 The next item of business is a debate on motion 15016, in the name of Graham Day, on a strategy for our veterans taking it forward in Scotland. Can invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Graham Day to speak to un-move the motion. Minister, please. I am pleased to be opening this debate today, which will consider how we support our armed forces and veterans communities in Scotland. Let me at the outset move the motion in my name and advise the chamber that it is my intention to accept all three amendments. Just over a month ago, my colleague the Minister for Mental Health and I jointly facilitated a debate updating the chamber on the governance response to the latest report from the Veterans Commissioner and exploring a number of other veterans issues. Many members here today took part in that debate, sharing their own connections with the armed forces, personal reflections from constituencies and views on the support that is available. It was evident that there continues to be a widespread commitment from across this chamber to improving support. A number of helpful ideas were aired, and I hope that today's debate will be similarly constructive. Of course, since that debate, we have marked the centenary of the First World War, Armistice. I had the honour of representing the Scottish Government at several events, including the opening of the Edinburgh Garden of Remembrance, Glasgow's Service of Remembrance and also at the Festival of Remembrance in Dundee. It was humbling to see so many people attend the laying of wreaths to pay their respects. The ceremonies will live long in my memory. Colleagues across this chamber will have seen similarly touching events in their own areas. However, having had that period of remembrance, we now turn to the future. We should rightly be proud of our long history of support here in Scotland in the face of changing demand and better understanding of the needs of our veterans and their families. However, it's time to take stock, consider how we best respond to the changed landscape and then act. I was therefore pleased last month alongside ministers from the UK and Welsh Governments and representatives from Northern Ireland to launch the UK-wide strategy for our veterans. The strategy was developed jointly across all four home nations and represents a fully collaborative approach to achieving what is best for our veterans across the whole of the UK. However, whilst overarching and in some regards requiring of collaborative working between Governments, the scope is there to tailor services to meet specific requirements in each of the nations. It sets out that we expect to see a change in demographics. Over the next 10 years, we are likely to see a generational shift in the veterans community, which will be as relevant in Scotland as elsewhere in the UK. That will change how we need to focus our efforts, and to this end, the planned inclusion of a question on veterans in the 2021 census will be key. Today, nearly half of the veterans in the UK are over 75 years of age, but we also have cohorts of veterans who have served more recently and have different needs and different expectations. Therefore, the strategy sets out the vision and principles that will focus our support for all veterans over the 10 years to 2028 and beyond. It aims to make sure that those who have service in the UK armed forces and their families transition back into civilian life and contribute fully to a society that understands and values what they have done and what they have to offer. Further, it looks to fully recognise veterans as assets to our communities, enabling them to maximise their potential as civilians and making sure that the right support is available to meet their needs. It assesses the barriers and the opportunities to providing support to each veteran, including improved collaboration, re-organisations and better co-ordination of services. Those are aims and aspirations that we can all agree upon. The key thing now is how we take the strategy forward in Scotland. As many of the services that are accessed by veterans are devolved, the Scottish Government is running its own consultation on the veterans strategy. We will consult with key stakeholders and representative groups of veterans across the six themes of the strategy, namely community and relationships, which include social isolation and loneliness, employment, education and skills, finance and debt, health and wellbeing, and making a home in civilian society, and veterans and the law. The consultation will run until February 2019, alongside the UK Government's public consultation, which is open to all veterans, including those in Scotland. In my relatively short time as veterans minister, I have already learned that veterans and organisations that represent them are not slow to let them know what they think. That is extremely valuable and I very much welcome it, particularly when the feedback is about making improvements. If we are to develop services for veterans, we need to know from those at the sharp end where our policies and processes and those of our partners are not translating into effective support where it is required. We are at an advantage in Scotland in that we have an independent veterans commissioner who has already examined some of the themes covered by the strategy in-depth, consulting widely and recommending changes on transition, health, housing and employability. That enables us to concentrate on a more focused consultation, to canvas the views of key stakeholders, large and small, across the public, private and third sectors, and representative groups of veterans. I have already had the opportunity to meet many organisations that help to support our veterans and armed forces community, including Combat Stress, Hospat UK, Scotland's Veterans Residence, Venture Trust, the Career Transition Partnership and the Lothians Veterans Centre. All those visits have given me insights on how we could better shape our work in government, and I hope to expand on that a little in closing. Among other things, those engagements have emphasised to me the vital role that families play in transition and beyond and that we must debunk the myth that the majority of our veterans are damaged. They are not. Most are net contributors and assets to communities and employers, but it is important to recognise that some do need help, and I do not shy away from this. As my colleague the Minister for Mental Health set out in our previous debate, veterans' mental health remains a priority. The daily record newspaper has rightly featured the tragic cases of veterans who have taken their own lives, and it is vital that we better understand what is behind those tragedies. I will not repeat the Scottish Government's actions that Ms Hoggy explained previously, but I welcome the Minister of Defence's announcement of a study into the deaths of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will be important to learn as much as we can from this to help us to consider what might be done, and the Scottish Government is committed to assisting in that. It is also important to recognise that problems that are experienced by veterans are not always triggered directly from operational experience. Issues such as PTSD can stem from non-combat experiences. That is something that has been raised in me well, talking with veterans themselves. As part of the consultation, I will be undertaking further engagements across all of the themes of the strategy. For example, I am visiting HMP Gwynogol tomorrow to meet the governor himself, a veteran and a group of veterans. I am working with veterans' charities large and small to hear a wide range of views, and last week I wrote to all armed forces and veterans champions in Scotland to encourage them to have their say. This debate is an opportunity to hear the views of MSPs, and I am grateful to Maurice Corry and Mike Rumbles, who I have already met. However, I will also ask all members to encourage groups in their constituencies to feed in through the consultation process. We want to hear those voices. The strategy builds on a significant body of positive work that is already under way across Government, and more widely, to champion our armed forces community and ensure no disadvantage, especially when accessing services and support. However, we can do better, and I look forward to considering the views that have been generated by the consultation and, of course, those of colleagues today. I do not think that you moved the motion, minister. You did it at the start. My goodness, I must get my glasses fixed. I now call on Maurice Corry to speak to move amendment 15016.2, Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I must declare an interest that I am a veteran myself. I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate. With my own past experience in the armed forces, coupled with my role in veterans affairs now, I could not be more supportive of the aim to secure a strong and clear veteran strategy. The Scottish Conservatives today will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion and the Labour and the Liberal Democrat amendment as well as moving my own amendment in my name. First, it is crucial that we have a strong sense of awareness, awareness of the veterans around us in our communities and in our workplaces, awareness of the valuable skillset that they can bring. Their experience in the armed forces prepares them not just for military life but molds them into capable, versatile and highly motivated individuals. We, not just as a Parliament but as a nation, need to recognise that. Adjusting our mindset and attuning to how we can best help veterans together, we will help us to get it right. The collaborative effort on this veterans strategy turns its awareness into a practical and active long-term plan, one that I believe will harness support and agency for our veterans. That is why it is important to ensure that the armed forces units never lose sight of their veterans and indeed their families too, wherever and whenever possible. Veterans in our country deserve every chance that we have in society. Far from being at a disadvantage, I believe that it is right to utilise their strengths and skills that they can offer. The outgoing Veterans Commissioner, Eric Fraser, rightly said that it would be far more encouraging for veterans if we recognise the important contribution that they can make in their various communities and to Scotland's economy as a whole. We must move on from the perception that veterans upon their return are somehow lesser or not as able purely because of their experiences and the impact that they may have had on their lives on service overseas or in operations. It is with great encouragement for me that I am sure that our armed forces personnel will see the publication of the strategy for our veterans. I commend the efforts made to identify in it an accurate thread of themes and crosscutting factors, which I hope will direct how our Governments and three sectors can help our veterans to be active agents in our communities. The charitable sector must be at the heart of the delivery of the strategy in Scotland. Those groups are integral in their support of veterans. As I have highlighted in his chamber before, there are 320 armed forces charities in Scotland alone. They come alongside offer training, counselling, therapy and life skills. Amongst so many other levels of support, they can provide rehabilitation and respite services, as well as an advocacy and career support. Lady Hague's property factory and Glasgow Helping Heroes are just a few examples of the help available, and as a nation, Scotland's treatment of its veterans has come a very long way. For the most part, their needs are recognised and respected, but we know that more can always be done, and there are still areas in which further support can and should be provided. For example, the process of finding the right housing can be a challenge for many veterans. It can face a lack of clear information, which can often lead to a sense of understandable frustration and fuel a feeling of social isolation. I believe that this strategy, once implemented, will give greater clarity on how veterans can secure accommodation, and by working together and liaising with experts and veterans themselves, I hope that this problem can be solved. The strategy aims to co-ordinate efforts of veterans' provisions. I, along with my fellow members, believe that this would help to support services more streamlined and efficient in practice. Surely in the long term, this collaborative approach would be far better for mental health wellbeing of our veterans, so making this a co-ordinated effort would be hugely beneficial. We have seen the enormous benefits of what happens when groups collaborate to further progress and provide vital solutions. For example, NHS Lothian, Veteran Scotland and the local armed forces community will work in close partnership with Lothian councils to offer support and advice services for service personnel in the Lothian regions. That is a great encouragement to me and us all, as I am sure to others here in the chamber today. We have seen this take place also in our Garland butte and the Murray council areas. Ensuring a strong and informed delivery of this strategy in Scotland can only be done by working closely with armed forces personnel and their families, along with the organisations that support them. With the composition and needs of veterans constantly evolving, we need to make sure that the out-working of these strategies reflects the on-going shift. By truly listening and finding the gaps in their support system, the Scottish Government can adequately re-evaluate what changes can be made. For veterans, that will make a return to their civilian life easier. The implementation of health and wellbeing services is of particular importance to me, and I welcome its inclusion as part of the strategy. Ensuring that those are available to veterans who are in the need will make their future brighter. It will often open up possibilities for those individuals to contribute their skills and experiences within their local communities. That will help them to target loneliness and isolation. Issues that armed forces personnel often have to deal with. We know that there is already a vast range of organisations that help and exist to help veterans to tackle these demons, such as Combat Stress, Poppy Scotland, Legion Scotland and the Defence Medical Welfare Service. Signposting those health and specialist services is especially important and can be done more efficiently with more prompt data gathering and the veteran community. Better understanding makes for better solutions and more entrenched support overall. In January, for example, a seminar for service families and veterans will be held in Glasgow Caledonian University, which demonstrates the role academia and education are providing to veterans and their families. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the UK Government and the devolved Governments have partnered to form this strategy, it is vital that this collaboration goes a distance. I welcome on-going consultation to this strategy in place, and with that progress can truly be made for our veterans and their families. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Corry. I call Mark Griffin to speak to a move amendment 15016. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On a similar basis to Mr Corry, I declare an interest as an armed forces veteran. We welcome the debate this afternoon. We welcome the work that is undertaken by partners across all four UK nations in developing the veteran strategy and the consultation that the minister has started with MSP, stakeholders and veterans themselves, and I look forward to feeding into that consultation. At the outset, I would like to say that we will be supporting all amendments and the Government motion, and I hope that the whole Parliament will unite. I think that we are normally always able to do when it comes to showing our support for both the armed forces and veterans communities in Scotland. Like the minister and Mr Corry have already said, veterans are an asset to both Scotland's workplaces and communities, so we must ensure that we are harnessing their potential and fully supporting them to transition smoothly into civilian life. Although there has been priority given to the healthcare of veterans, the recent Scottish Veterans Commissioner report makes clear that we cannot become complacent about the quality of those services. Positive progress has been made to address veterans' social and housing needs, but recent figures show that that might be reversing with an increase in homelessness in the veteran community. A more ambitious approach to supporting our veterans and ending homelessness is needed to ensure that that does not become a trend. North Lanarkshire Council has given additional points to the housing application of members of the armed forces who are due to leave the service, and that is a model that I would encourage other councils and housing associations to look at. Mental health is a serious concern across the whole of society, but that should not mean that the needs of veterans are overlooked. In particular, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner has noted that funding for specialist mental and physical health services for veterans is disjointed and, in some cases, ad hoc. The need for specialist physical and mental health services is clear, given the range of physical injuries and mental health conditions some veterans have. That is why we have included it for consideration in our amendment today, which I move now. The most recent report from the Veterans Commissioner looked at whether Scotland was getting it right when it came to the health and wellbeing of veterans in Scotland. That report concluded that, although there has been impressive energy and ambition in establishing specialist health services for veterans over the past decade, it has waned recently in those—perhaps I need to rekindle awareness and concerns for veterans healthcare. It stated that the concept of priority treatment for veterans was no longer fit for purpose, and the vision should instead be on ensuring principles of excellence, accessibility and sustainable treatment for all veterans. The report also emphasised the need for specialist services to be available to the small group of veterans who have the most severe and enduring injuries caused or exacerbated by military service. It called for assurances for that group that those services would be protected and that their medical and social care needs would be met now and in the longer term. We would echo that call and ask the Government to ensure that those are sufficiently resourced and protected for current and future generations. Although I think that it is right that we spend time discussing the needs of the veterans community, it is equally important that we talk about the strengths. I will finish as I started on that point. Veterans learn and develop a range of valuable skills in the armed forces that people in civilian life just do not get the opportunity to learn. Those skills and experiences are ones that companies are or should be desperate for. I hope that the message goes out loud and clear from Parliament and from Government and as part of the new veteran strategy that businesses would be lucky to have access to those skills and to those veterans in their workplaces. On that note, I conclude. Thank you very much. I call on Mike Rumbles to speak to and move amendment 15016.1. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate today. A great many adults in Scotland have served in our armed forces and while the great majority of veterans go on to lead normal lives and make extremely productive contributions to civilian life, a number do not. I speak as a veteran myself having served some 15 years in the army with my first tour of duty here in Scotland, with the Scottish Infantry Division at Glen Cross, a tour of duty in Gibraltar, six years and three tours of duty in Germany with the then British Army of the Rhine and, of course, two years service in Northern Ireland. I have taken the opportunity and a number of previous veterans debates to focus on the provision of veterans' health and wellbeing services in my own region of the North East, particularly in the Grampian health board area. I want to take a different tack in today's debate because I have been struck by the minister's willingness to discuss and indeed address the issues that I have been raising for some time. I am very pleased indeed that the Scottish Government will support my amendment today, which focuses on equitable treatment for our veterans across Scotland. At the outset, the Liberal Democrats will also be supporting the Government's motion and indeed all the amendments in the vote later today. People who have risked their lives for this country and given years of service in the armed forces must be safe in their knowledge that they will return home to well-resourced health and wellbeing support services, both mental and physical, and that those services will be available to them regardless of which health board area they happen to live in. I know that the minister is personally committed, and I am convinced that he is, to see that the military covenant is more than just words, but is manifestly seen operating throughout our public services. In my experience, identifying veterans who present with mental and or physical problems—for instance, at their GP practice—is a real issue, and we should ensure that we have a system in every health board that is an effective first point of contact service, ensuring that every veteran is referred to that point of contact by their GP and other health professionals. Any type of first point of contact system—and I stress any type of first point contact for ex-service personnel—is immensely helpful to the individual in need. As I say, my view is formed from my experience of engaging with veterans over the years. In fact, although it was some time ago in my last two years of army service, I had a resettlement officer role, among others, and so, for myself, the difficulties faced by ex-service personnel and those about to leave the service indeed. The minister has a real role here, and I hope that he will be able to follow this up and report back to us at a future debate in this chamber. Every health board is indeed operating such an effective first point of contact service, which gives real meaning to the military covenant. I know that time is short. I do very much welcome the constructive efforts on behalf of veterans that Graham Day, as the responsible minister, is giving to his role, and that those positive efforts will produce positive results for our veterans, whichever part of Scotland they live in. I look forward to debating his success with those issues and with him in the next debate, and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate speeches of four minutes. I call Stuart McMillan, followed by Tom Mason. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate. Certainly, as members will know, members of the armed forces and ex-service community account for almost 10 per cent of the population of Scotland. It is vital that we therefore take the steps to address the issues that face this portion of our population. Veterans are an asset, but for far too long they have faced barriers that prevent them from making their full contribution to society. I would like to pose a question to the minister and ask him to respond in his summing up. I am aware that there will be a veterans question in the census, and I would be grateful if the minister can provide an update later when he does sum up. I welcome the launch of the strategy for our veterans, which is UK-wide supported by the three Governments and is also delivered locally. The new strategy is guided by the three main principles. Veterans are first and foremost civilians and continue to be a benefit to wider society. Veterans are encouraged and enabled to maximise their potential as civilians, and veterans are able to access support that meets their needs when necessary through public and voluntary sectors. By 2028, we need to ensure that every veteran feels even more valued, supported and also empowered. The individuals who are leaving their armed forces are undeniably a crucial asset to Scotland as they bring many transferable skills to civilian employers. Because of that, Scotland should take steps to become the destination of choice for those who are leaving their armed forces to permanently settle here. As a nation, we must also ensure that no member of the armed forces investment community in Scotland faces any disadvantage when trying to access services and also support. I would like to acknowledge that this Scottish Government is the first administration under devolution to have a veterans minister, which has proven to be such an important position. The Scottish Government also made that excellent decision by appointing the first of our Scottish Veterans Commissioner. The operationally independent nature of the Veterans Commissioner has been successful in making sure that the commissioner can effectively scrutinise policy and service delivery, and that the commissioner has become a voice for veterans within Scotland. In addition to the veterans minister and the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the continued funding for veterans Scotland is essential in order to develop its capacity and to increase its level of support. Since the creation of the Scottish Veterans Fund in 2008, more than £1.3 million has been used to support projects across Scotland. That has been incredibly important for supporting the projects that promote employment and skills development. I would like to touch on Scottish War Blinded and its excellent work. I chair the cross-party group in visual impairment. Earlier this year, I was invited to the opening of the Jennyswell care home in Paisley. It was run by the sister organisation Royal Blind. During the summer, I actually went back for a tour of Jennyswell and visited the next store location, which is a Scottish War Blinded hawkhead centre. I was hugely impressed by both facilities and their desire to help even more people to get the assistance that they require. As a result, I contacted Jim Boyland of the local Argylls Association. As we met Richard Baker and Rebecca Barr, we could see how we could get more local armed forces veterans involved. That work is very much under way. The Scottish War Blinded briefing for today was extremely helpful and highlighted the wide range of support that it offers to have, an organisation with expertise, understanding and finances to assist is hugely important. It has been of great assistance to many people. The people that I spoke to that day in the summer could not have praised them highly enough. Working with others is key to making all that happen. I am convinced that, by 2028, the armed forces veterans in Scotland will have improved outcomes as compared to the situation that they have faced in the past. I rise to support the motion today and the amendment table by my colleague Maurice Corry. We are very fortunate to live in an open and free democracy where we are able to debate the ideas and principles that inform our decision making. Indeed, we have the luxury to agree to disagree on occasions. In little doubt, we are able to do so because our democracy has been defended when it has been under threat. Throughout the decades, generations of service personnel have answered the call and served their country with honour and distinction. Many return home with storied tales of their service. Others, sadly, do not. It is with this sacrifice in mind that I pay tribute to all those who have served, be that at home, abroad, land, sea or air, they represent the very best in our nation. Therefore, we owe it to them not just as an immeasurable debt of gratitude. We owe them whatever care and support they need upon returning home. On that note, I wholeheartedly welcome the new strategy for our veterans report published last month. I particularly would like to praise the tone and the way in which all parties involved have handled this issue. The strategy itself identifies as members have noted six key themes that should be at the forefront of consideration when dealing with veteran issues. Each of those are worthy of our attention. When a lower percentage of veterans are in work compared with the rest of the population, we need to talk about employment. When almost a third have only one or no close friends, we need to talk about integration into communities. When 27% admit to having suicidal thoughts, we need to talk about physical and mental health. I wish to specifically mention one theme that I did not include in that list. Ensuring that our veterans have a place to live that suits their needs. That should not, in my mind, be a key theme, but a bare minimum, and something on which we should be doing much better. I do not seek to suggest that it is a seasonal issue, but as we approach the winter period, the problem of homelessness becomes even more acute and I think that it is something on which we should reflect. Importantly, the new strategy identifies new cross-cutting factors that we can use to improve outcomes across the matrix. I particularly want to mention the vital steps that are being taken on improving the collection and analysis of data on the needs of veterans, giving us greater evidence based on informed decision making. As a report itself notes, the population of UK do value the service of our veterans. I believe that the veteran community recognises that this is the case. With a strategy that will see us through the next decade, we must keep working at it in order to make the improvements in service delivery that our veterans so richly deserve. I do believe that a combined approach between Governments, portfolios and sectors is the right way to go. It is very ably demonstrated by the co-operative work that went into this report. The armed forces covenant and all the work that it commits us to is profoundly a good thing. It should, and I am sure will, focus our minds on the scale of the task ahead. We do a good job in taking care of our veterans, but it can always do better. Let's work together to do just that. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Jackie Baillie. Presiding Officer, I was pleased in this session of Parliament for the first time to respond positively to an invitation to become a member of the Highland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I have that limited connection with many former servicemen. For servicemen, the transition to civilian life from active duty largely will go without event. My best man served for several decades in the army. In 1991, I happened to be in a flight from Sydney to Auckland and found myself sitting beside Lesmond Rowe, who was one of the Dan Buster pilots. He had clearly prospered in civilian life. My great-great-grandfather, Andrew Barlow, who served with the Royal Corps of Drivers between 1813 and 1818, did not appear to have been at Waterloo. However, he seems to have come out of it. My great-great-great-grandfather, David Berry, who was in the Navy from 1780 to 1782, similarly seems to have prospered. They, presumably, like many of our servicemen today, found wonderful welcoming groups of families and communities whom they would draw on for support as they returned to civilian life. However, not all are so fortunate. Indeed, even in the walk from Waverley station to Parliament, which I do six times a week, I know that I pass some less fortunate X servicemen. There is one in particular that I regularly have a chat with. He is doing well, but he is sitting on the pavement with a little ball in front of him. When I have changed, he gets my change. It is little enough, but it is something that I would wish to do. He has been failed with a system from the conversations that I have had with him, and I am uncertain what would help him. He is perhaps the exception. He is not, as far as I am aware, someone who is suffering from PTSD, that is at least an identifiable condition that we can give support to enable, because people with that kind of condition often experience frustration, aggression and are subject to bouts of violence. Of course, that leads to difficulties in employment relationships, and so on. Mental health support is often one of the most important things that that minority of X service personnel who have that kind of issue require. The support that they get across Scotland is variable. That is a fair comment. Mike Rumble's reference to the need to make sure that there is access to the right kind of services in his amendment to the motion is a proper and timely one. We have a lot going on to be proud of in Scotland. We have something like 50-plus veterans organisations. Last time we debated the subject, there was a little debate about the numbers, and I think that Maurice Corry suggested that it was rather high than that, and I am sure that he will be correct. We all know about Poppy Scotland, which is one that we have just been wearing on our lapels. It is a great tribute to Poppy Scotland that, 100 years after the origin of the Poppy as a symbol of remembrance, we continue to use it to this day. Everywhere we go, there are memorials to those who lost their lives, be it the Scots who lost their lives in the American Civil War, where the memorial is in the old Colton cemetery, the Bore war memorial on North bridge, and in every town, village and hamlet memorials to those who fell in the two great wars of the 20th century. In West Lothian, I am aware of a memorial to the Korean war, but now we owe our duty to those who live on who need our continuing support. I am sure that we will all wish to give it. Jackie Baillie, followed by Maureen Watt. As the deputy convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans, I am delighted that we have the opportunity today to have a debate, albeit a short one, on the strategy for our veterans. A strategy endorsed, as we know by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments just last month, and a strategy that has at its heart the recognition that service personnel and their families should not be disadvantaged by the very fact of their service and where needed, that special provision is made to help those who have sacrificed the most, including those who, unfortunately, have been injured or indeed bereaved. I look forward to the Scottish Government working with key partners and, most importantly, veterans themselves, because I think that it is important that we learn from lived experience as they take forward the consultation about the implementation of the strategy in Scotland. Of course, as we have already heard, the strategy touches on a host of devolved areas, including housing, health, education, skills and employability, to name but a few. I am very pleased that this is going to build on the valuable work of the First Veterans Commissioner, Eric Fraser, and his successor Charlie Wallace. They have already brought forward a number of reports about the experience of veterans in Scotland and a series of recommendations that I would commend to the minister, and I hope that he will look at them with a view to implementing them. In the short time available, Presiding Officer, I want to focus on Labour's amendment, which talks about specialist physical and mental health services. The Veterans Commissioner rightly noted that, although priority had been given to healthcare for veterans, he is clear that we must not be complacent about the quality of those services and the need for them to be kept under constant review. I know that there is a bit of a postcode lottery between health boards that politicians like to talk about. I have to say that there are inconsistencies within health boards, and we can and should do much better than that. It is right, and I think that everybody would agree with this, that those who have sacrificed the most for their country deserve the best services and care possible. There are challenges with our mental health services. Long waiting times, pressure on staffing and a lack of sustainability affect everyone, as well as veterans. There is undoubtedly a requirement for specialist services for those who have severe and enduring problems due to their military service. Those services need to be developed, sustained and need to occur not just in health but in social care too. I very much welcome the Government's mental health action plan. It mentions veterans. I know that veterans experience challenging mental health problems as a result of their service. Some in my constituency have suffered and continue to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and more I know can be done locally to support them. The Veterans Commissioner asked for a specific plan to tackle mental health amongst veterans. I would ask the minister to look at this, in particular, to look at how we remove the barriers to accessing mental health services for veterans, how we deal with that persistent problem of a postcode lottery in services and how we in particular protect specialist PTSD services. We would all acknowledge the funding for specialist mental health services. It's patchy, it's short-term, it's insecure. I hope that the minister has managed a conversation with the cabinet secretary for finance and will address that in the budget next week. Members are right to recognise that veterans are an asset to their workplaces and their communities. I know from the veterans in Dumbarton, the Vale of Leven and Helensburgh just what a fantastic contribution they make to our area. I thank them and all the veterans for their service to our country, but it is incumbent on us to repay that by ensuring that their transition to civilian life is smooth and seamless. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least to welcome the work undertaken by partners across all four nations to develop a veteran strategy. I hope that it is ambitious, all-encompassing and does not end up agreeing the lowest common denominator, as our veterans deserve the best. Clearly, the MOD has a pivotal role in that as the employer, but while most service personnel leave the armed forces to go on to lead fulfilling healthy lives in civilian society, some from day one do not, and for some later on aspects of their service will come back to affect them either physically, mentally or both. I commend all the businesses and organisations who have ex-personnel as one of their main sources of recruitment. Certainly in the north-east, the oil and gas sector has employed a great many and to good effect, and I thank BT for their briefing in the work that they do with veterans. Presiding Officer, there exist among ex-service personnel because of the nature of their work and living situation a camaraderie that does not exist among other cohorts of workers, and that is why organisations like the British Legion are so important. Ex-service personnel and their families must know that there is a wide variety of services available to them, and that is what I would like to focus on this afternoon. Firstly, veterans are, of course, able to access all the services that are available to other members of our communities, but many of our veteran services recognise the specialist requirements of our veterans and their families. We are fortunate in Aberdeen, indeed in my constituency, to have the Gordon Highlanders Museum, where recently they hosted the first session by action for hearing loss to facilitate veterans to have their hearing and their hearing aids checked to hear that they are getting the best possible use of these devices. It was a really successful session and quite emotional for those of us who were there as two veterans in their late 80s met for the first time since they left school in Turref many decades previously. Similarly, I would like to thank Richard Baker for his briefing on behalf of the Scottish War Blinded for the work that they do across Scotland and which was highlighted by Stuart McMillan in his speech. Although I had heard of veterans' breakfasts in other parts of Scotland, I was pleased on Saturday, 17 November, to attend the first veterans' breakfast at the British Legion in Stonehaven. I would like to thank Brenda Cow and her team for organising this for the veterans who live in and around—actually, they came for quite a wide area to Stonehaven. What struck me in conversation with the veterans and their families was the fact that they were not aware of the services that are already available for them. That is why I was delighted to meet up recently with Robert Reid of Defence Medical Welfare Services. This is an organisation celebrating this year's 75th anniversary and works closely in Scotland with the health boards in Grampian, Fife and Lanarkshire. Members will have more of a chance to learn of their work next Wednesday here in Parliament. I hope that members will come along, especially those in the health board areas that I have mentioned. I commend the work that the P&J has undertaken recently to highlight the range of organisations that are available to veterans in the north-east. If it is one plea that I have, Minister, it is that there is one place where veterans and their families know that they can go to learn where they can access the services that are available to them. Today's debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss some of the positive work that is going on across the United Kingdom in support of expanding opportunities for veterans. There have been a number of positive contributions already from around the chamber, and I joined with other members who have emphasised the importance of the new strategy. We owe a veteran a responsibility to ensure that the duties that they have undertaken as part of their service are not ignored. Policy on veterans has had a straightforward principle consistently at its heart to ensure that our service personnel are not put at a disadvantage by having served. We are not advocating for favour or for preferential treatment, but simply overcoming those barriers that we understand veterans can face in re-entering civilian life. Since the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law in 2011, there has been a notable increase in the focus on those efforts across the country. I emphasise that, because a great deal of this work is undertaken locally, in partnership with local authorities, the third sector and community organisations, the UK strategy for example recognises that a number of the charities that support veterans are more innovative. There is good reason that they exist within this sphere and smaller dynamic organisations have the ability to be more responsive to particular needs. We should also recognise the long experience and efforts of Poppy Scotland, the Royal British Legion and others. A number of members have centred their remarks on particular areas, and one that I would like to mention briefly is employment. Only this Saturday, during a street surgery in Murray, a relatively young veteran who has a disability spoke of a problem that faced many people with disabilities looking to enter the workplace. He wanted people to see his abilities, the experience, the drive, the commitment to work that he has demonstrated through his service. Instead he said too often that potential employers could not see beyond the stick that he now uses. Of course, many younger veterans leave the armed forces still relatively early on in their career development. They move on from service with a range of valuable transferable skills, but can sometimes have trouble adjusting to civilian employment. There are well documented hurdles that many have faced, even in first finding a job and in bringing out and acknowledging the skills that they have already built. Employment, education and skills is one of the six focus areas of the strategy, building on some of the work that has taken place before. In 2016's renewing our commitments paper, the Scottish Government indicated a number of schemes in the employability area that were targeted at service leavers. The work with community jobs Scotland, access to employability fund and the employer recruitment incentive. It would be useful if the minister could find some time to update us on how successful those programmes have been and their uptake amongst veterans. Employment and skills are at the centre of supporting ex-service families to find stability and to thrive, but one area that I feel has been given insufficient attention is the impact, in particular, on the servicemen and women's family members. Many spouses of service personnel have had breaks in their careers or have had their employment options narrowed by the support that they give to their loved ones. There are a number of small schemes that operate, but they have received little strategic attention from Government. There have equally been a number of small positives over recent years. I was pleased that Skills Development Scotland has created a dedicated online presence as part of my world of work for veterans serving personnel and families earlier this year. As my colleague Maurice Corry mentioned, SDS and the MOD's careers transition partnership are undertaking a pilot in parts of my region, Murray and the Highlands, to make early career advice available to those transitioning from the armed forces. The strategy gives us a basis to drive forward real change in the next 10 years. A solid first step towards that goal will be recognising success and making sure that the response is available to upscale when projects and initiatives work well. Those are ideals that unite the political parties and the Governments of the UK, and the collaboration that we have seen up to this point will continue to be invaluable in the future. Veterans have an incredible amount to offer our society, and through harnessing that potential, we not only maintain our covenant with the armed forces but continue to benefit from their knowledge and their experience as they enter civilian life. The last of the open debate contributions is from Richard Lyle. I begin by saying that it is an extreme honour and privilege to speak in this debate. Veterans are two heroes that often receive less important care than they deserve. Colleagues, I know that we all understand the importance of veterans to our society, but it cannot be overstated. Perhaps no other choice is more difficult and noble than to give up the comfort of home, leave loved ones and family behind and put one's own life at risk for one's country. We owe an unpayable debt to all veterans. This year marked the centennial end of World War I, and with it is a persistent reminder that without the sacrifice of so many of Scotland and the UK's people, the world that we live in today could look scarily different. We all have connections to veterans. My grandfather was in the Highland regiment who fought in the Great War. Even now I can remember as a child hearing the stories that he told me from the war. He passed on to me 12 volumes from the illustrated press on World War I, which I still treasured always. This time my father was an engineer artificer for the RAF in World War II, and he would always talk to me about the various planes that he worked on. Colleagues, my point is not to state that my family was affected by war, but to say that every family has been affected by war. Every family can trace a member or a relative who joined the army, the air force or the navy or any other service position. We all know the effects the sacrifice of leaving a family behind has on so many veterans, but perhaps we never imagined the sacrifice continued when they returned home. We have repaid the commendable act of fighting for one's country with a cold welcome home that emphasises a host of difficulties that revolve around inaccessible housing, limited employment options and sometimes sub-par health and social care. Veterans are still an underappreciated group within our society who are often in need of a serious social, mental and physical help. Sometimes our services are not robust enough and the veterans can fall through the cracks. That, to me, is simply inexcusable. When I was a councillor, I encouraged my council to take note of the time that service personnel were in the armed forces. This time we count as time served on the council housing waiting list. Therefore, a service personnel would automatically be re-housed if previously lived in our local authority. As already has been stated, this now has been replaced by a point system, and I hope that this point system works as it previously did for years. I encourage all councils to introduce that policy. If people go and fight for the country, we should at least make sure that they have a place to live when they can return and that they house that the loving is suitable for their need. The strategy for our veterans gives us a chance to provide care within the UK that has become world-renowned. Our goals are lofty, but they are reachable. Of course, the progress of that will be monitored to make sure that we make good our promises. If we can successfully reach each subjective, veterans' lives will be significantly improved, and we as a nation can, in some small way, express our gratitude to those who have done more for us than we have ever done for them. I pay tribute to the projects that are, as Scotland is undertaking, and I would suggest that the Scottish Government look at ways to support many charities who are able and who will reach out and assist veterans. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now move to the closing speeches. I call Mike Rumbles for four minutes, please. I do not want to take up too much time, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I am actually taken very much impressed by the contributions from across the chamber. Everybody who has spoken today has spoken with a feeling that everything is not quite right with the way that we treat our veterans at the moment, and we can do better. I think that Graham Day, as the minister, and I am looking forward to his coming up, has a task ahead of him, because not everything in the garden is rosy. Everyone here is well-intentioned, and everybody wants to see the best results for our veterans in the future. I would just like to put a little bit of pressure on the minister. I would love him to be able to come back to our next veterans debate and address the points that everybody has raised and to see how we are going to progress those. What I want to say is that, from the Liberal Democrats' point of view, I think that it is a really positive debate that we have had today, the best veterans debate that I have been involved with so far, because, in fact, everybody is really focused on the right outcome. That was quick, and it caught me unexpected there. I will move on to Alex Rowley, and I could allow you a little extra time, if you wish, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Labour, I would like to again offer support for the debate today, and I welcome the back-end that is showing across the chamber that is there for our veterans in Scotland. With regard to the veteran strategy, I am pleased, as Mark Griffin said, to see collaborative work across the United Kingdom to develop and endorse what I think is a much-needed and vital strategy, while, at the same time as Graham Day outlined, there is scope to Taylor services across the nations. It is right, therefore, that this Parliament looks at what those services should be. When we last discussed the veterans issues in this chamber, I highlighted that, whilst welcoming the on-going progress that has been made to support former armed forces personnel, there were still gaps in support, particularly for veterans involved in recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Jackie Baillie has outlined some of those gaps when it comes to mental health and welfare support, and I would like to reiterate those points. I hope that, today, we are able to take into consideration what the key issues around welfare and mental health are as the Government takes forward the consultation on how to take the veteran strategy forward in Scotland. I have heard what Graham Day had to say about the majority of veterans having a very positive contribution to make to society, a point that is also made by Maurice Corry and Jackie Baillie. That is right, but the tragic truth is that referrals for post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions from former armed forces personnel has gone up by 143 per cent over the past 10 years. One of the key aims in the veteran strategy is for enhanced collection, use and analysis of data across the public, private and charitable sectors to build an evidence base to effectively identify and address the needs of veterans. I wrote to the veterans minister regarding this issue and the issue of veteran suicide at the time when we were able to highlight that the number of veterans committing suicide was increasing but that a lot of that data was not being collected. It is important therefore that there is a commitment to ensure that we are able to collect that data. I believe that this is needed to allow for better understanding of what is going on, as well as providing a vital resource to prevent further tragedies. I would urge today that any decisions being made on taking the veteran strategy forward in Scotland takes into consideration the very real problem of the mental welfare and support that is offered to our veterans. Implementing a strategy should be obvious that veterans and their families will be given the support that is required as and when it is needed. As Mark McMillan said, we all have a duty to those who have served in our armed forces. I would add to that and say particularly to those who have served in recent conflicts and now need our support. I hope that members across the chamber agree with this. Cannot be overstated the importance of the specialist's physical and mental health services to veterans with enduring injuries and conditions. That is why we need to protect and resource those services for current and future generations. Richard Lell and others also highlighted services and focused on housing services. Again, we should ensure that veterans who have served in their country are able to get a roof over their heads for them and their families. Without properly funded services, warm words and strategies are meaningless. When it comes to something as important as the welfare of our veterans at the time of their need, I hope that we can all agree that that needs real commitment in the form of properly funded services. Edward Mountain, I can allow you up to seven minutes, Mr Mountain. I, too, would like to declare an interest, like Mark Griffin, Maurice Corry and Mike Rumbles, that I was a soldier and served the country for 12 years. I was a veteran of a regiment that my son now serves in, so I perhaps have a vested interest in that he has served overseas in Afghanistan. I think that there is a lot that we can all agree on across this chamber to recommend the strategy that has been laid out for our veterans. The vision in the strategy, I believe, that has been set out by the Scottish Government and all three devolved Governments, means that we are getting the best by working together and the best for all our veterans. I particularly welcome the commitment from the UK Government to consider strengthening the pastoral and legal support available to veterans affected by legacy investigations. I do not propose to dwell on this too much, but it is a matter that is close to my heart on one in which I bring to the chamber every time I talk to this. I believe that it is in a small step in the right direction, but I do not think that it goes far enough. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Scottish Government to consider doing more when it comes to legacy investigations. I know that, technically, it is not a responsibility of a devolved administration that rests really on health and housing, but the Scottish Government is often prepared to speak out on matters that it considers important. I believe that it, when it comes to protecting our veterans from legacy investigations relating to odd banatores, specifically that is Northern Ireland, that this Government could do more by saying more and encouraging the UK Government to protect those veterans in the same way that previous Government have protected those that were involved in the actions that they undertook in some other cause. Those are the veterans that I believe have had to make split-session decisions based on whether they remove a potential threat or, by not doing so, perhaps sacrifice their and their colleagues' lives. I do not believe that those are the veterans that we want to see handed. I believe that they must be protected from one-sided prosecutions once and for all, and I would urge the Government to consider raising the matter with the UK Government. I will take an intervention. Mike Rumbles The member is not pleading for special treatment here. It is basically what you are saying, is that we should be treating everybody on both sides of that conflict in the same way, that these areas are past and perhaps we should all move on. I am indeed saying that, and the example that I have used before is that a colleague in my regiment is now being persecuted for something that happened in 1970s, yet I know that the person who was involved in the bombing of my regiment in 1982 has been given a clear bill and is allowed to travel across this country without fear of prosecution. Perhaps I will just leave that there, and can I pick up on some of the points that I think have been particularly important? First of all, Minister, I would like to say that I am delighted that there is going to be a census question as to whether you are a veteran. I am glad to hear your view that you view veterans as assets, assets to Scotland, assets to the communities that they live in and assets to everyone that they know. The other thing that I think that we often underestimate is the importance of families, so I was pleased to hear, and without putting words into your mouth, Minister, I think that you referred to the families that hold the fort. They are the families that hold the fort. It is a true definition of the families that have to stay at home when their family members are serving overseas, probably in difficult positions to give that family, that soldier or serviceman, the confidence that they are going to return home to a static position that hasn't changed, which will give them some stability after the difficult times they've faced. I think that Maurice Corry actually stressed the importance of the valuable skills that veterans bring. It's not just about the skills that they've learned, whether it be driving a lorry, it's the leadership skills, it's the response under pressure. He went on to say that they make a valuable contribution, and I think that one thing that he made that we should never underestimate is the importance of the charitable sector. Now, I know that many regiments have their own charitable organisations who have the ability to be fleet of foot and respond to situations. They are not restricted by government guidelines, and they are not restricted necessarily to helping the serviceman. They can help the serviceman's children. Certainly, my old regimental association has helped soldiers' families and specifically soldiers' children to get through university and education. We should encourage those people to continue doing that. I liked Mark Griffin's comments about supporting veterans by harnessing their skills. Mike Rumbles was very clear when he said that it's up to everyone to rise to the call for help when it's required that soldiers are given to us during the time of their service. Stuart McMillan made the comment about removing barriers from veterans, and I think that that's very important as well. I also agree that we should try to encourage soldiers to come and live here and service personnel to live here when they step down. Tom Mason spoke eloquently about our answers to defending servicemen who've answered the call to defend their country, and they have every right to expect their country to answer their call for help when they ask for it. Stuart Stevenson made a very important point about sweeping individuals up and helping them personally, and small acts of kindness by people on the street actually gives a serviceman the feeling that they're wanted and cared for. Jackie Baillie spoke eloquently, as she always does about service issues, and stressed that families are so vital to the support of servicemen and service women, and that is entirely true. The need to prevent inconsistencies across health boards, I think that that is also true. Maureen Watt spoke about the importance of helping service personnel, as did Jamie Halcro Johnston, and about the importance of small organisations. Richard Lyle, and I don't always agree with everything that Richard Lyle says, but he spoke eloquently about the fact that all families know somebody who has served their country at some stage, and therefore it's a debt that we owe everyone. I would like to reiterate my plea to the Scottish Government and the Veterans Commissioner to explore what actions can be taken to support veterans who are affected by legacy investigations. I am, however, delighted at the consensus across the chamber to help and respect veterans who have done just that for us when they served. I now invite Graeme Dey to wind up in this debate. Around nine minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I warmly thank colleagues from across the chamber for their contributions. The albeit relatively brief debate has very much re-emphasised the cross-party nature of this Parliament's commitment to do the best by its veterans in the wider armed forces community. Let me pick up on aspects of some of the contributions that we've heard this afternoon. Starting with Mike Rumbles and nod perhaps to Jackie Baillie, during the debate in September, the Minister for Mental Health and I made it clear that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that all armed forces personnel serving and veterans living in Scotland are able to access the best possible care and support, including safe, effective healthcare that meets their needs. I reiterate that again today. Veterans already have a first point of contact in the form of veterans champions who are already in place in every health board, but we are working on strengthening the network of champions and better utilising it going forward. We have also shared information with health boards to ensure that all NHS staff are aware of veterans health rights and continue to work with health boards, champions and stakeholders to raise awareness and address any barriers. However, to Mike Rumbles and other members, if you have specific evidence or examples anywhere, not just in NHS Grampian, veterans encountering, difficulty accessing support services, let us know. Delivery responsibility may lie with individual boards or health and social care partnerships, but we expect, as we set out in renewing our commitments to the document published in 2016, that there should be no disadvantages when it comes to accessing services. With regard to contribution from other members, Maurice Corry rightly noted the role of the charitable sector in delivering on the aims of the strategy. I also agree with him on the need for effective co-ordination and collaboration around delivery of services. I offer Mark Griffin a couple of assurances around the asks that he had on housing and homelessness. My colleague Kevin Stewart, who has oversight of those matters, is very much aware of the veterans element to them. On access to health services and the commissioner's report that he referred to, I can advise him that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, as recently as this morning, sent me an update on our response to that report on the progress that is being made. That reflects, of course, the fact that the Scottish Government accepted all of its recommendations. I am happy to write to Mark Griffin further on that. Stuart McMillan asked for information on the census question. The final decision on the inclusion of a census question will lie with Parliament, of course, but the intention of the Government is to lay a draft order in late 2019. Judging by the tone and nature of this debate, I do not think that we will struggle for support when that happens. A number of members, including Jackie Baillie and Alex Rowley, raised the issue of mental health. I say to the chamber that mental health is an absolute priority. Record funding has been put in place with the veterans to be captured by that and the implementation of mental health and suicide prevention strategies. Beyond that, we have listened to the Scottish veterans commissioners' ask about a veterans health network and the production of a mental health action plan from that. That is very much on our agenda. Briefly, on Edward Mountain's central point, I very much recognise the passion that he has for the subject. I understand the background to that. It is, of course, a reserved matter. He knows that. However, I am happy to pass on to UK Government colleagues, his views and the views that were recorded by Mike Rumbles on that issue. The past five months have been a steep learning curve for myself as the new veterans minister. In October, I set out achievements to date and priorities for the year ahead. However, I have been engaging with organisations and groups of veterans, and I have been listening intently while doing that. I want to offer some observations on areas that I feel where there is clear room for improvement and where we have the opportunity as part of the strategy to look both across Governments and with my ministerial colleagues within the Scottish Government to consider further. First, on transition. I focus on this not to have a dig at the MOD in any way. Indeed, I noted that, to buy itself with the Minister for Defence, People and Veterans in the recent Commons debate on the strategy, he himself acknowledged more could be done in this area. I come to it because it is a recurring theme amongst many transitioning service personnel that I have spoken to. Done well, the transition process really can prepare people who have served for civilian life. I have had very mixed feedback, however, about the transition process. I think that it is right that we prioritise doing what we can in Scotland to make this work as effectively as possible. I am committed to working with the Ministry of Defence to take that forward. I commend the work that has already been taken place, for example, through the veterans employability strategic group chaired by Mark Bibby to make sure that no one falls through the gaps job-wise. I accept, however, that more needs to be done and I will undertake to write to Jamie Halcro Johnston on the points that he raised. Of course, transition is about more than simply finding a job. In that context, let us remember the importance of the wider family in all of this—something that I think that Edward Mountain referred to. It is not just the serving sailor, soldier or airman who is facing a massive change in their lives. It is the spouse, the partner and the children. If nothing else these past five months have really brought home to me the importance of the family unit, we will have to work across Governments to look at how they are supported. Many former service personnel and families who settle in Scotland will not be based here when they weft the services. This year, we published Welcome to Scotland to set out the support that is available to military families moving here. We are working to ensure that it is filtering down to those who need it because there is more that we can do in that regard. I am pleased that the Veterans Commissioner is looking across a broader remit to consider the wider armed forces community. Access to employment is another of the key issues for spouses and families. I was delighted recently to meet senior members of the Navy to explore options for supporting the many spouses who will be settling around Faslain as the number of personnel grows in the coming years. I also met Women's Enterprise Scotland, who ran a successful course located at Glencwrs Barracks, helping spouses to set up their own business. I will be visiting lookers in the Spousal Employment Hub to learn more about the challenges and successes in the area. Wives, spouses, partners and families face their own issues and need a range of different support. That was very much brought home to me when I recently met the War Widows Association to learn of the issues that are faced by their members. They are very specific issues. We all have some degree of understanding that, although most transitions are successfully under an asset to communities, in some cases, adjusting to civilian life can be difficult. Minister, you and I have discussed expanding on the business of the science parks that we discussed in four areas of Scotland. Have you made any progress on that? That will tie in nicely with the recruitment for spouses and veterans coming out of the forces. As Mr Corry might acknowledge, it was only a few days ago that we discussed that, so the answer is no, not yet. That can be very hard for the families when it comes to weaving the services. That can be doubly so if the sailor, soldier or airman has been worked with physical and mental scars from their service. It strikes me that, although we have services available for physical rehab and to assist individuals suffering from PTSD, we might do better in recognising the strain that is placed on and carried by their families. The launch of the strategy for our veterans and the current consultation process gives us a chance to think about those kinds of issues. I want to pick up on Mike Rumbles' brief summarisation of the debate, because he was right when he noted about the quality and nature of what we have heard today. He was also right to challenge myself, but at the risk of sounding like I am passing the buck, it is not just about myself as the veterans minister. I want to reassure the chamber that the challenge that Mike Rumbles and they have set us has been taken up, not only by myself but by ministerial colleagues in areas of health, housing, social isolation and employability among others. The strategy aims to ensure that, by 2028, every veteran feels even more valued, supported and empowered. Directed by our consultation in Scotland and with the continued constructive collaboration that enabled us to achieve joint ownership of the strategy's objectives, I, along with the ministerial colleagues, will do all that I can to ensure that we achieve those outcomes long before then. That concludes the debate on a strategy for our veterans taking it forward in Scotland. It is time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I would ask to move motion number 15017 on the counter-terrorism and border security bill. I will now call members to speak in this debate. I call on Adam Tomkins. In October last year, Andrew Parker, director general of MI5, described the on-going terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom as multi-dimensional, evolving rapidly and operating at a scale and pace that we have not seen before. Attacks such as that at London Bridge in June last year or the Novigik poisoning in Salisbury earlier this year are just two illustrations of what Mr Parker was talking about. Against the background of this heightened terrorist threat, the UK Government considers it necessary to update and strengthen key aspects of the legal powers and capabilities available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt terrorism and to ensure that sentences for terrorism offences properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. On those benches, we strongly support that judgement and the counter-terrorism and border security bill that arises from it, which is the subject of today's legislative consent motion. Most of that bill concerns matters that are properly reserved to Westminster, but a minority of its provisions touch on devolved matters, in particular road traffic regulations, legal aid for those stopped at the border and the retention of biometric material. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is recommending that our consent be given to those provisions and I agree with them that, as they say in their legislative consent memorandum, ensuring that our critical counter-terrorism measures are consistently applied and available across the UK is important, of course it is. The measures to be taken in this bill and in particular the measures that attract the requests for our consent today, Presiding Officer, are necessary to safeguard our national security and are proportionate. In particular, on biometric data it will still be the case after this bill, as it is now, that data will be destroyed unless there is a sound basis for retaining it, but operational experience has shown that the former two-year retention period was too short, which is why the bill extends this to five years. Likewise, on the power to detain and question individuals at the UK border, this is plainly required. The power in the bill is carefully constrained so that it will apply only on grounds of involvement in hostile activity 4 or on behalf of another state. The decision to stop and question an individual will not be arbitrary, it will be based on informed considerations as to risk, threat, hostility and intelligence. In short, Presiding Officer, those are necessary and proportionate powers. The Government is right to support them and we should all do so. I support the motion. I now call John Finnie also for two minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This matter was discussed at the Justice Committee on the 13 November. Yes, of course it is important to have consistent application of legislation, but it is also to be fair and equitable legislation, and it is certainly not to be triumphed by the daily telegraph, as some of the inferences from the powers that the UK Government seeks to put in place. There are three that apply to Scotland. There is traffic regulation orders, there is legal aid and there is retention of biometric material. With regard to the regulation orders, it is good that the local authorities are reimbursed. Legal aid is absolutely great that people who are accused are given a non-means-tested advice and assistance. Please can we extend that? The issue is around the retention of biometric material. In the legislative consent motion stage, the bill will strike a better balance. That better balance was not evidenced at the Justice Committee by the Cabinet Secretary. We did hear from an official that chief officers in England and Wales have come to the Biometrics Commission on a number of occasions to seek further retention periods. I bet they have. The reason for retention is changing. The legislative consent motion tells us that biometric material is available for general policing purposes. The cabinet secretary used the term devolved purposes. Those are serious extensions and serious intrusions. The argument for change that we seem to be hearing is that they are administratively more convenient. I am certainly not persuaded by that, not least because I believe that information will be shared and put on a UK national database. That is a UK national database with errors. Human rights violations, I understand, may relate to photographic evidence, which has not been corrected. Our obligation is to scrutinise and understand the purpose of legislation. Everyone would want to see an end to violence and the use of maximum proportionate means to address such issues. You would underpin that by human rights assessment. My question to the cabinet secretary is, has one been compiled? Has it been published? If so, who has consulted it? Either way, the case has not been made, the Scottish Green Party will not be supporting this. I thank both Adam Tomkins and John Finnie for speaking to the legislative consent motion. I thank the minister for the opportunity to respond to the counter-terrorism and border security bill. It is just one part of the UK Government review following the terrible incidents in London and Manchester last year. As you would expect, and as has been mentioned, the majority of the bill relates to the reserved area of national security and is rightly being scrutinised by the UK Parliament. However, the three areas that have been mentioned by both members have implications regarding devolved competency. The committee and John Finnie today raised concerns with provisions that relate specifically to the retention of certain biometric material. I will not speak to the other two points, because I think that there is a broad agreement around those. Just for some clarity, if I may, the type of biometric material that can be subject of a national security determination is that, which is defined in the criminal procedure Scotland Act 1995, namely that is fingerprints or DNA. It does not include secondary biometrics, such as images. Let me be clear also that the Scottish Government does not take lightly its responsibility with regard to ensuring biometric data is only ever retained and held in circumstances when the intrusions on an individual's rights are proportionate and appropriate. If he does not mind, I will make progress only because the member did say to me, regardless of what I say, that he will be voting against it anyway. If I just make some progress on that, we convene the independent advisory group on the use of biometric data. In response to the recommendations, we will bring forward a bill to enhance oversight of biometric data. That bill will rightly be scrutinised by this Parliament. However, it is important to acknowledge that today we are considering the impact that the narrow circumstances under which very specific biometric data can be retained has on devolved competence. The amendments in the bill relate to a change to the existing maximum extension period, as has been mentioned, from two to five years. However, it is also important to mention that there are no proposed changes to the oversight or safeguards in relation to the detention of data. It will still be subject to the review of the biometrics commissioner. In fact, the amendment was recommended by the biometrics commissioner in his annual report, published in April this year. I will wrap up playing the question about John Finnie's concern around databases. I will reiterate the data in question. Is that defined by the criminal procedure? Scotland Act 1995 does not include images. Biometric data, subject to national security determination, is stored on a number of national databases. None of those databases is the police national database. I share, of course, Mr Finnie's concerns about the issues that were raised, not least the recent court judgment that was critical of the governance arrangements for images. Daniel Johnson? I heard Mr Finnie just a few moments ago rightly asking about human rights assessments. Although we are minded to support the Government in this LCM, I think that the point about human rights assessments is important. Can he answer the question, whether they have been made? I want to answer Mr Finnie's question on databases or at least address that issue on databases, if I may. We take that issue extremely seriously. We will continue to look to see how the bill progresses through the UK Parliament. Without saying almost that SNP MPs will also be involved in the scrutiny of that bill, as they have been to this point. On the impact assessment—I will finish on that point—I was asked to reflect on the need to undertake an impact assessment on the specific issues for which we are seeking legislative consent. I acknowledge the concerns that were raised by organisations and individuals regarding the bill and its entirety and welcomed the scrutiny that the bill rightly faces in the UK Parliament. However, I do not consider it appropriate for the Scottish Government to undertake an impact assessment on a UK Government bill, the majority of which is within reserved competence. I recognise the concerns that the committee and John Finnie have. I agree that the bill needs to be properly scrutinised to ensure that any impact is necessary and proportionate. However, that scrutiny will happen in the UK Parliament where the bill and its entirety is being considered. The provisions under consideration in the legislative consent motion provide consistency to the application of law enforcement in the UK and will ensure that Scotland is not at a disadvantage in tackling the terrorist threats that we face. I did write to the committee to answer Daniel Johnson's point. My official did speak to a number of human rights organisations and, although they have concerns around the bill more widely, they do not necessarily have concerns about the narrow issues that we are considering for this legislative consent motion. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question on this issue will be put at decision time. Patrick Harvie, point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to raise a point of order relating to an exchange during topical questions today, and I raise it under standing order rule 7.3, in which it states that members shall conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. Dobble girl question 2 from Rora Grant was about the action that the Scottish Government is taking in response to the Cairngorn mountain limited entering administration. My colleague John Finnie was called to ask a supplementary. He made some very reasonably worded criticisms of the situation and the need for due diligence in the use of public funding, and Mr Ewing responded on behalf of the Government, rejecting those criticisms rather angrily. All fair enough, within the realms of debate, it's not unusual and certainly not out of order for the Greens to criticise Mr Ewing and for Mr Ewing to reject those criticisms. He's perfectly entitled to do so, but he then went on to say that he would keep what he called the main parties that support us in form of progress. That response and the very clear indication that my colleague John Finnie will not receive relevant updates on Government actions in this matter flies in the face of the expected relationship between Government and Parliament. Ministers are accountable to the whole Parliament, not only to those who support their policies and actions. In addition to showing respect to other members as individuals, I would argue that rule 7.3 requires that members should respect the relationship of accountability and the equal status of all MSPs. Parliament should not accept the idea that it is ministers' place to decide who they should be accountable to on the basis that they support the Government. Both the Scottish Parliament's publications and the ministerial code refer to the key principles of the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament. They cite out that power should be shared between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament should hold the Government to account. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that ministers keep the whole Parliament informed on matters such as this and don't feel able to pick and choose who they are, who they are held accountable by and who within this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Harvey, for the point of order and for an advance notice. I was in the chair for the exchange. I did notice the remarks and I did perhaps think that the minister was a little offhand in his treatment of Mr Finnie. However, it was not personally discourteous as very much as Mr Harvey recognised part of the robust political exchange that takes place in here. On the substantive point that he raised, the minister will have noted his comments. I assume that the minister will keep Parliament informed of developments just as he did today, and it is up to the member and any other member to ask questions of the Government if they wish to hold them to account. I thank the member for his point of order. We will move now, if we can, to decision time. The first question today is that motion 14984, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the report on petition PE1463, effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 14016.2, in the name of Morris Corry, which seeks to amend motion 15016, in the name of Graham Day, on a strategy for our veterans taking it forward in Scotland, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is the amendment 14150163. In the name of Mark Griffin, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Graham Day, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 15016.1, in the name of Mike Rumbles, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Graham Day, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 15016, in the name of Graham Day, as amended, on a strategy for our veterans taking it forward in Scotland, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 15017, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the counter-terrorism and border security bill UK legislation, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed on that. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15017, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is, yes, 100, no, 7. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. Thank you very much. That concludes the decision time. We are going to move now to members' business in the name of Daniel Johnson on a report on autistic children's experiences of school. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister and possibly those in the gallery to change seats. A few moments to change seats.