Chamber and committees

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 will quickly intervene on two of the points that Jamie Greene raised.

I heard what he said about the two Governments working together, but I have never known intergovernmental relationships to be as bad as they are now. I have met with every previous secretary of state over the decade that I have been doing this. The current one refuses to meet. I have had people ignoring letters and not meeting me across the board. That is a counterpoint to the fact that, as Jamie Greene said, some good work is being done between the Governments.

The definition of a veteran is someone who has served even for half a day. Martin Whitfield was right when he said that every person who is homeless is one too many. The point that I was making in relation to homelessness, which Jamie Greene mentioned, is that, whether we are talking about homelessness, mental health issues or imprisonment, veterans are not overrepresented in those categories compared to the general population. The horrible notion of their being mad, bad and sad is not true. Many veterans—the majority—successfully transition to civilian life.

The Government has done a great deal in relation to childcare. Of course, some changes have been announced in the UK budget, which might allow for further changes in childcare provision in Scotland. The particular point that Jamie Greene raises about families of members of the armed forces has been raised with me in the past. I have an open mind about what we can do to further improve current provision; we will see in the course of time how the United Kingdom Government’s provisions work out and what the implications of the measures are for us, here in Scotland. We take a whole-of-Government approach, which obviously includes childcare.

We also take a “No one left behind” approach to transforming our employability support and our devolved employability service, which is called fair start Scotland. We are delivering support that is flexible and easy to navigate, and which integrates and aligns with other services and is driven by evidence and need.

Jamie Greene mentioned RAF Lossiemouth. There was a case of two people who were leaving the Royal Air Force who, between them, came up with an innovative idea or product that they wanted to sell into the defence market. They stayed in that general area. Too often, there are people whom the taxpayer has paid an awful lot of money to educate and upskill whom we are willing to see being dispersed to the four winds instead of retaining their skills here. I know that the member’s point was about childcare, but I stress that we must keep more of those people involved and working in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish economy.

Our services aim to support those who face the greatest barriers to employment, including people who are experiencing mental health challenges or disabilities. We want to support them to gain and sustain fair employment. I will repeat a point that I have raised before. Notwithstanding the very low unemployment rate—it is down at 3.1 per cent, which I cannot remember having been the case in my adult lifetime—too often in the past, former members of the armed forces who got a job were expected to be grateful for having a job, but the jobs that they get should be commensurate with the experience, abilities and skills that they have developed in their time in the armed forces.

We know that individuals do not access services in isolation, so it is right that we take on the role of joining up services and, essentially, hiding the wiring that is behind them. We are continuing work to strengthen integration and alignment of services including housing, health, justice and others in order to create a more joined-up and effective system, thereby ensuring that everybody in Scotland, including our veterans, is given the opportunity to prosper and achieve their potential.

Alexander Stewart has raised the issue, so I will mention that a shocking number of members of the armed forces access universal credit. That should simply not be the case. We should pay members of the armed forces enough so that they do not have to access benefits. That is crucial, because universal credit is often a passport to other benefits. If that is the problem to which Alexander Stewart referred, I am certainly willing to have a discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to see whether we can tear down some barriers. However, members of the armed forces should not have to draw down benefits such as universal credit.

As I said, we are trying as much as we can to do joined-up work on behalf of veterans and their families. We are trying to ensure that we have a holistic wraparound package of support, which can be particularly valuable to people who are leaving the armed forces. Our key worker approach can respond to the need for more intensive health support and advice.

Also, if we can get the Ministry of Defence to pass on people’s health records to a local general practitioner in advance of their leaving the armed forces, that could save so much time and so much grief for that person. If the GP can be made aware of where the person served and their health history, that can nip continuing problems in the bud. However, all the factors need to work effectively in tandem for there to be an effective transition, and our “No one left behind” approach holds the importance of that at its core.

Military leavers can also access support through our devolved national employability service, fair start Scotland, which offers 12 to 18 months of tailored and person-centred pre-employment support, along with up to 12 months of in-work support for individuals and their employers. The support that is offered includes access to workshops and guidance on utilising the transferable skills that veterans have gained during their service, thereby helping them to identify their strengths and potential career routes.

That is crucial because, so often in the past, people have come out of the armed forces not sufficiently aware of their skills. I have heard stories—as we all have, probably—of people saying, “Well, I can run and I can shoot a gun.” However, people learn so much more than that in the armed forces; if they do not understand that, they cannot pass it on to an employer.

I absolutely agree. However, we have to work within the powers that we have. I hope that this will come up during the debate: we have developed a Scottish Credits and Qualifications Framework tool that allows civilian employers to understand, for example, what a particular armed forces training course involves and, crucially, allows veterans to articulate that in a way that is understood by civilian employers. However, I absolutely agree that, whether on health, employability or housing, the armed forces should be doing more while people are serving.

I am pleased to confirm that we have extended provision of fair start Scotland for another 12 months, which means that people can continue to be referred to that support until 31 March next year. During these times of financial uncertainty, especially for the most vulnerable people in society it is more important than ever that we ensure that people have access to the services and support that they need, so I know that the announcement will be welcomed.

It is also true to say that we are, despite the fact that most people transition successfully, all too aware of the challenges that some veterans face. Sometimes, we hear of people’s difficulties in finding suitable and enduring employment, or we hear that their experience and qualifications are not adequately understood and appreciated. That was the burden of my answer to Martin Whitfield’s question.

I am pleased that the tool that I mentioned was launched earlier this month. I am proud to say that the Scottish Government has provided funding for the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework partnership’s new military skills and qualifications discovery tool—which is quite a mouthful. Much of that work was carried out by my predecessor, Graeme Dey, during his time as Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. It helps employers and educational institutions to understand the range of skills and expertise that people who leave the armed forces have to offer.

It is also worth highlighting that the timing of the tool’s launch could not have been better. Across the country, skills shortages continue in many sectors, and many employers are starting to realise that there could be a huge untapped resource in service leavers and veterans, and that that diverse group, with its wide range of skills, could help to address some of the shortages. The tool can help both veterans and employers to understand the contribution that they can make.

Our national strategy for economic transformation, “Delivering Economic Prosperity”, sets out our aim to

“ensure that people have the skills they need at every stage of life to have rewarding careers”.

People can—most do—leave the armed forces at a relatively young age, with another career ahead of them. Service leavers and veterans can and, indeed, must be part of that ambition, if we are to succeed.

We need to use existing talent in Scotland, but we also need to grow the working-age population. As part of that, we will implement a focused talent attraction programme, including targeted interventions, that is supported by the minister-chaired industry advisory group, to attract key skills and talent from the rest of the UK. That will include working with people who support the transition to civilian life to encourage individuals to make Scotland their home as they leave the military. New jobs that are emerging as a result of our transition to net zero will need new thinking, and we know that many existing jobs will require new and enhanced skill sets.

The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the number of veterans whom it employs, and we continue to explore a number of ways to achieve that, including through the going forward into employment programme. We had a stand at last year’s Career Transition Partnership careers fair, where we had the opportunity to engage directly with armed forces personnel. I should say that every MSP in the chamber can do the same as I do for my annual job fair, by ensuring that the armed forces are present and are able to offer opportunities to young people and others in their area.

That commitment is why, in late 2020, the Scottish and Welsh Governments jointly funded Business in the Community to deliver a refresh of the “Capitalising On Military Talent: Everything You Need To Know About Employing Armed Forces Veterans” toolkit to include information for employers on the benefits—to go back to a point that was raised earlier—of employing military people’s family members. That toolkit seeks to increase employers’ knowledge of how to employ partners successfully, and lets them know about the particular pressures that a spouse, for example, of someone who is serving in the military might face and how they can continue to participate and progress in the workforce.

We remain committed to contributing to the Forces Families Jobs website, on which we provide links to adverts for Scottish Government jobs. We are also committed to helping veterans to gain employment in the Scottish Government, and we have a proud track record on armed forces reservists working in the civil service.

Earlier this month, we launched our working with the business community campaign to help employers to understand the benefits that veterans bring to the workplace. In the past, we have had help directly from the Prince of Wales, now the King, whom I approached personally. We certainly hope to continue that partnership in order to ensure that, by using his influence with some very large employers, we can encourage employers to take on more former members of the armed forces.

Our veterans and their families continue to contribute a huge amount to our society across Scotland. I remain committed to providing the very best support for the entire veterans and armed forces community, and I look forward to hearing contributions from members and responding to them in due course.

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.

I was very interested in the point that was made. My constituency is the only one in Scotland that has a school that is dedicated to the children of armed forces personnel, which is the Queen Victoria School in Dunblane, so I am very close to the issue.

Paul Sweeney also asked a question about the census data, which we will have in 2024. In the meantime, we have worked with the UK Government on a survey that asks more general questions, some of which relate to children, about people’s experiences in the armed forces. We are still to work through the treasure trove of information that that will provide.

I am well aware that, during the time that I have been doing this job, one unit was moved from Germany to Edinburgh to Northern Ireland within 18 months. The children of those families had to move with them and went into three different education systems, which is not good for anyone. Maggie Chapman made a point about the way that we treat people in the armed forces, especially if they have families.

There have been a great many valuable contributions in the debate. I hope that this will be the first of many debates about how veterans can be best assured of our support. In this case, we are talking about employability, but the same would be true if we were talking about homelessness and veterans health.

I am not making a point against anyone, but there has been a temptation for many years to try to portray veterans as being “mad, bad and sad”—a horrendous phrase. That portrayal is so far removed from the reality: the vast majority of veterans, manage to come back into society and are productive. Members from all sides of the chamber have said how much veterans can offer employers and society. Veterans are not overrepresented among the homeless, those who have mental health issues or the prison population, although there are some interesting and challenging aspects to the veteran prisoner population in Scotland. The Forces in Mind Trust, which has been mentioned, will look at that, especially in relation to sexual offending. However, the vast majority of veterans come back into society and play a productive role.

Collectively, our challenge is to make sure that that role is commensurate with what veterans have done. As I have said, if someone who leaves the armed forces as a colour sergeant, having spent 20 or 30 years in the armed forces and having accumulated all that experience and training, is asked to feel grateful because they get a job that is way below their level of experience, that is not doing right by veterans. We have to do better by them. I am keen to continue working with the UK Government and I am grateful for Jamie Greene’s offer to see what we can do to improve relations.

We have published our refreshed veterans strategy action plan, in which we made several commitments under the theme of employment, education and skills. As I have said, we will follow that through, but it is right that we are challenged. In future, I would hope that whoever is responsible for this area in the Government continues in that way. Let us have more debates and more people from all parties participating in them. Not enough people were in the chamber to hear some of the very good speeches that were made.

Can Edward Mountain state the number of veterans who are homeless as a proportion of the general population? His speech is very much like a UK Government speech. Should the work that the UK Government is doing in relation to veterans result in consequentials coming to Scotland for that work? After all, the work is being done. In this Parliament, we have no statutory responsibility for veterans, so we choose to spend the money that we spend. Should we not also get the consequentials?