Chamber and committees

Maybe we should be offering them an operation while they are here, having made the journey.

Before we move on to consider other petitions, do colleagues agree to consider the evidence that we have just heard at our next meeting and to review our actions at that point?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes this morning’s meeting. We will meet again a week today, on 15 June, when we will hear from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth.

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.

Rhoda Grant—do you have an observation or a question?

PE1895, which was lodged by Gary Wall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government guidance “Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law”.

We last considered the petition on 2 February, when we agreed to write to NatureScot, asking whether it routinely provides information about its conservation objectives when rejecting licensing applications. In its response, NatureScot explained that the circumstances under which licences can be granted do not always relate to conservation objectives. It states that licence refusals are routinely issued, and that its approach is always to explain to the applicants the reasons for the refusals against the relevant legal tests.

In their recent submission, the petitioner cites case law that they believe highlights the requirement for NatureScot to balance objectives when deciding whether to grant exemptions for licensing. They also stress the requirement on NatureScot to be transparent, accountable, consistent and proportionate, and express concerns about conflicts with NatureScot’s policies and a lack of oversight and accountability.

Do members have any comments to help us advance our thinking?

PE1905, on the public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950, was lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW’s Support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.

At our last consideration of the petition, we heard directly from the petitioner about her experiences and the issues that she would like to see addressed. I thank Angela again for taking the time to come to the Scottish Parliament and speak to the committee on what was clearly a particularly difficult topic. I think that I speak for all members when I say that the committee found Angela’s evidence compelling, although it was difficult to deliver.

In that session, we heard that victims of that abuse are hidden in plain sight and need to be heard, as they are often isolated from everyday life. The petitioner made her case for the Scottish Government to conduct a public inquiry into the matter and raised the significance of mandatory reporting mechanisms.

Members will also recall the submission that we received from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse that is under way in England and Wales. The inquiry undertook a specific investigation into child protection in religious organisations and has published its report, along with recommendations, including recommendations for further work. Members can find a link to the full report in their papers.

The evidence session was difficult for the committee. Having reflected on that evidence, do members have any comments on how we might now choose to proceed?

We will keep the petition open and progress accordingly.

PE1917, which was lodged by Amy Stevenson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide full legal aid to all parents who are fighting for access to their child or children, regardless of income.

We last considered the petition on 23 February, when we agreed to write to a number of stakeholders. Since then, we have received written submissions from the petitioner, Relationships Scotland and Shared Parenting Scotland. The submissions highlight a number of issues with the current legal aid provision that is dependent on income, including the costs of legal proceedings, the impact of the financial barriers on children, the importance of early resolution mechanisms and the need to consider children’s rights and put children’s interests first.

I am inclined to write to the Scottish Government highlighting the evidence that we have received, requesting that legal aid provision relating to parental responsibilities be included as part of its planned review of the legal aid system and asking for information on the scope of the review now that it is under way, the plans and timetable for consultation and the timetable for introducing the legal aid reform bill.

Does that proposal meet with the approval of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition today is PE1925, which was lodged by David Singleton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the 40mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles in Scotland to 50mph, in line with other parts of the United Kingdom.

We last discussed the petition on 9 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Scottish Government confirms that HGV speed limits are being considered as part of the national speed management review. Transport Scotland indicated that it would be happy to engage directly with the petitioner.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?