I have a question on proxy voting. There is a proposal to reduce the number of people for whom an individual person can be a proxy. In the past, I have been a proxy for all my children, and the bill would stop that. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I am not asking whether the fact that I voted for my children, on their instructions, is a good or bad thing; I am asking whether the limit on proxies is a good or bad thing. The proposed limit of two would be quite minimal for a lot of families. I seek your opinion on that.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Given that the most inept cabinet secretary for rural affairs that we have ever had in Scotland—who oversaw the failure of the common agricultural policy information technology system—managed to get out all basic single farm payments without any deductions or loans before the middle of November each year, why can the cabinet secretary not do so?

It would be difficult for the committee to look at each of the proposed groups individually and not think that there is huge merit in all of them and in everything that they are trying to achieve, but I want to place on record my concern about the number of cross-party groups in the Parliament and the amount of time that MSPs will have to commit in order to fulfil their duties on them. I know that Paul McLennan, who is a member of this committee, is on numerous groups. I applaud him for that, but there will have to come a stage at which the committee will need to consider what is reasonable and right. Convener, I am delighted that it is not for me—[Inaudible.]—committees are not right, because it is an impossible task. I am just concerned about the amount of time that is being committed by MSPs.

I remind members that I am the third generation of my family to have served in the forces, and my son continues to serve today.

I am delighted to open the debate on behalf of the Conservative Party. Remembrance commemorations are so important to the history of this country and to the Commonwealth, because they are our chance to remember the sacrifices that were made to ensure our future, the future of world democracy and, importantly, the future of Europe.

On Sunday, people will gather to remember, and the way that they do that will be personal. Some will remember family members who died in two world wars; others will remember those who have died since; and some will wish to reflect on their service and those who served with them. However, the commonality of purpose is to pause, reach out and appreciate and acknowledge all that has been given to secure our future.

At this time of year, I always reflect on the price that has been paid to protect our freedom; it is a high price and, sometimes, the ultimate price. We should never forget that every serviceman and woman who serves our country makes an unconditional offer when they take the oath of allegiance—one that we, perhaps, do not fully appreciate.

That offer is an unlimited commitment that binds them to defend their country. It is an oath without limit. It is all or nothing, and if the ultimate sacrifice is required, that is part of the deal. They know that, and perhaps we do, too.

That ultimate sacrifice has been made by so many. Over a million British soldiers were killed in two world wars, and numerous conflicts since have claimed the lives of this country’s sons and daughters. The price that they have paid is also reflected in the price that their families have had to pay. As we sleep safely in our beds, knowing that our servicemen and women are watching our backs, we probably give scant thought to the families who are supporting those who are on the front line. For them, every telephone call and every strange car that stops outside their house could bring bad news. Their lives are not normal, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, too. If they have to face the loss of their loved ones, we know that their lives will never be the same. Burying a son or a daughter is not something that any parent should ever have to do. Those huge costs are the ones that we have to pay for peace and for the protection of our country and our way of life. It is right that we always pause to reflect on what is given by others for our today and our tomorrow.

Our servicemen and women are prepared to give their all for us, so we should do the same for them. That is why I welcome the combined approach that is being taken by the UK Government and the three devolved Governments in implementing a joint strategy for our veterans community. That shared commitment makes a real difference. I am encouraged that our armed forces charities are due to receive £5 million from the UK Government and £1 million from the Scottish Government this year.

There is so much to commend in the latest report from the Scottish veterans commissioner—I agree with Keith Brown on that. Good progress is being made when it comes to health and wellbeing, whether that is improving access to chronic pain treatment or creating veteran-friendly general practitioner services. I also look forward to the publication of the long-awaited mental health plan for veterans. However, other areas of the strategy need more urgent attention. The veterans commissioner has identified that progress is still lacking when it comes to supporting veterans in new careers. That is a cause for concern. Let me be clear: former armed services personnel are such an asset to their employers. They have so much to offer businesses, public services and charities across the United Kingdom. I will be pressing the Scottish Government to do all that it can to ensure that veterans are given the opportunities that they need to fulfil their undoubted potential.

There is much more that we can do in Parliament, too. That is why the Scottish Conservatives will introduce an armed forces and veterans bill this session. It will propose enshrining the armed forces covenant in law for devolved public bodies, such as the national health service, and introduce provisions to increase the support that is available for veterans and their families. We believe that what the bill proposes will improve transitions from military to civilian life by enhancing access to education, healthcare, housing and career opportunities. Such legislation would underline our unwavering commitment to support veterans and their families.

That never-ending commitment is something that I believe we should strive for, and I believe that it is reflected by another organisation that works so hard during the course of the year—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The commission works tirelessly to ensure the immaculate upkeep of the graves that honour the sacrifices that were made for us. Its work never stops. On a daily basis, it ensures that the graves are maintained. I take a moment to encourage people to contact the commission if they ever find a grave that is in less than perfect condition. It is very responsive—as I have found out—and it will be diligent in its duty of care.

This Sunday, at 11 o’clock, the nation will fall silent as we remember those who gave their all for the freedoms that we cherish. Unlike last year, this year remembrance services will be taking place across the country. I say to everyone, on Sunday, please visit your local war memorials and stand together with all those who were willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice in memory of those who did.

As perhaps the only member of the Parliament who has served with the United Nations peacekeeping force—and not just pontificated about it in the newspapers—I know how important it is for peace to be negotiated and then, more often than not, policed. Is that not why we need to get behind the established peacemakers, rather than supporting self-promoting idealist plans that undermine the organisations that can actually deliver peace and then police it, such as the UN?

I have a point about election expenses. I am unclear whether sufficient consideration has been given to what they should be in the Covid-influenced environment in which we live. I would urge that, when the committee talks to the Scottish Government, we ask it to reconsider that and to consult more widely on whether they are appropriate. When it comes to local government officials, independent councillors might well have not been included in previous consideration by COSLA and such organisations.

I am happy with that. I just want to put it on the record.

Okay. I will move closer to the microphone. Can you hear me now?

I am slightly disappointed that you have not been to the coalface, as it were, to ask councillors whether the limits are sufficient. I understand that COSLA is a representative body, but there are a lot of councillors who do not feel that it represents their particular views. Had I been in your position, I would have set up a poll for councillors, which is easy to do through SurveyMonkey and various other means. It would have been nice to know that we had spoken to councillors, so I am disappointed by that answer.

Just to push things slightly further, I take from what you have said that you believe that there should be spending limits. I agree with you, but I wonder whether the Scottish Government will be thinking of such limits when it comes to Covid and the effects of the huge amounts of travelling around. When I stood in Caithness, for example, I did 14,000 miles trying to get round the constituency during the election campaign. That was a massive amount. Indeed, we do not want to do things like that, which might mean that we have to rely more on pushing out leaflets and information. Will you be considering spending limits on such matters, and will you be speaking not only to councillors but to MSPs and, indeed, MPs to find out whether they think that the limits are correct instead of your making the decision yourself?

The only comment that I would make before I hand back to the convener is that a lot can change in 12 years—not just views on COSLA—