 The final item of business this evening is a member's business debate on motion 1-1-2-5, in the name of Keith Brown, on fighting with pride and advocacy for LGBT plus veterans. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members wishing to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons and call on Keith Brown to open the debate around seven minutes, Mr Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Earlier this year, I attended an event at the University of Stirling, which is in my constituency, and it was the official launch of fighting with pride in Scotland. Fighting with pride is a veterans charity that works closely with veterans organisations across Scotland and the rest of the UK to improve the support available to LGBT plus armed forces veterans. I'm very grateful to all those members that signed the motion to enable this to be debated today, and I would also like to welcome those in the gallery from fighting with pride. In my constituency, fighting with pride has worked with veterans organisations like the We Count veterans and LGBT organisations like the Forth Valley lavender rooms, as well as supporting LGBT plus education in schools, in my constituency such as Dollar Academy. Fighting with pride also works symbiotically with national veterans groups like Legion Scotland and Poppy Scotland to better support LGBT plus veterans across the country. Fighting with pride's mission statement is to improve the support available for LGBT plus veterans, and one of the most critical aspects of doing this is by campaigning to right the wrongs perpetrated on LGBT plus armed forces members during the so-called gay ban, the ban on LGBT plus service members in the UK armed forces, which only ended in the year 2000, just 23 years ago. It's my view that the so-called gay ban and the way in which it was implemented put LGBT plus members of the armed forces into a discriminatory situation in our society, notwithstanding the difficult social and legal situation faced by all LGBT plus people at that time. Because, while homosexuality in the terms of the time was decriminalised for civilians in 1967 in England, and shamefully not until 1980 in Scotland, the ban on LGBT plus people being members of the armed forces remained in place until 2000. That meant that those LGBT plus members of the armed forces and they alone were prevented by statute from living those that they chose to love or living a life that was true to themselves. It's for this exact reason that fighting with pride was set up in 2019. Indeed, a number of fighting with pride's members and supporters, as I mentioned during the gallery today, including the operations manager for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Dougie Morgan, a resident of my constituency. I've met Dougie a few times and he's just described to me not least in that first meeting that I mentioned in Sirling University in his own words. He had felt very different from a young age, although he did not at that time recognise that as being gay. While he did privately know of his sexuality when he joined the armed forces in 1979, he had no concept of there being such a thing as a gay ban in place. However, and again in his own words, Dougie quickly came to realise that treatment that LGBT plus people could come to expect in the armed forces during that time—homophobic bullying, jokes, mistreatment—and in the most extreme cases, violent physical abuse or unfair detention or predatory sexual behaviour, not necessarily as a direct result of the ban itself, but as a result of the culture that was aided and abetted by the ban's presence. After almost all of those instances, when someone was outed as being LGBT plus, their time in the armed forces was ended almost always with immediate dismissal from the service. A sudden end to those people's chosen career is simply because of who they were attracted to, who they loved or how they identified themselves. Because of that experience, after leaving the forces, Dougie, in his own words, lived his life as someone else, masking his sexuality and pursuing a life that he felt would be socially acceptable in a way in which being gay at that time simply was not. During this period of his life and because of what he had witnessed during his time in the forces, Dougie lived with complicated psychological issues, compounded by a challenging relationship with alcohol. The story that I understand from my discussion with Fighting with Pride is, unfortunately, far from unique. After being forcibly outed in 2009, Dougie met his own husband, both of whom were subject to a significant homophobic attack in 2016 in the same year that they were married. I mention this firstly because Dougie's story shows how far we have come in terms of LGBT plus rights and acceptance in a comparatively short time, but also how far we still have to go. It was in the aftermath of that attack that Dougie felt it was necessary to do something to ensure that others would not be forced to hide their sexuality and live a parallel life, which was not true to who they truly were, but also supporting LGBT plus veterans specifically. From that point on, Dougie began to share his experience in schools and other groups, which eventually led to his involvement with Fighting with Pride, which was founded, as I said, in 2019. Dougie's story is just one of thousands of LGBT plus veterans across Scotland and the UK who have been affected by the gay ban. I am grateful for Dougie for telling me about his story and allowing me to use it in this speech today to illustrate just one example of the adversity faced by LGBT plus veterans who served in the armed forces prior to the year 2000. In July of this year, the UK Government published the LGBT veterans independent review, which, as the name suggests, was an independent review into the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served in the armed forces prior to 2000. The report is a comprehensive and detailed one, and I, for one, welcome it. In fact, I helped to contribute towards it. In my view, the most pertinent part of the report is the veterans story section, which ranges from page 51 to page 142. That section gives a vast number of testimonies to the lived experience of LGBT plus veterans serving during the ban. Outlining a picture of homophobic attitudes and jobs exacerbated and enabled by the ban, betrayal and disownment by friends and family during the being forcibly outed or dismissed from the service, PTSD caused by the homophobic and transphobic emotional and violent physical abuse while in the service, lifelong shame and guilt for being forcibly removed from a job that they loved simply because of their sexuality and careers, families and livelihoods destroyed all for no good reason. I would also say that, in my experience, and I know a number of members in the chamber, I interact with a number of elements of what you might call the defence and veterans establishment. To my mind, there are still substantial remnants of these attitudes present in these organisations. This is a case that has not yet been won. I do not want to name any of the charities, defence organisations or so on, but we have got further to do to change those attitudes. I would like to see across the board a much more proactive approach from those organisations. I would also absolutely recommend that everyone in the chamber and everyone listening to the speech today take the time to read the pages of the report that I mentioned. While they are useful for informing debates like this, they are only as good as the action that they produce. The report is helpful in that regard, as it outlines a number of recommendations and suggestions for the devolved Governments and the UK Government to take to better support LGBT plus veterans. For my part, I have sought to bring awareness and action to the support that we give to such veterans. By bringing this member's debate to the Scottish Parliament, I note also the suggestions and the recommendations that have been made in the report for the Scottish Government. I will work as an MSP in pursuit of those suggestions and would encourage others to do the same. As for the UK Government's response to this, warm words have been forthcoming and an official apology issued, which is absolutely right and long overdue. However, one of the most significant long-term impacts of the so-called gay ban for those veterans, both in and other individuals and their friends and family, but also in the institutions of government who are ultimately responsible for this ban, is the harm that is caused. For that reason, the UK Government has a particular obligation towards the LGBT plus veterans. I was dismayed to read on Monday a BBC report that showed that the UK Government dropped a debate on the LGBT veterans' independent review in the UK Parliament, which had previously been promised by the UK Defence Secretary not long after the publication of the report. I understand that that in itself has now been overturned and there will be a report at a debate in the House of Commons in the new year, which I think is very much welcome. Given the special obligation of the UK Government on this issue, I echo the words of Fighting with Prides' open letter to the UK Prime Minister, which was also published on Monday, which urges the UK Government to allow this debate to be held and, perhaps most importantly, in the debate calls, as the motion that is up for the debate also does, for the UK Government to scrap the proposed £50 million cap on the fund for distribution for LGBT veterans affected by the gay ban. The obvious issue with the cap on that amount of compensation will be the amount of compensation that is available within that cap to individual veterans affected by the gay ban. That will inevitably decrease the amount to individual veterans the more veterans apply to the fund. It just stands to reason in terms of the maths. It is fairly clear that that will not be sufficient to properly compensate individual veterans. To sum up, it is my view that the so-called gay ban is a shameful part of both Scotland and the UK's military history and the way that those who were prepared to serve their country with loyalty and distinction were not met with that same loyalty in return. That is something that cannot be justified and which both Scotland and the UK must atone for, and I urge the UK Government to do so. As a Parliament, we must stand united behind our LGBT plus veterans and call on the UK Government to do the same—support fighting with pride and the immense work that it does to support LGBT plus veterans and, crucially, implement the recommendations of the report and, lastly and most importantly, scrap the cap. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mr Brown, we now move to the open debate. I call first Jamie Greene to be followed by Emma Harper around four minutes. Mr Greene. Thank you and can I thank the member for that excellent speech and bringing this debate forward to the Scottish Parliament. I think that I have a very unique and privileged position in a debate like this because so many of the key protagonists in the Sorry Saga are very good friends of mine, armed forces veterans who were denied so much by the cruel, homophobic, transphobic and unfair policies and attitudes of yesterday year, and so I want to use my time today to tell their stories because they deserve to live in our official report for prosperity. Simon Ingram joined the RAF in 1987. He was talented and he was posted to RAF Kinloss with 201 Squadron. He knew himself to be gay. Unlike any lad in the forces in the 1980s, he threw himself into squadron life. He kept his secret close, but Simon was also simultaneously being covertly investigated by military police. He was treated like a dissident, not a soldier. He was hauled out by military police in front of his squad. He was asked by obtuse and obscene questions over several days. He was discharged in August 1993. He went to the job centre and they said to him, sorry Mr Ingram, we don't have much work going for international submarine hunters these days. Aged just 26, he found himself with no career. His house was repossessed by the bank in negative equity. His pension removed, his medals gone. It took 15 years before he recovered from this discharge financially, and he still does not have a decent pension pot, but he tells me that he is working on it. Simon is my friend. Patrick Llyster Todd served at the Clyde submarine base in my west of Scotland region. He described his life in the army in the way that many gay men of that era will recognise. It was a jekyll and hide existence. In 1988, he met his first ever partner, Dennis. Dennis was HIV positive, and they both knew deep down that they had very precious little time together. Such was the death sentence of the virus. Patrick faced the abominable and inhumane choice of his career or his partner. Staying in the forces simply wasn't an option. He applied to leave the Navy. He cited a spurious reason. Why? Because it would have been a criminal fence to tell the truth. He gave his one-year notice. Two days before his last day in the Navy, Dennis passed away. No one even knew what Patrick was going through. Never mind to be there to support him. Patrick is my friend too. Ed Hall was another former sublutennant who was discharged from the Navy for being gay. He founded the Armed Forces Legal Action Group in 1993, in working with rank outsiders and so many others. They aimed to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military. By 1994, he'd finished writing a book that aptly, imaginatively and quite tongue-in-cheekly named We Can't Even March Straight, which catapulted the treatment of LGBT soldiers right into the mainstream media. By 1999, he himself had helped over 100 veterans, lodged complaints with employment tribunals, and because of the work of he and so many other brave activists, so many, I simply don't have time to mention, the ban was finally repealed in 2000. He is my friend too. That's what brings me to today's debate. Of course, it's off the back of the monumentally important Ethiton report and credit due where it's given to the UK Government who ensured its passage and who offered very frank apologies to those who suffered at the hand of state sanctioned discrimination. Far too many today and for too many, an apology simply isn't enough. There is still no justice. There is still no compensation for the lost careers, the lost livelihoods, the broken relationships, the lost income, the cancelled pensions, and more importantly, the lost dignity and respect, because these are the people that we expected to man our nuclear submarines and warships. These are the people who flew warplanes over our heads who cared for injured soldiers who marched over the hills of the Falklands and they were all lauded as heroes upon their return. They were expected to take a bullet through the heart for their queen and their country but not give their heart to the person that they loved. They spent their days delivering humanity and were rewarded with the most appalling in humanity. They were expected to keep state secrets right until their death but were forced to expose the secrets of their own lives. They lost their jobs, their money, their medals, their houses, their pensions, their lovers and their friends. Some paid the ultimate price with their health and even their lives. Do you know if it was up to me, I wouldn't just be giving them back their medals and their honours. Every single one of them should be getting a civic honour for their efforts against this injustice. So to Duncan and Dougie and Graham in a lane, Ed, Patrick, Simon, Craig, Caroline and everybody else in the gallery behind me, every veteran who has suffered, I wouldn't just pay these veterans the money they deserve. We owe them so much more than that. No caps, no limits, no ifs, no buts because morally, it simply is the right thing to do. I'm also a realist though, we're in politics. I know that Governments don't write blank checks, the UK Government has said that, the Scottish Government know that themselves. I worked carefully and closely on the historic abuse redress scheme and indeed whilst it was uncapped in practice in reality it was. So we all know that there is no blank check and it's not a simple ask but it is a fair one. So all I can hope is that an honest and cooperative discussion between the Government and those who represent the veterans will sit round the table and make progress on this. And I'm pleased to hear that Andrew Morrison has agreed to a full and proper Westminster debate on this issue and I also hope that what is said in the Scottish Parliament this evening forms a crucial part of that. In closing, I am so lucky that for the most part, despite some of the crap I get on social media, that I can be a gay man in public life and not have to choose between my freedom and my career and who I choose to love. But let me say this great privilege did not happen overnight and I dedicate my words today to those who gave up their freedom for mine. My emotions are running high but I would urge members to stay within the bounds of parliamentary protocols here. I now call Emma Harper to be followed by Paul Sweeney around four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate Keith Brown on securing it. Jamie Greene has just delivered an absolutely powerful contribution. I'm pleased to be following you, Jamie, so thank you very much for speaking today. Keith Brown has well rehearsed the fantastic work of fighting with pride and I too join him in welcoming this work in connecting LGBT plus veterans to organisations which can help veterans with whatever their needs are. I also welcome members of fighting with pride to the gallery this evening as well. I also welcome that fighting with pride was established on the 20th anniversary of the complete lifting of the gay ban on LGBT plus service personnel. The UK Government even called it the gay ban. Fighting with pride supports LGBT plus veterans, serving personnel and their families, particularly those who were affected by the ban, which was ultimately lifted on 12 January 2000. Before then, thousands of LGBT plus service personnel were removed or forced on service and abandoned and that's been described already. The ban on LGBT plus service personnel was wide-ranging and was deeply hurtful to all those impacted. As some of those who breached the ban were either dismissed following a court martial or administratively discharged, others resigned or did not extend their contract due to the impact of the requirement to continually hide their sexuality. The policy was not enforced uniformly across the armed forces but where it was enforced it was usually carried out in a rigorous and often brutal way with long-term damaging consequences. An independent review was published into the impact of the ban and the statements taken as part of the review give shocking evidence. The testimonies demonstrate a culture of homophobia and of bullying, blackmail, sexual assaults, abusive investigations into sexual orientation and sexual preference, disgraceful medical examinations including conversion therapy, discharges without appeal also. That led to appalling consequences in terms of mental health and wellbeing and homelessness. It takes me back to the days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which was introduced in the USA in 1993 when I was still living in Los Angeles at the time. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was ended in 2011 by President Barack Obama. Such policies and practices have no place in any society and I welcome that we now have moved on and that reparations have been made to those impacted. I want to touch on some of the work organisations across Infries and Galloway in the Scottish Borders are doing to support veterans and indeed those service personnel who are part of the LGBT plus community. SAFA, the Armed Forces Charity, is a trusted source of support for service personnel, veterans and their families in time of need. It was founded in 1885 that Donfries and Sturry branch of SAFA have and continue to do fantastic work for veterans. Their support covers both regulars and reserves in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the British Army and the Royal Air Force and their families, including anyone who has completed national service. The team in D&G know and understand the unique demands of service life, whether in the UK or overseas and in times of need, they need to help to enable the forces families to thrive. I was interested in the work of SAFA at what they have been doing with the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which has awarded a grant on behalf of the Office for Veterans Affairs to assist with the delivery of special support on the forces helpline. The funding of £25,000 is being allocated to forces line uplift and fully support any additional specific needs from the veterans LGBT plus community, which may result from the pre-2000 homosexuality ban. I remind her for folk that the forces line number is 0800 260 6767. This work has also been publicised by the veterans garden in Donfries, run by Army veteran Mark Harper. No relation, but Mark is doing an amazing job at the veterans garden up at the Crichton. They provide a safe space for veterans regardless of sexual orientation and I would welcome the minister visiting the veterans garden to see their updated premises. In closing, I again welcome the debate. I thank Keith Brown for all he does to champion veterans affairs. Thank you, Ms Harper. I now call Paul Sweeney for around four minutes, Mr Sweeney. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the member for a Clackmann and Shirendom Blane for moving the motion and bringing this incredibly important debate to the Parliament. I also want to pay particular compliments to Mr Greene, the serving member for West Scotland for his very moving speech and paying particular tribute to those who are present tonight in the gallery from Fighting with Pride. While the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK started in 1967, extending to Scotland in 1980, those in the armed forces had to wait a lot longer to be treated as equals. The so-called gay ban was lifted many years later in January 2000. In the years between decriminalisation and the ban on LGBT plus armed forces personnel being lifted, thousands of servicemen and women were dishonourably discharged from service, destroying their lives in many cases, and it gave rise to a culture that enabled bullying, homophobic abuse, sexual assaults and conversion therapy running rampant across the armed forces. LGBT plus servicemen and women had their medals on honour stripped from them when they were wrongfully dismissed from service. It was right that, therefore, in 2021, it was announced that LGBT plus veterans were able to claim their medals back, but, again, the onus is on the individual having to make that administrative process happen. Restoring the honours and medals on those who serve this country, however, with distinction, is a move in the right direction. I think that we can take some degree of solace in the progress that has been made most symbolically, perhaps, by the current Governor of Edinburgh Castle, Major General Alistair Bruce, a Falklands War veteran like the member in his case serving in the Scots Guards, who became the highest ranking officer in the British Army to have a same-sex wedding in July 2021, marrying his partner of 20 years. It was also quite sad to listen to his testimony of how he had to conceal who he was for so many years and change his lifestyle in that process and how insidious it became as part of the culture of the armed forces. Nonetheless, I congratulate him on being able to live his true self and get married in full dress uniform, as he did. Indeed, I congratulate him on his recent appointment as the honorary colonel of 52nd Loan, the 6th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, my former unit. He will be a fantastic honorary colonel, I am sure. The Lord Etherton Review, published in July this year, was also a welcome step forward in realising the experiences of many LGBT plus veterans and the subsequent apology from the Prime Minister for what he described as the appalling failure of the British state was also a welcome intervention, but much more has to be done to right the wrongs of the past. LGBT plus members of the armed forces before the ban was lifted were dismissed from service with no income pension or, in some cases, no roof over their head, as was so harrowingly described by Mr Greene earlier. Indeed, there were other submissions made to Lord Etherton's call for evidence. Over 1,000 responses were received, including 301 veterans dismissed or discharged due to sexuality, 297 veterans who felt compelled to end their service by the ban and 38 from family and friends, some who took their own lives as a result of the discrimination that they faced. Indeed, some of the testimony is truly shocking. One example, when serving in the Minister for Defence, I was unable to declare my sexuality. My partner at the time, now my wife, was diagnosed with aggressive cancer. I was unable to speak to anyone about a very stressful time for fear of recriminations. My boss at the time was particularly vindictive and probably knew about my sexuality, but he deliberately blocked my selection for a postgraduate master degree. Military police would often wait outside known gay venues and follow those who looked like sailors back to the dockyard. Raids would often follow the next day. Even joking around in the mess and calling someone a poof would result in an investigation by military police involving locker searches. The hatred for homosexuality was institutionalised. I joined at 17.5, not fully aware of my own sexuality, but you quickly learned to conceal it as bullying and harassment or worse. Physical abuse, especially for any male members, was almost normalised and encouraged from senior officers. While we are rightly having this debate in the Scottish Parliament, it was disappointing that the British Government was reluctant to have a debate in Government time in the House of Commons, as this is an important issue that MPs also have to debate, but I am pleased that it has been reported tonight that that is being reviewed by the Government and their position will change, because there are key recommendations in the Ethiton report that need to be challenged, such as the £50 million cap on funds allocated to compensate veterans wrongfully dismissed. LGP Plus servicemen and women were treated abhorrently before the ban was lifted in 2000. It is absolutely right that we look at ways to right the wrongs of the past. Returning honours to servicemen and women and recognising the important role LGP Plus veterans have in our armed forces and continue to have today. Fighting with pride, as was established on the 20th anniversary of the ban being lifted, and as the member for Clackmann and Sharon and Blaine so eloquently expressed, continued to advocate for LGP Plus veterans and their families, pushing to see those that were wrongfully dismissed or mistreated to get the recognition and recompense the reparations that they truly deserve. Thank you. I was going to say that I am pleased to be closing today's debate on behalf of the Government, but I am not at all sure that I am. Truth be told whilst I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute, as others have done, to fighting with pride. I thank Keith Brown for giving me another chance. I really struggle with the issue at the core of the debate. The work of fighting with pride to shine a light on the impact of the pre-2000 ban on homosexuality in the armed forces has been outstanding, but should all of us not be deeply uncomfortable that those serving personnel were ever placed in the circumstances that they were, I certainly am. Let me be on equivocal here. The Scottish Government is clear that the ban was abhorrent and should never have been in place. Today, many veterans and their families who were impacted by the ban still bear the mental scars from the discrimination and the treatment that they faced. It is vital that we remain committed to supporting the courageous battles that they are still facing. Like every other veteran, those brave individuals served to protect the liberty and freedoms that we all enjoy today, they should never have faced the cruel treatment, in some cases the dishonourable dismissal that they did, with all the lifelong impact that it has had. Keith Brown in his contribution highlighted the experiences of Dougie Morgan, Jamie Greene in a powerful and moving contribution, talked to his friends Simon Ingram, Patrick Wister, Torrin and Ed Hall. Yesterday, in responding to a veteran who had written to me, I reread his letter laying out his experiences in the military. Those were as horrific as they were heartbreaking. Keith Brown, Jamie Greene and Paul Sweeney were right, its actions, not apologies or warm words, we need now to demonstrate our collective contrition over the shameful treatment of those men and women, some of whom we have heard during the gallery tonight. I give way to Kevin Stewart. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I did not intend to contribute to this debate today, but listening to all across the chamber has really made me think. I have to say that everyone has come together in the spirit that they should in terms of the condemnation and the scrapping of the cap. I wonder if the minister would consider asking the First Minister and the leaders of the parties across the chamber to write to the UK Government before the debate, asking them to scrap the cap and to recognise what all of those veterans have gone through. I think that that is a suggestion that is certainly worthy of consideration. I have raised the issue directly with my UK Government counterpart. Given the strength of feeling that has been here tonight and the common cause here, I think that it is something that we should take away and consider. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government welcomed the publication of Lord Etherton's independent review. As we have already heard this evening, the report was an emotive and at times extremely difficult to read, but it is hugely important that people have had the opportunity to share their experiences. I would like to acknowledge the bravery of all those who have done it. It is now imperative that action is taken on the report's recommendations. I understand that the UK Government made a statement to Parliament on this earlier today. I look forward to catching up with the detail of having been in the chamber for most of the afternoon. It is important that the UK Government takes a pragmatic and flexible approach to delivering the recommendations, particularly with regard to financial compensation and any associated cap on the value of individual payments. Thank you for taking intervention. The point that you just made about the financial compensation seems to be at the heart of a lot of the debate. I agree with Jamie Greene that no Government can say that there are unrestricted financial resources available. However, the minister I know knows of situations in which, for example, if somebody was dishonorably discharged from the RAF, that meant that they could no longer get a job with any commercial airline for the vital life school that they had in terms of being pilots. It is that kind of thing that also has to be compensated. That should be the limit. What is the compensation that is relevant to the individual that is concerned, and that is where you get the cap? I agree with that point. I would also make the point that one of the issues here is that a great many of those individuals have no track record of the reason why they left the service. In some instances, they were just hauled down and told that it would be better if they just resigned if they left. There is a challenge here about identifying all those individuals, but I also understand that fighting with pride has offered to assist with the process to help to ensure that the integrity of the financial awards scheme is maintained. I think that that speaks volumes for the organisation that should be embraced. That is not an issue for party politics. Jamie Greene set the tone for us in that regard. That is just about righting wrong. For our part, the Scottish Government has given careful consideration as to how best to deliver on the two suggestions in the Ethelton directorate at Scotland, which asks us to ensure that there is appropriate training and policies in place among veterans mental health providers and housing organisations so that LGBTQI veterans do not face any repeat of the homophobic discrimination that they suffered in the armed forces and to put in place a form of kite marking within those organisations to demonstrate their commitment to being welcoming and inclusive to all. Of course, we are not limited to only taking forward those actions, and there is always more that we could and should be doing to support veterans and the LGBTQI community more widely. I have, for example, asked officials to look at making the kite marking a requirement for all organisations that receive grant funding through the Scottish veterans funds from next year onwards. I hope that people will make a fuller announcement of the details of that in due course. I am also delighted that we have had the opportunity to directly fund fighting with pride's journey home project through the veterans fund for the past two years. I want to take the opportunity to reiterate this Government's thanks to Craig, to Caroline, to Dougie and the rest of the team for the work that they have put into developing the pride in veterans standard, which I hope will eventually ensure that all organisations are committed to delivering the absolute highest standards for LGBTQI plus veteran inclusion. LGBTQI veterans deserve to feel confident and welcomed in accessing services and support. Since its launch, I am delighted to see that the number of organisations signed up to the standard has increased and continues to do so. The Scottish Government remains committed to advancing equality for LGBTQI plus people more generally. That is why we are funding a range of projects to tackle inequality and realise the rights for LGBTQI plus people across all the areas of Scottish life. This financial year-alone funding of £1.1 million has been provided to organisations working to promote equality in Scotland. Our armed forces personnel in veterans deserve the utmost respect and recognition, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They are, all of them, an integral part of our communities today and will remain so in the future. Thank you very much Minister. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting apartment.