 I request that those who are leaving the chamber, both in the public gallery and on the floor, to do so quietly. The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion S5M-3302 on motion S5M-3302 in the name of Liam Kerr on the awards for valour protection bill. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put without any questions. I request to press the to speak buttons. I call on Liam Kerr to open the debate around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very proud to be standing here, bringing in this member's debate today. At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to our greatly mis-friend Alex Johnston, for whom this issue was especially important, and as such it is an even greater honour for me to pursue it. I also thank those from across the chamber who added their support to the motion, allowing us to debate what is an important and, for many, a very emotive issue. There are a few things that we as a country should value more, nor people we should honour more than those who volunteered to defend us and our way of life. It was on 10 March 1816 that the London Gazette carried the following memorandum from Horsgarns. The Prince Regent has been graciously pleased in the name and on behalf of his Majesty to command that, in commemoration of the brilliant and decisive victory of Waterloo, a medal shall be conferred upon every officer, non-commissioned officer and soldier of the British Army present upon that memorable occasion. From that day forward, it has been the proud tradition of this country to present medals to our servicemen and women when they are judged to have been deserving of one, and be under no doubt. The requirements that qualify British service personnel to be awarded a medal are some of the strictest in the world. It is an honour earned, not gifted. When someone serves their country, they do so not for honour or for glory and certainly not for riches, but when that person has served on active operations, when their unit, their ship, their submarine, their aircraft has spent time in hostile land or waters, when they've shown valor in the face of the enemy, it is right that we do honour them, that we make clear to them the thanks of a grateful nation and award a medal, which is why such a high value is placed on those medals in this country, not only by the service personnel themselves but by their families. For many who have suffered as their loved one has been injured or made the ultimate sacrifice or who want to show that they still remember the sacrifices of previous family generations, the medals are a solid, unbreakable reminder of that person, of that duty, of that sacrifice. It may come as a surprise to many that the wearing of medals or insignia that one has not been awarded or is a tribute to family with intent to pass them off as one's own is not already a crime. It certainly surprised me. The fact is that between 1918 and 2006 it was. Winston Churchill, then Secretary for War, introduced legislation making the unauthorised wearing of military medals a criminal offence. However, since the enactment of the Armed Forces Act 2006 it has not been an offence for an individual to wear medals or decorations, not awarded to them in order to deceive others. It was felt by the government of the day that provisions under the Fraud Act of 2006 which make it an offence to make financial gain by fraudulent representations or by using an article such as the medal to commit fraud would be sufficient. However, the widely held belief since by the government, the Armed Forces, the veterans community is that it was not enough, that it did not work. Indeed, a survey conducted last year by the Naval Families Federation of People in the Armed Forces community found that 64 per cent of respondents had personally encountered an individual wearing medals or insignia to which they were not entitled. That is why Gareth Johnson MP for Dartford has introduced the awards for valour protection bill to the House of Parliament. It will make the false wearing of medals or insignia or any award for valour conveyed by the Defence Council of the United Kingdom with the intention to deceive an offence punishable by up to three months imprisonment or a fine. The bill is of vital importance. As a defence select committee of the House of Commons report said, the deceitful wearing of decorations and medals is a specific harm which is insulting to the rightful recipients of these awards, damaging to the integrity of the military honour system and harmful to the bond between the public and the armed forces. We as Scotland's parliament should show our support for this bill. If we do not make clear that these medals, these awards are important, sacred even to those who have won them and their families, then what value are we actually putting on them? Since the end of the Second World War, a period we often call peacetime, 7,145 UK armed forces personnel have died as a result of operations in medal-earning theatres. Those who risked their own lives for our safety and our security should never doubt that their elected representatives will always, wholly and unequivocally support them and support the honour and pride with which they wear their medals. In May 2011, the Scottish Government gave its support to the armed forces covenant. It is a pledge that, as a nation, we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect in the community's economy and society that they serve with their lives. For this reason, the Parliament should give its support to the awards for valor protection bill. Every November, we remember the hundreds of thousands of men and women who, in the uniform of this country, have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and our way of life. Right now, servicemen and women continue to serve us with all the risks entailed. Let us send a signal from this chamber that we hold their work, their commitment, their devotion to duty in the highest possible regard. Let us send a signal that this place recognises that medals and awards should only ever be worn by those who earn them and their families, that we, too, back Gareth Johnston's awards for valor protection bill. Let us, once more, reaffirm our pledge to forever honour and support our servicemen and women, their families and our veterans. First, I thank Liam Kerr for raising the awareness of this issue in the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, the terms of the awards for valor protection bill. The awarding of medals in recognition of acts of bravery and feats of courage and endurance in the service of our country is an important and sincere recognition of this service. It is right that those who are awarded such medals be entitled to wear them with pride. Those of us who live a civilian life rarely have the opportunity to recognise and acknowledge those members of our society who are fought bravely on our behalf. It is also right that there should be a form of protection to ensure that only those who are awarded medals and family members in their honour have the right to bear them. The tradition of awarding medals for valor dates back many centuries. The Romans were known for having developed a sophisticated system of honours for their legions back in the first century BC. In England, medals were awarded on the orders of Elizabeth I to naval commanders who defeated the Spanish Armada, while Charles I issued the very first gallantry and distinguished conduct medals during the English Civil War. Given the depth of this history, it is unsurprising that measures were taken during the First World War to prohibit the unauthorised use of medals. Winston Churchill and his role as Secretary of War set the argument out quite clearly when he remarked, we want to make certain that when we see a man wearing two or three wound stripes and a medal, that we see a man whom everybody in the country is proud of. The UK was not alone in taking this approach at that time. Other countries who imposed similar legislation included Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Where the United Kingdom differs from those countries is that their provisions are still in force. In the UK, no specific offence relating to the unauthorised wearing of military decorations has been in place since 2009. It was that year that saw the introduction of the Armed Forces Act 2006, in which the relevant sections of the Army Act 1955 were dropped, according to what the Ministry of Defence claimed were uncertainties arising from the way that act had been drafted. Part of the concerns relating to cases where an offence had been committed without a fraudulent basis. In other words, if someone had been wearing a medal but made no attempt at financial or property gain, in such cases the MOD stated that it would be likely in practice to cause difficult questions of proof. Since 2009, there have been varying reports on the levels of deceitful use of medals. The Royal British Legion has stated that such incidents are rare. The Royal Air Force Families Federation suggested that the problem was not widespread. On the other hand, a survey from over 1,000 members of the Naval Families Federation found that 64 per cent of respondents had personally encountered individuals wearing medals or insignia belonging to someone else. That is not to speak of the work of the Walter Mittie Hunters Club, a Facebook group that is set up to identify and expose military imposters. In the light of that, in its work examining the Wards for Valour Protection Bill, Westminster's Defence Committee came to the conclusion that there is a body of strong anecdotal evidence that points to military imposters being a continuing problem. The committee recognised that the way in which the public view war veterans may be negatively affected if the problem is not addressed and that distress could be significant to families who have lost honoured loved ones during a conflict. What should a suitable punishment be for those who commit to receive or defraud the public for their own material gain? The provisions entailed in the bill allow for a fine or a period of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Previously, you may recall the 2010 case of Roger Day, who, while attending a remembrance day parade, wore no fewer than 17 medals and SAS type in and bury, none of which he was entitled to, resulting in a community service punishment. Mr Day may feel that he was lucky that he was not sentenced under the awards for Valour Protection Bill, although perhaps he could have been subtler given that most of his fellow remembrance day attendees were displaying two or three medals each. Although the bill is clear in its exemptions for those wearing medals as part of historical reconstruction, live entertainment or in honour of the family member entitled to the medal, there seems to be an assumption that those who do not fall into this category are automatically acting in a nefarious manner. I would hope that sensitivity and understanding will come into play when we judge those arrested under the bill's provisions. Those reservations aside, I welcome the progression of the awards for Valour Protection Bill and look forward to seeing the positive effect that it will have on members of our armed forces and their closed families. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. First, I commend Liam Kerr for bringing this debate to the chamber today. Those who serve their country in the armed forces give up a lot to serve their country. Many will go to dangerous parts of the world and face great personal risk there. They give up precious time with their families to go on operations abroad or at sea sometimes for months on end. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, which Abraham Llymbrickan once described as the last full measure of devotion. We recognise their sacrifices in different ways. Since 2006, Armed Forces Day is celebrated every year in late June to celebrate the work of those currently serving. We have remembrance memorials in every village, town and city in the land. Every year, on the 11th day of the 11th month, we take two minutes to remember our fallen. We also present medals to those who are judged to be deserving of recognition. We present medals for different things. Some recognise the individual for their participation in a military campaign, such as the Iraq medal for all the operational service medal for Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Others are given for participation in humanitarian missions, such as the Ebola medal for service in West Africa. Some receive them for long service and good contact, such as the Meritorious service medal. We also give medals for acts of bravery in Valar, our country's highest award being the Victoria Cross, which is given for Valar in the face of the enemy. They are not mere trinkets, they matter. They are representative of the thanks and the gratitude that we have in this country for what they have given to us. Often the men who receive these awards will not speak of themselves, though, and what they did to deserve them, they will tell you that they are not really a hero, but they will talk of their comrades. They will tell you why it is them who deserve the recognition and the thanks of the nation, because they were the real heroes. That is why those who serve in the military find the so-called Walter Mitties so offensive, because they are taking credit without making the sacrifices that their comrades have, because the Walter Mitties have not given anything to deserve the praise and thanks of our country. That is why I support fully the motion put forward by my colleague Liam Kerr today and the bill that Gareth Johnson, Member of Parliament, is presenting in Westminster shortly. People who are actively and consciously trying to deceive people into thinking that they have served by wearing medals and honours that they have not earned are harming the reputation of the real active service personnel and veterans. That, I believe in turn, will end up harming the work of veterans charities who do so much to help support our veterans community here in Scotland. I do believe that they should be punished for their deception and I do believe that the punishments as laid out by Gareth Johnson in the awards for valour protection bill are appropriate. So I hope that other members will join me in encouraging our colleagues at Westminster to support Mr Johnson's efforts. I too congratulate Liam Kerr on bringing this debate and bringing it forward today. He was of course right to say that addressing this issue was something close to the heart of our late former colleague Alex Johnson in the north-east. I know that Alex, where he was with us, would indeed be delighted that this debate was happening today. I would want to take this opportunity, Deputy Presiding Officer, to add my tribute to the work of Alex Johnson in this and in many other fields over the time that we serve together representing the north-east. It is one of the privileges of a member of the Scottish Parliament, indeed members of parliament and other people in public life to take part in the annual remembrance that is mentioned by Mr Corry of those who have served in our armed forces over the years and to do so on behalf of the wider community. In the north-east, one of the largest such events is at the crematorium in Aberdeen. It has been impressive to see that the number of units of the services that have taken part in that have not diminished over the years but actually increased most recently with the Gherka regiment now being represented at that event. My colleagues from other parties have always been struck on these occasions by the importance of both medals for valor and service medals that are worn by veterans who are now in civilian life, because those are a signal and a sign of the service that they have given and a token of the respect in which that service is held. As Mr Corry reminded us, those medals are earned and therefore should be recognised accordingly. It is therefore important to underpin that recognition by making clear that unerred display of such medals is simply not an acceptable thing to do. The purpose behind this debate is broad support. The purpose is clearly right. Honours need to be honoured and, in order for that to happen, they need to be protected. I would add only two caveats, neither of which takes away from the central thrust of the motion de forest. First is the issue of family members who may choose to wear the medals of a relative who is deceased or incapacitated. I recognise that that point is addressed in the bill to which the motion refers, but nonetheless it is an important point. Like no doubt many other members here, I have the custody of my father's service medals from his service in the Second World War and thereafter in the territorial army. I recognise that they are mine to keep and not mine to wear, but it is important that we acknowledge that for other people that might not be self-evident and they may choose to wear medals in a way that is inappropriate, but they may choose to do so with the best of intentions and with no intention to disrespect. I think that that is an important point to keep in mind. Just to be clear, it is entirely right and proper that family members should be able to recognise the service of family members, and it is customary to wear them on the opposite side of the chest to the ones who have actually earned them. I do not think that the bill seeks to criminalise that, and I think that it is important that we, as a Parliament, accept that that is a right that we should encourage. Lewis MacDonald's point is well made, but in a sense that emphasises the point that I am seeking to make that we may know the protocols for these things, but we should not assume that everybody does and we should therefore be careful not to punish those who inadvertently cross a line. The other point that I would mention with your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer, is the point made by former Marines Captain James Glancy, which was that those guilty of this offence may often be people for whom whose mental health is the cause of their choice to take that action. I think that we would all agree, and there is an increasing body of consensus of opinion that people who are suffering from mental illness for them prison is not often the right solution. I hope that in this bill being taken forward that that will be brought born firmly in mind by those responsible for setting penalties and, indeed, in due course for enforcing the law. With those caveats, Presiding Officer, I am delighted to welcome this motion today. The last of the open speeches is Bill Barr. Bill Bowman It is a day for mixing names, I think. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. You will perhaps forgive me if I have a referred to Mr Speaker in the circumstances. Let me start by congratulating my colleague Liam Kerr on securing this debate and bringing it to the chamber this afternoon. As has already been mentioned, the issue that we are debating today is one that was championed by Alex Johnson and, in my personal circumstances, I am particularly pleased to be able to take part here today. The system of honours for valor that we have in the United Kingdom and the ones that exist right across the world are one of the ways that we as a country honour the men and women who put themselves in harm's way to protect both our security and uphold our values. The selfless acts of bravery and courage that we hear about make each and every one of us proud of them. I am sure that all members will agree that it is right that they receive the proper recognition for their efforts. It is therefore fundamentally wrong when some people wear these medals to inflate or make up claims about serving in the military or protecting their colleagues. Not only does it undermine the system, it takes the shine of those who have served and, in many instances, given their lives while protecting our country. Today's motion refers to Gareth Johnson MP's private members bill, currently going through the House of Commons. That bill specifically sets out that a person who with intent to deceive is caught wearing or representing themselves as being entitled to wear a medal or honour for valor, whether awarded to a member of the military or a civilian, is guilty of an offence. I am open to being corrected by it. I understood that it is not just military awards that are covered by the bill but that there are civilian ones such as the George's Cross. I refer to not only military people but to those who give up their lives potentially for their country. However, it is the act that intends to deceive, which is important. As has been mentioned, I welcome the protection in Mr Johnson's bill for family members who wear such medals in honour of their late relatives. I think that Lewis MacDonald said that he was custodian for his family. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find so many in my family. My father has the Burma star, which I think is one that I take some pride from. We have all attended events on occasions such as remembering Sunday and spoken to people, maybe even no people who wear a late family member's medal, and they do so with pride. In my view, they have every right to do this, and I believe that affording them the necessary protections to continuing wearing those medals is important. I think that we all agreed that, perhaps because it needs to be made clear how to do it with the protocols. I look forward to monitoring the progress of Mr Johnson's bill through the House of Commons. It is one that I support and one that carries cross-party consensus. Not only does it make it a criminal offence to wear a medal when you have not earned it, the point of the bill, as Mr Johnson pointed out, is to protect genuine heroes. As elected politicians, we have a duty to support those who serve our country, be it in the armed forces on the front line or as civilians or in the police, fire, rescue services—they are the bravest and the best. The bill is a further way of protecting their efforts, and I want to pay tribute to Mr Johnson for introducing it into the UK Parliament. I now call on Keith Brown to close this debate. Around seven minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you also to Liam Kerr for securing this debate and for the positive contributions of members from across the political spectrum. I think that I heard Bill Bowman say that this was his maiden speech. In any event, I think that it is an entirely appropriate time, given that he has replaced Alex Johnson in this place for him to make that speech. I had a number of conversations with Alex Johnson about this issue. He felt that it is fair to say that, as well as raising the substantive issue, he was quite understanding of some of the UK Government's concerns about it, but he thought that it was extremely important that the issue itself was aired and raised in this Parliament. He was entirely right in that. Scotland's veterans are an asset to society. We are tremendously grateful to them for their courage and service to their country. I know from my experience that we learned in training of somebody called Corporal Thomas Peck Hunter, who was the only marine in the Second World War to gain a Victoria Cross. It was about four years later, before I first met his nephew, John Swinney. It is interesting, though, that the Victoria Cross having been awarded to Corporal Thomas Peck Hunter was so valued by the Corps at their own marines that it was part of basic training that he learned about the achievements of somebody having received that medal for Valar. On another point, I underline the extent to which those things are important. I have campaigned for many years, along with others in this Parliament, for the award of medals to the Arctic convoy veterans, which was subsequently, after many years of campaigning, achieved. Again, medals for what Churchill called the most difficult and treacherous journey during the course of the war, for what they did. So, certainly, there was Valar involved in that. One of my constituents came to me. He had seven medals. The seventh one had been posted to his base after he had left it and had therefore gone missing, and had a very hard time trying to get that replaced. Liam Kerr referred to how strict, perhaps it was another member, as to how strict the conditions are. He could not get his medal replaced. We managed to achieve the replacement of that medal through the help of Mark Francois, who was a UK veterans minister at that time. He was also very helpful in relation to the Arctic convoy campaign. I mention those things because the latter person that I mentioned, when he got that seventh medal, the effect on that person was huge. Attending remembrance services afterwards, he now felt that he had all the medals that he was entitled to, had a huge impact on him. As has been mentioned, competition for some of those medals is intense, and the qualities that are required of nominees for such recognition are extremely high. As we have heard, this was also championed by Alex Johnson. I again congratulate Liam Kerr for taking this forward, continuing that debate and welcoming the opportunity that we have because of that to debate this today. I would point out, as members are aware, that this subject is covered by Westminster. It proposes an action to remedy the issues that members have highlighted live squarely with Westminster. I understand that the UK bill passed the committee stage yesterday with cross-party support. I know two of my colleagues, Kirsten Oswald, who speaks for the Scottish National Party on veterans matters at Westminster, and Brendan O'Hara, who is her defence spokesperson, also spoke in support of that. A reporter will be submitted to the House of Commons to the wards at the end of this month. Should the bill receive a sentence, provisions would apply across the UK, so I'm glad that we would have the opportunity in advance of that to discuss this today. There are, as we have heard, occasional stories in the press about people who falsely wear medals or other military insignia for a number of different reasons. Thankfully, as we have heard from Colin Beattie, many of the organisations that work most closely with veterans have said that those incidences are rare. Some of the people who do this seek to mislead, some are simply fantasists, and some, as I think Luzmae Donald rightly says, have some underlying issues that are required to be addressed. In evidence to the common defence election committee, the Royal British Legion said that such conduct is rare and not widespread. However, the behaviour does damage the integrity of the military honour system, and I share the frustration that is felt by many members of the public who want to honour those who truly deserve it. The point that has been made about making sure, as Edward Mountain has mentioned, that people are aware of the conventions. There is another example. I think that it is the Elizabeth Medal, which is now awarded to families of those who have died in service. I am aware of one instance where the sister of somebody who was killed in war had asked somebody else to wear it on her brother's behalf. The ceremony was 8,000 miles away from where she was, although that was a medal awarded to somebody else other than the person who carried out the act of valour. I do not think that we are seeking to catch that kind of incidence, but it just pointed to the fact that there are some complications. I think that, again, as Luzmae Donald mentioned, it is fairly safe to say, as others have mentioned, that those honours are not given out on a whim. They are awarded for bravery and meritorious actions over and above what is required in the usual service of one's country. They are highly prized by those who receive them, their friends, families and comrades. Ahead of the debate, my officials contacted the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, Veterans Scotland, Poppy Scotland and Legion Scotland to canvass their views on whether they believed, as we have heard from the Royal British Legion, that this was a common prevalent or a major issue in Scotland. The consensus reply was that, thankfully, as I have said, the incidence of such actions here was low. Those who behave in this manner are not treated in their views as a threat, more of an annoyance or an irritant with, usually, as has been mentioned, other challenges in their lives. For those, as Colin Beattie mentioned, to deliberately create a false impression for gain, which is a reprehensible thing to do, the Scottish legal system is robust enough to take the appropriate action. For those few individuals who seek to access support from veterans charities, it is reassuring that those cases are, by and large, quickly weeded out. We have to bear in mind that, in those cases, individuals may still be in need of charities so that charities have to ensure that those cases are sensitively handled and directed to appropriate services. It is worth remembering that many family members of those who served, as we have heard, wear their medals to honour their memory. That is a very important custom. Not all family members will be aware of the convention that Edward Mountain has clarified for us on how to do that. It will do that if it does it wrongly in error with no prospect of gain or trying to gain kudos. It will do it simply because we would be unaware. Even mentioning it today and clarifying it helps to make it more prevalent that people will be aware of that custom. I have some concern that the legislation could have the unintended effect of deterring family members from wearing medals through confusion over the change in the law. That is why that clarification is so important. That argument that it might cause confusion was previously used by the MOD as a reason for not legislating on this matter. However, in my view, it is important that the issue is considered fully during the passage of the bill. The provisions, once they are agreed, should be properly communicated to the wider public and also offer reassurance to family members who choose to wear medals in honour of their loved ones. I welcome the support voiced here in the chamber for safeguards to protect the integrity of the military honour system and to ensure that all those who have been awarded such tangible symbols of our thanks and esteem are rightly appreciated. The meeting is suspended until 2 o'clock.