, I launched the armed forces third sector resilience fund, which is providing almost £800,000 in direct financial relief to the 19 third sector organisations that provide support to the armed forces community in Scotland.

One event that has affected veterans across the UK is the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I can report that providers of mental wellbeing services for veterans in Scotland received a significant increase in demand for support from veterans and family members who are concerned about their loved ones. We continue to engage with charities and service providers to monitor the position to ensure that we can provide support to our veterans.

The Scottish Veterans Care Network has undertaken a national review of existing mental health and wellbeing services for veterans across Scotland. A veterans’ mental health action plan, which will highlight needs and identify future priorities, will be produced in December of this year. That completed plan will aim to support veterans in Scotland to live a healthy life and reach their full potential.

I am aware of the UK Government’s work to improve support for veterans’ mental health, some of which is in light of the impact on veterans of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, I must be clear that the Scottish Government does not receive any additional funding from the UK Government to support veterans. All the veterans work that we do and have done over a decade and more is funded from Scottish budgets. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government has continued to fund both Combat Stress and Veterans First Point. In July of this year, I was thrilled to open a new facility for Veterans First Point in Fife, where I saw at first hand the value of the work that it does.

For my part, I remain committed to improving access to healthcare for the veterans and armed forces community. The armed forces personnel and veterans’ health joint group is a key part of improving access to healthcare. It will continue to prioritise mental health, the employment of veterans in the national health service, priority treatment and the addition of veteran-aware general practitioner accreditation.

I have mentioned the importance of collaborative work when addressing the needs of our veterans, and nowhere is that more apparent than in relation to the unforgotten forces consortium. This year, the Scottish Government contributed a further £250,000 to the consortium to assist it in its vital work in improving the health, wellbeing and quality of life of older veterans in Scotland. In 2021, the consortium expanded the targeting of its support to include all veterans over the age of 60 instead of 65, as it was previously. That will ensure that support is available to even more of Scotland’s veterans.

The challenges facing our veterans are also experienced by their families, and members will hear me make regular reference to the importance that I place on supporting families and all service personnel. This year, we have updated our welcome to Scotland guide to ensures that we present the most up-to-date and relevant information for personnel and their families ahead of relocation in Scotland. We are also working to tackle the difficulties facing our service families in accessing further and higher education. The partners of service personnel can often have difficulty finding employment, due to the impact of service life through things such as mobility and separation. The Scottish Government continues to work with Forces Families Jobs to post vacancies by directing to Work for Scotland, which is our jobs website. I recently visited facilities in Faslane that are designed specifically to support the spouses of service families to gain employment.

Members may have heard previously about the going forward into employment scheme, which aims to help veterans into employment in the civil service. That programme helps to overcome potential barriers to employment, providing life chances by offering meaningful employment opportunities. I am pleased to report that we can now offer roles to spouses and partners of serving armed forces and ex-service personnel. We will look to increase the number of those roles offered within the Scottish Government in 2022, and we are working with partners to further embed the scheme into our recruitment practices.

Also in relation to employment, the veterans employability strategic group has developed an action plan, giving the group a clear focus on enabling service leavers and veterans to access, sustain and progress in good jobs. That last point is very important because for long enough—certainly in the early years when I was involved in veterans activity—the emphasis was very much on getting veterans jobs. However, they are of course entitled to have jobs that are commensurate with their experience and the skills that they have gained while in the armed forces, not just any job. Sometimes, those skills and that experience are invaluable to potential employers. Through new members, private sector employers are now well represented on the group. Furthermore, next year, the Scottish Government will deliver a public awareness campaign targeting employers and the business community to help increase employment opportunities for veterans.

This year, we have also seen further reports from the Scottish veterans commissioner, Charlie Wallace. Late last year, Charlie published a new report on employability, skills and learning and, in the summer, he produced an additional report on housing, both of which were in the context of transition from military to civilian life. We accepted all the recommendations in the reports and we have outlined to the commissioner how we intend to take them forward. It was welcome that, for the first time, the Scottish veterans commissioner made recommendations to the UK Government; that was crucial, given the reserved nature of the transition process for service personnel.

Addressing those recommendations is a key priority for us, and I believe that it is hugely important. A key strand of the work on housing will be a pathway to prevent homelessness for veterans, which is currently being developed by members of the Veterans Scotland housing group and will be published by the end of 2021.

I am also very pleased that Charlie Wallace gave us the opportunity to contribute to his 2021 progress report, in which he assessed the extent to which we have continued to deliver against his predecessor’s recommendations. The commissioner plays an important role in holding the Government to account. I am delighted that we have continued to make progress, and we will keep working with partners to prioritise the delivery of the outstanding recommendations.

That progress report is the final update to Parliament during Charlie Wallace’s tenure. I am grateful to him for all that he has done on behalf of Scotland’s service personnel, their veterans and their families, and I wish him all the best for the future. [Applause.]

In my view, it is vital—or, at least, fitting—that we hold this debate on armistice day; first, because it brings into sharp focus why we must never forget the sacrifices of our armed forces and the importance of giving them our full support; and, secondly, because this year marks some truly significant anniversaries, including the centenary year of the Royal British Legion and Legion Scotland and the iconic poppy appeal for Poppyscotland.

The critical role of our veterans charities cannot be overestimated and the vital support that they continue to provide to our veterans and their families across Scotland should always be recognised. It is excellent news that, this year, we will be able to gather in celebration for a special concert to mark the centenary, particularly because, last year, we were prevented from doing so for the anniversaries of victory in Europe and victory over Japan.

I will speak more about remembrance in my closing remarks, but we must recognise that remembrance is a hollow gesture if we do not provide the best possible support to our veterans.

Our veterans and service families contribute a huge amount to our society across Scotland and, of course, they continue to provide a huge contribution after they have left the service, if we make sure that they have the opportunity to do so. I believe that we can make Scotland the destination of choice for our service leavers. I am conscious that some of the many service personnel who have been drafted to Scotland have come—if we are honest—with trepidation, because, to an extent, it is an unknown territory for them. However, once they have come here, they have wanted to stay for many years, along with their families. We have to enhance that offer and experience so that we tap into the potential of our veterans once they leave the service. Therefore, we must remain committed to providing the best support for the entire veterans and armed forces community.

I look forward to members’ contributions and to responding to them when I sum up the debate for the Government.