Chamber and committees

It is a pleasure to contribute a few thoughts to the debate, 40 years since the UK’s victory in Port Stanley and the end of the Falklands war. I thank Graeme Dey for lodging the motion and wish him well, and I thank Stuart McMillan for introducing it and associate myself with everything that he had to say. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament is taking time to commemorate again those who were lost in the war and the fight to ensure that the Falkland Islands are British, free and able to choose their future. I acknowledge and welcome Mr Brown’s repeat performance this afternoon and, of course, his service to the Falklands in that conflict.

Over the course of a 74-day war, 250 British troops were killed, along with three islanders. Debates such as this and that of my colleague Sharon Dowey at the end of last month give us the opportunity to remember those who gave their lives to protect the freedom of Falkland Islanders. It is also a further opportunity to thank veterans for their service.

As a result of that military campaign to protect the islands and their people, Falkland Islanders have had their right to self-determination upheld and guaranteed under the continuing protection of British Forces South Atlantic Islands, headquartered at RAF Mount Pleasant. The islanders’ gratitude for the United Kingdom’s intervention and continuing support is clear. They remain proud to be British, deeply affectionate and appreciative of the efforts of the UK during those dark weeks and months and for the heroism and discipline of our military personnel.

I see that the lights have dimmed, Presiding Officer—sunglasses are now no longer required.

At an event in Parliament at the end of last month to commemorate the 40 years since the conflict, we heard from the representative of the Falkland Islands to the UK, Richard Hyslop, who spoke of the nation’s progression from wool production and sheep rearing to tourism, fishing and the oil and gas industries. Since the war, there has been an estimated doubling of the population of the islands.

Although the victory signalled change for the islands, huge consequences were also felt in defeated Argentina, as a result of the humiliating failure for the Argentine junta. Our victory at that time was pivotal in ridding Argentina of military junta rule and bringing more democracy to that nation.

The conflict was the UK’s first large-scale military engagement following the debacle of Suez in 1956. Our military was still lacking in confidence and standing wounded on the world stage. More widely, the US was suffering following the debacle of the Iranian hostage crisis rescue mission and the longer-term trauma of Vietnam. The west was no longer as confident or, in the eyes of many, as effective as the powerhouse that they had come to expect. The Falklands conflict reignited our resolve, because it was a situation in which talk was clearly no longer enough and action had to be taken. To paraphrase Churchill, doing one’s best was not enough; we had to do what was required.

In the days that followed the invasion of the Falklands, there was a united front across the country and, basically, across the globe in respect of the UK’s military involvement. Most members of the European Community at the time came out against Argentina’s aggression, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many other countries stood in support, and some took their own action by implementing sanctions. There was a united effort to ensure that the invasion did not become a precedent and that we could defend the right of Falkland Islanders to live their lives in their way. At the time, we did not know that we could secure that, but we managed to do so.

On Tuesday, we officially reach 40 years since the end of the war. At that time, I was in my early 20s, and I was not fighting, but I remember the daily BBC reports and I am acutely aware that, because of the passage of time, many members of the Parliament today do not have any first-hand recollection of the event. However, we cannot allow the sacrifice to be forgotten.

One key issue is that, in the 40 years since, the Falklands war has remained unique, in that it was the last war to predate 24-hour rolling news. At the time, that allowed the news flow to be limited and controlled by the UK Government and military, as well as being inevitably limited by the remoteness of the islands. That contrasts with the on-going war in Ukraine, where journalists are embedded in the major conflict zones and are reporting live at every stage. Public opinion was therefore far more managed with the Falklands war, which is perhaps best illustrated by the famous words that Brian Hanrahan used to avoid the military censors when he said:

“I counted them all out and I counted them all back.”

The existence of in-depth and committed coverage changed that. Never again will a western Government send troops to a country while controlling the narrative and limiting the media, which is only right. Military campaigns are now widely reported, with the media able to promote images and sometimes uncomfortable truths, which influence the public’s perception. That now performs a significant role in how any military conflict must be planned and managed.

The Falklands war was the antithesis of that. We saw with the Americans in Vietnam how the contrary situation can fundamentally change the public’s support for a war. There is now a fine line for Governments to tread. The level of engagement by the media is, I think, a healthy outcome of modern conflict.

At the time of the Falklands war, I remember Mrs Thatcher addressing the Conservative conference in Scotland. Nobody thought that she would come, but she did, because there was a major event taking place in the Falklands and it was important for continuity to be seen to be happening here at home. I have always admired that statecraft, which is something that is gained and is a trait that is both learned and shared, irrespective of party. As the Falklands were invaded, Harold Macmillan visited Mrs Thatcher to pass on his advice and counsel, while Mrs Thatcher did the same for Tony Blair at the commencement of the second Gulf war.

As we approach 40 years since the victory in the Falklands, we should acknowledge the wider influence that it had on the way that military conflicts were subsequently conducted. As a nation, we should remain proud of our efforts in 1982 and our commitment to the Falkland Islands. That should never falter, and we should acknowledge the progress that the islands have made since then with British support.

Those were the formal questions from committee members. We also have two colleagues with us this morning. I would very much like to give both Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant the opportunity either simply to make an observation or to put a question, given the importance of the issue and the fact that this evidence session is almost the final opportunity for the committee to consider all the various bits of evidence that we have received.

That is a good idea. We cannot commission a memorial, although it may be that there is a parliamentary committee that could pursue the matter. It would be helpful if the Scottish Government—assuming that it responds positively to the idea—were to indicate which body might be appropriate to advance the proposal.

Do members agree with those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

That seems reasonable. Do members agree with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE1913, which was lodged by Wendy Swain. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within Social Security Scotland that would fast-track future adult disability payment applications for people with a cancer diagnosis while they are undergoing treatment.

At our last consideration of the petition on 2 February, we agreed to seek views from Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK. Macmillan Cancer Support’s response requested that the committee urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the new system of adult disability payment in Scotland follows a number of key principles, which are set out in its submission and relate to the processing times for applications, fast-tracking applications and making greater use of paper-based assessments and evidence from medical professionals.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Are we content to progress the proposals as identified by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Are we content to close the petition on the basis that has been suggested, but to make sure that the petitioner is aware of the offer to engage and to draw to their attention the suggestion that they maintain close links with their MSPs in order that the aims of the petition can be pursued and achieved?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do we agree to take in private item 3, which is consideration of the committee’s 2021-22 annual report?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1804, which has been lodged by Alasdair MacEachen, John Doig and Peter Henderson on behalf of Benbecula community council. As those who follow our affairs know, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd’s air traffic management strategy project and to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision-making process of the ATMS project.

I welcome to the meeting Inglis Lyon, managing director of Highlands and Island Airports Ltd, who joins us remotely. I very much appreciate his making time available in his schedule to participate in this morning’s discussion.

Members have a number of questions to ask. As we are quite familiar with the ground, having had various evidence sessions with various people, I am very happy to move straight to questions, but if there is anything that Mr Lyon would like to say in advance of that, I am very happy for him to do so.

That is great. I will put the first question to you and then various members of the committee will ask theirs.

I should also say that we have been joined this morning by Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant. I am very happy to invite them to say something after committee members have asked the principal questions.

The petition was lodged before a change in HIAL’s strategy, and a number of people who have given evidence to us have been suspicious of the motivation underpinning all of that. After five years of pursuing the ATM strategy, Mr Lyon, you have now changed your mind about it. Was that wholly or principally driven by financial considerations, or is there a wider basis for the change of position?