Hansard

I welcome the debate, and I am pleased to be able to offer a few brief remarks.

As the motion rightly acknowledges, we owe a considerable debt to veterans, but the motion is also right to highlight the excellent work carried out by veterans organisations and others, many of whom are represented in the public gallery this afternoon, who support veterans and their families in a myriad of different ways.

I draw on my experience from Orkney, an area with proud military traditions. The Royal British Legion there has more than 2,000 members in Kirkwall and a further 500 in Stromness, representing not just 8 per cent but a full 12 per cent of the population all told. It is a very active branch and club, providing a focal point for bringing the local community together, both members and non-members.

Last year, I was fortunate enough to attend an event hosted by Veterans Scotland in Orkney. Understandably, it was well attended, but it was a real eye-opener for the likes of myself about the sort of issues faced by veterans transitioning out of the services. We have heard already from members about housing, joblessness and addiction issues, but it struck me that many of the issues were practical and were based on the extent to which some of those exiting the armed forces can find themselves institutionalised and unable to cope with some of the things that we find mundane and straightforward.

There are obviously issues around physical disabilities but, as Jim Eadie pointed out, there are also mental health issues. They can have a stigma attached to them and can be difficult for anybody to deal with, but they are particularly difficult for those with a services background.

For all those reasons, the way in which services are delivered, both locally and nationally, is important. It is not necessarily the case that forces veterans can access those services in the same way as those without that background, and a lot of good work is being done in that regard. Christina McKelvie has referenced the work of the citizens advice bureaux, which I am familiar with, and I echo her comments. There is growing evidence that the system is not working as well as it could or should, but I simply question whether a commissioner is the right approach.

I found myself agreeing with some of what Alex Johnstone was saying in that regard. Leaving aside the issues around the way in which the news was broken and the lack of discussion with business managers in the preparation of the motion—those are process issues—there is a more substantive risk that creating a commissioner and the staff to support that role will divert resources away from direct help to veterans. Why not use some of the additional £250,000 to build capacity in Veterans Scotland, in citizens advice bureaux and in other such organisations? From conversations that I have had locally in Orkney, I know that there is a plethora of organisations all doing excellent work, but there is already confusion and, as Alex Johnstone said, there is a risk that all we do over time is to exacerbate that.

The minister is right to highlight the continued problem with enabling veterans to access services and support, particularly at transitions. He might even be right that we require some means of bringing together the various organisations and agencies that are tasked with providing that support. However, I do not think that Parliament has been provided with evidence to suggest that the plan for a commissioner is the answer. We need reassurances that the office and role will not divert much-needed funds away from building capacity in organisations that already undertake valuable front-line work with veterans and their families.

So that we are clear about what we are voting on this afternoon, we also need an explanation as to why, as Mark Griffin said, if it is such a good idea, it was not good enough to get into the motion that was discussed with business managers. As the Presiding Officer made clear, in the Parliament, debates about and consideration of issues relating to veterans have been characterised by a genuine consensual and cross-party approach. I recognise the specific and direct insight that the minister has in the area and I agree with most of what he had to say, but I am concerned that his proposal for a commissioner needs more detailed scrutiny to ensure that we make best use of the resources that are available to assist those to whom we owe so much.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I offer my assurance to Captain Macintosh that I will again be on duty in the service of this Parliament in our attempt to defeat our Royal Air Force comrades on the football field later this year.