Chamber and committees

Before I take the intervention, will the member say whether he is going to answer the question? [Interruption.] No, I will not take the intervention. He is not going to answer the question. [Interruption.]

Will he answer the question now? [Interruption.]

The motion talks about transparency in Government. We have no transparency whatsoever—

According to the Conservatives’ chairman, Craig Hoy,

“there is a number, but”

they

“don’t disclose it”.

Demanding that the SNP does something that we have already done while refusing to do it themselves seems to be the Tory way.

I would also be happy to give way to any Tory who can tell us, to the nearest £1 billion—to make this as easy as possible—how much the Truss-Kwarteng economic experiment cost the people of Scotland.

If Douglas Ross will answer the question.

The minister’s statement will be welcomed by smaller producers such as Williams Brothers Brewing Company, based in my constituency, which I met earlier this week—particularly if the extended consultation works closely with SMEs.

Although I agree with and endorse what the minister has said about the fact that the Tory party does not know whether it wants to support the scheme, oppose it or just play constitutional politics in order to obstruct the process, can the minister also give reassurances that discussions will take place with supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that smaller producers, which are excluded from the scheme, are not adversely impacted by retailers only stocking registered scheme articles?

While Michael Marra talks about the “morass” of the economy, could he confirm that the last words of the most recent Labour UK Government were that there was “no money” left?

I agree with the last point that was made: it has been a very good debate. There has been a substantial degree of consensus, although that was not actually my intention in agreeing to hold the debate. I did so not because anybody asked me to, but because, as members may remember, I said in our last veterans debate that it would be good to have another opportunity, outwith remembrance, when people feel constrained in making any criticism or challenge that they might want to make. That is the purpose behind holding this debate. Perhaps, in the future, we will get even more challenge.

I also hope that all parties in the chamber will have more members in attendance when we discuss the future of veterans. Perhaps we can attract more people to the public gallery if we make sure that such debates are worthy of their attendance, too. I think that the subject of the future of our veterans merits more interest.

The debate has been generally consensual, but I am afraid that I will reluctantly have to break that consensus to the extent that I cannot accept the Labour amendment, because of its implications. I have visited Glasgow’s Helping Heroes a number of times. It is a fantastic organisation and there are many other fantastic organisations across the country. However, the work that is done by those and other organisations is done through local authorities, the third sector or voluntary or charitable bodies. It is not practicable that the Scottish Government could insist on taking, from across the country, every example of good practice to put them in a framework—indeed, a statutory framework was suggested. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims behind the amendment and, from the many times that I have visited the project, everything that I could say about the Glasgow’s Helping Heroes would be positive. However, there are many other projects across the country that we rely on in this work—about 400 charities in Scotland are concerned with veterans—and we rely on local authorities and others, too.

To try to soften that blow, if it is a blow, I welcome some of the speeches that we heard from Labour members. In particular, Carol Mochan raised the issue of social inequality, which is very rarely raised in these debates.

Recruiting grounds, especially for infantry and the Army, have often been in areas of multiple deprivation—I joined the armed forces from such an area. At the very start of the 13 years during which—at various points—I have been doing this job, senior people in the MOD and the armed forces were happy to say, “That’s how we found these people and that’s how we’ll leave them; we have no responsibility to help them in the future.” I think that that attitude has changed and that there is now an acknowledgement that an obligation exists—that if we take people at that age in life, who are then trained in the way in which they are and who do the things that they do and make the sacrifices to which Alexander Stewart referred, society has a responsibility.

The armed forces provide educational and other opportunities—

There has been some confusion. I have heard from Labour members—in fact, I think, from Carol Mochan herself—that we need to have a statutory framework and statutory standards. I am a bit unclear about what is proposed. Does Labour think that the Scottish Parliament should agree those standards, or will they be imposed or brought in by a future UK Government? I know that the Conservatives have said—

Paul Sweeney rose—

Unfortunately, I have to consider the amendments that are in front of me. To respond to the point that Paul Sweeney and Carol Mochan have made, we try to do those things through the veterans fund—we try to ensure that we contribute to areas of good practice. I am willing to continue the discussion about how we can go forward.

The Labour amendment is well intentioned, but its practical implications are perhaps not the ones that were sought when it was drawn up. For that reason, I cannot support it.

As I said, however, I can support the Conservative amendment. I have a couple of points to make about the discussion that we have had about the relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on support for veterans. Just to give more flesh to this, I exempt Annabel Goldie, who has always been keen to work collegiately, from anything that I am about to say. To exemplify the point that I am about to make, the last time that I went to meet her in London, the door of the MOD was essentially shut in my face—the staff had no knowledge of the meeting and would not even recognise my ID card. That is the attitude that I have also had from the secretary of state, who, unlike previous secretaries of state, has continuously refused to meet me. We have had one meeting of the ministerial veterans group in the past two years.

I was assured that I would get a response in relation to the Scottish Government’s recent innovation in paying for replacement medals for veterans who have legitimately lost them or had them stolen, but I have had none. I take at face value the suggestion offered by Jamie Greene and other Conservative members that the attitude could change for the reason stated by many Conservative members, which is that if we work together on these things, we can achieve more. However, that has not been my experience.

Another example is London interbank offered rate—LIBOR—funding. Much has been said about some of the UK Government’s good initiatives, but it withdrew LIBOR funding overnight. With no dedicated resources coming to it from the UK Government for veterans funding, the Scottish Government has had to find funding to backfill—for example, Age Scotland was previously funded by the LIBOR funding.

That said, there is scope for more work to be done and there is more that we can achieve together.

I am very appreciative of the remarks that Maggie Chapman made and for the relationship that we have had while working on these and other justice issues. She has been productive and respectful—until today, when she referred to the old men who served in the Falklands war. That is it—the relationship between us is over. [Laughter.]

Some very good contributions have been made. In time, I would hope that whoever in the Government is responsible for these matters can build on today’s debate, which, if I am honest, has been a bit tentative. People have tried to be consensual, which is good; however, challenges need to be made, both to the Government and to others. The more we can do that, the more we can improve the service that we provide to veterans.

I will respond to Christine Grahame’s point about the spouses and families of serving personnel. We both made the point that they are crucial to the morale of serving personnel. She asked about what we do for those families when transition happens. The point that I was trying to make in my opening speech was that we should be supporting them long before a transition happens. If we can make sure that spouses of serving personnel—whether they are nurses, teachers or doctors—are properly employed during the time that their spouse or partner is in service, that transition will become much easier. We have to tackle those challenges at the earliest possible stage.