Hansard

I am grateful to all members who have spoken. We heard some good speeches, which contained knowledge, insight, suggestions and indeed criticisms. I will try to address members’ points, particularly their constructive criticisms.

It is unfortunate that there is contention, but any Government proposal must be open to comment and criticism. However, on the two substantive criticisms, which I think were made by Alex Johnstone and Liam McArthur and were to do with remit and resources, I said in my opening speech that we are not only applying new resources to the post, which have been found from the Scottish Government, although not from the veterans budget, but putting additional money—about £100,000, I think—into capacity building. Liam McArthur suggested that money should be used in that way. I therefore thought that we had covered the issue and allowed for unanimous support for the post.

On remit, I said that we intend to consult further, not least with Veterans Scotland. If members have suggestions, I will be more than willing to listen to them. On Alex Fergusson’s point, it is certainly not my view that the commissioner should have oversight of the charities that comprise Veterans Scotland. I have made that point to Veterans Scotland, and I am sure that it will not be suggested that such oversight form part of the commissioner’s remit.

I think that the proposal is positive and is of a piece with the Government’s approach, which has been pretty innovative. The first minister to have responsibility for veterans—Stewart Maxwell, who is in the chamber—was appointed back in 2007. He established the Scottish veterans fund, which was the first such fund in Scotland. The paper, “Our Commitments: Scottish Government Support for the Armed Forces Community in Scotland”, represented a new departure and set out expectations on how Government and others should meet veterans’ needs.

As Alex Fergusson said, there is also the cross-party group on armed forces veterans. I was involved in the establishment of the group, which is a great addition to the Parliament. Whether we are talking about the Government or the Parliament, we have upped our game on veterans over the past few years.

It is not the case that whenever there is a debate on veterans we should all naturally fall into consensus mode. I have never thought that. However, it would be useful to have a consensus about the role that we expect the commissioner to undertake. Given the assurance that resources will not come from other veterans-related activities—in fact, additional money is going into such activities—and the assurance about consultation on the commissioner’s remit, I hope that we will be able to reach unanimity.

Mark Griffin mentioned support for Britain’s reservists and employers. I am involved with SaBRE, although I have to say that I have attended my local organisation fairly infrequently. The organisation is important and looks after the interests of reservists and other parts of the armed forces.

Many organisations have been mentioned and it is perhaps invidious of me to mention only two or three, but given that a number of members mentioned Scottish Veterans Residences, I take the opportunity to thank very much Lieutenant Colonel Ian Ballantyne, who recently retired from the post of chief executive of the organisation. He happens to have been my company commander when I served in the Falklands and has had a fantastic career since then. He is succeeded in his post by Phil Cox, who I am sure will continue the good work that the organisation does.

As we set out in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum—I go back to a point that Alex Fergusson made—there has been a fairly substantial consensus on and a very progressive approach to veterans affairs by the Parliament and the parties in it. I hope that that will continue, regardless of either constitutional or political change in the future, and I believe that it will, not least because of the point that Ken Macintosh, I think, made. Over the past few years, there seems to have been an increasing appreciation of the role of the armed services, and people seem to be able to divorce that appreciation from any views that they may have on the conflict in which the armed services are serving. That is a very welcome development, and we hope that it will continue.

I will not go into all the stuff about constitutional change, but Nigel Don made one or two points, one of which in particular bears repeating. It related to the idea of no compulsory redundancies. It could be said that that is really a matter for the Government to take on if the result of the independence vote is yes, but it is important in this context because compulsory redundancies make people veterans by force and make their becoming veterans much more traumatic, not least if they have been serving on the front line and are suddenly presented with a P45 and told that they are no longer required. That is why it was important to mention that issue. We are committed to delivering better outcomes for those who have, in many cases, sacrificed a great deal to defend our freedoms, and to ensuring that that better deal is felt across all our devolved responsibilities.

The creation of the post of veterans commissioner is an attempt to take that forward. As I have said, we are still willing to listen to what others have to say, but my view is that the very good things that are currently being done can be pulled up to a higher level. Mark Griffin made a point about what has been done in respect of housing in North Lanarkshire. I hope that the commissioner will be able to see, in looking at that, that it is an excellent development and that they will ask why it cannot happen elsewhere, why there is not uniformity, if that is required, and whether it would be easier for veterans who may have joined up in one location and have perhaps become a veteran in a different location to have a better and more uniform approach to the services that they require. Such uniformity may not be needed, but the commissioner could usefully take up such issues. As I mentioned at the start of the debate, thematic inquiries could be undertaken into some of the current provision.

The commissioner is therefore of a piece with a fairly progressive approach that the Government has taken. It is the first such post in the UK. We and the UK Government have looked at the issue of an ombudsman. I refute the idea that things were done in a hurry; the idea has been developed over many months and there have been a number of discussions, not least to find out what has been done in Canada. We have not followed the same model. The comments that were made about the plethora of ombudsman-type positions are true. However, as I said in my opening speech, we are not saying that the person should be responsible for taking up individual cases, although they can listen to individual veterans.

To respond to another point, the post will not be paid for by the Parliament; it will be paid for by the Scottish Government as part of the veterans activities that we undertake.

Members have a real opportunity to agree on the commissioner’s role and to see whether the commissioner can start to make the difference that the ombudsman’s role in Canada has made, although the roles will not be the same. The role in Canada has made a great difference to veterans there. From what I have heard from around the world, I believe that it very much depends on the individual who is selected to do the work. The important thing is not the statutory underpinning of the post. The appointment will not be a statutory appointment in the way that Alex Johnstone described; it will be made by the Scottish Government. What is really important is the person’s standing in the veterans community and whether they are credible and understand the issues that are at stake.

I would like the commissioner not only to address the needs of veterans who are particularly disadvantaged, but to develop a wider focus on unlocking the potential of veterans so that their skills and experience can be brought to bear for the benefit of all Scotland. Most members present must have heard a veteran who was looking for a job on leaving the service say to them, “Well, I’m not really qualified to do anything.” They are completely unaware of the skills that they have developed over a number of years in the services. It is incumbent on all of us, and it will be incumbent on the commissioner, to ensure that people realise their potential when they rejoin civilian life.

Members have commented on the first world war and the commemoration of it. I was asked to do a foreword for a study on the war memorial in Dunblane, which went through every individual on the memorial. The first people to lay a wreath at that war memorial—in 1921, I think—were a mother and father who had lost three of their four sons in the conflict. To go back to a point that was made earlier, it was really interesting to go through the individual stories of each of the people involved, as they are often forgotten. We see the names, but it is very important to remember that that those people were part of a family and a community and to find out what their role was.

On other kinds of service, Ken Macintosh mentioned football. I once played against a services outfit. He said that I was “useful”, but I think that I was just too slow to get out of the way and nearly severely injured one of the very fast service personnel who was playing against us. I was also happy to play against a Hearts legends team—it is never a hard task to play against a Hearts team, admittedly—although they beat us, I think, 13-2. Hearts have a proud tradition of working with Erskine and all that goes with the history of Hearts. I am not sure that I will be present when the fixture comes up next time, but I will certainly be there in spirit.

I close by again recording my thanks to the vast and diverse array of veterans charities. Some people have suggested that there could be a role for the commissioner in bringing them together or putting them in order, but it is not about that—it is about something else entirely. We are just trying to ensure that the services are right. The charities do a considerable amount of work on behalf of veterans, providing advice, assistance and support as well as signposting to services elsewhere. They also represent veterans at local and national levels and inform our policy thinking and development, which is an invaluable role. I congratulate them on all their fantastic work. They support the estimated 400,000 veterans in Scotland, for which they have our gratitude.