Official Report 491KB pdf
09:00
The next item of business is an oral evidence session on legislative consent memorandum LCM-S6-73. The LCM has been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces Bill. Members will wish to note that the Scottish Government is recommending consent to the provisions noted in the memorandum and that discussions are on-going in relation to other provisions in the bill, which I understand might be the subject of a legislative consent motion in the next parliamentary session.
I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, Graeme Dey, and officials from the Scottish Government: Will Dunn from the veterans unit and Clare McKinlay who is a solicitor in the legal directorate. I invite the minister to make some brief opening remarks on the LCM.
Good morning and thank you for inviting me along to discuss the UK Armed Forces Bill and the associated legislative consent memorandum.
As you will be aware, the Armed Forces Bill 2026 was introduced to the House of Commons on Thursday 15 January. The main purpose of the bill is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, which must be renewed every five years and was last renewed in 2021. There has been extensive engagement on the bill between officials and the UK Minister for the Armed Forces in particular, and I acknowledge and welcome that.
The majority of the bill’s provisions have been assessed as relating to reserved matters, but it has been agreed that one substantive measure in the bill engages the LCM process, which is the extension of the
“duty to have due regard”
to the principles of the armed forces covenant to central Government, including the functions of Scottish ministers, and the expansion of the duty to cover a significantly increased number of policy areas. Those areas will include
“childcare; education and training; employment; health and social care; housing; social security benefits; personal taxation; criminal justice; transport; pensions; immigration and citizenship;”
along with
“armed forces compensation.”
The expansion of the covenant duty accordingly has the potential to impact on a wide range of Scottish Government policy areas. However, the Scottish Government has always been highly supportive of the aims of the armed forces covenant since its introduction in 2011. The principles of the covenant—that service personnel, veterans and their families should suffer no disadvantage in accessing support or services as a result of their military service—already underpin our veterans strategy and our support for the armed forces community more widely.
We welcome the extension of the covenant duty and the opportunity that it represents to ensure greater awareness of and consistency of support for our armed forces community. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has therefore recommended that we consent to the bill as introduced in full.
Thank you, minister. I will kick off with the first question. What will change as a result of the new duty that the bill places on the Scottish ministers?
There is a wider aspect to the question, which is what will be improved in the experience of the armed forces community and their families as a result of the new duty.
I think that the new duty will focus minds among public bodies about the need to have regard to the covenant and will help some members of the armed forces and veterans community to understand what the covenant does and does not do, because there is a misunderstanding among some that it provides for advantage rather than no disadvantage.
In the context of the Scottish Government, the new duty will, in reality, make little difference. I am more than content with our approach to dealing with the armed forces community and veterans, but it is helpful that there is now something that reminds everyone of the need to engage in the process and ensure that that community is not disadvantaged as a result of their service.
Thank you for that reassuring response.
Good morning, minister. I welcome what you have just said, but I have a couple of questions. I am happy for responses to be relatively brief and perhaps followed up in correspondence.
First, I am pleased that a committee will scrutinise these matters on an on-going basis. That has been slightly lacking in the Parliament, so if the successor committee can follow through on how Scotland is delivering for veterans, that would be a positive thing more generally. The minister has embraced the additional duties placed on the Government, and there is nothing to fear.
My substantive question is about education and training, which, to me, are a shared space. If an armed forces veteran has given 15 or 20 years of their life to the military, the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government have a duty and responsibility to manage their transition back into civilian life in a dignified, respectful and meaningful way. I have not looked in detail at how well they do or do not do that, but what about the UK Government and UK military saying that education and training are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that it is for the Scottish Parliament to have due regard to that, because they have done their bit? I am sure that that is not the nature of the discussions, but what reassurance can you give that there will be dialogue to ensure that that shared space for veterans is suitably resourced, not just by the Scottish Government but, on an on-going basis, by the UK Government?
To deal with your first point, I, too, welcome the fact that that scrutiny will be in place. It has been a bugbear for some people in Parliament that there has not been that necessary interaction with veterans in the support that committees provide. That scrutiny will be helpful. I say that, but I am leaving Parliament in two weeks’ time.
Mr Doris touches on an important point. If we are honest, the transition experience of a lot of our military has been quite poor, but it has been improving. The UK Government has got better at the support that it provides to people who are transitioning out of the military, but it could always be better; so, too, could our offering. When I was last in this role, we did a substantial piece of work on translating military qualifications into civilian qualifications. The military qualifications in the UK military are based on the English education system, so the read-across for employers was not always what it could have been. Extensive work has been done in that space. There are good examples of engagement by our colleges and universities, but I readily acknowledge that there is more work to be done.
If the refresh of the covenant assists that, all to the good, but, above and beyond that, we have ground to make up collectively here. It cannot just be about ensuring that, when someone leaves the military, they have a job to go to. That job should maximise and tap into the talents that they have acquired. Unfortunately, we have gone through a period in which, all too often, people who are leaving the Army have not entirely understood the skill set that they have developed. It is important that the MOD and the military ensure that that is done at their end, before people transition out. We need to do more to raise awareness of the opportunities that are being provided. Over the past few years, the Scottish Government, as an employer, has become much more active in recruiting from the military. We do not do that out of altruism; we do it because we are recruiting a skilled and motivated workforce. I repeat that we could always do better, and I hope that my successor as veterans minister will continue that work.
I find that encouraging. I just want to put on record—with brevity, I promise, convener—the fact that I have spoken in recent months to two veterans who have corresponded with the minister on this issue. It has been a long time since they served in the armed forces, but one of them made the point that, when they joined, Glasgow City Council still had council housing, and promises were made about housing and accommodation. Housing stock transfer then occurred, and those promises could not be fulfilled. Therefore, I think that this duty on public bodies in Scotland could have a real impact on proper quality service design and delivery for veterans.
Another veteran said to me the other day—and I am not making any case for or against this—that they felt as if there were something symbolic about how Scotland was supporting veterans. They said that, for example, some bus companies were rolling out free bus travel for veterans. Could that sort of thing not be extended across the country in some structured way by the Government?
I will just leave that sitting there, minister. You do not need to respond, but my constituents are saying these things to me and I had the opportunity this morning to put their comments on the record.
I just want to respond briefly, if I may. On housing, there are some very good examples across Scotland of local authorities having a relationship with the veterans community, and it would be recognised by them as such. However, I agree that it can be patchy, and I think that this will help focus minds. I should also say that some housing associations have a very good track record in this space.
On your latter point, I am less interested in symbolism and more interested in delivery. Although it might be symbolic to do certain things, this has to be about improving the lived experience of our veterans community across Scotland. Let me give you a brief example: the veterans railcard is a very good thing, but I have had conversations with the UK Government about the restrictions on it. In some regards, it is more effective for veterans living in Scotland who are over a certain age to access the senior railcard, because they will get more of a return on it. I hope that this piece of work will be developed with the UK Government to ensure that we maximise the provision in the veterans railcard.
That was really helpful. I should say that the veterans who spoke to me about the bus pass made the point that they could use it to meet up with colleagues who were now dispersed across Scotland and beyond and keep up those connections from their armed forces days. However, I agree with everything that you have said.
Good morning, minister. Like many, I welcome the progress that is being made here, and I acknowledge that the bill will focus minds, something that will be vital in this process. Under the legislation, local authorities and health boards will have to have due regard to what happens with reference to the armed forces covenant in a wide range of their public functions, and I believe that it is a good thing for us to ensure that that happens. However, can you explain why legislative consent will not be required for that?
I will bring in Clare McKinlay to respond to that.
The armed forces covenant already applies to certain functions of local authorities and health bodies in Scotland, so the bill will not change that. This legislative consent motion relates only to the extension of the same duty to the functions of the Scottish ministers with regard to the wider range of policy areas that are now included within Government. It is just an expansion of the duty.
I think that what you are alluding to, Mr Stewart, is the patchy nature of what is offered.
Yes.
We have local authority armed forces and veterans champions as well as national health service champions. There are some excellent local authority champions; indeed, I think that you will be aware of Chris Ahern from Perth and Kinross Council, which you served on. He is first class.
However, for local authority champions, what sometimes gets in the way is a lack of officer support, or perhaps a lack of training to allow them to understand their role as veterans champions. Along with the champions network, we have been trying to address some of that and to raise awareness, and the publicity around the refresh of the armed forces covenant will help in that regard, too. However, we are keen to work with those representatives at local authority level in order to enhance their status, and to encourage the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the local authorities themselves to put resource behind them so that they can champion, self-evidently, the cause of our veterans community, our armed forces community and their families.
Thank you.
09:15
I am pleased that the LCM is before the committee this morning and that there is a recommendation to approve it.
I have a question about clause 6 and schedule 3. I understand that there are still on-going discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments about whether legislative consent is required on clause 6. Clause 6 and schedule 3 would make changes to the service justice system in relation to prosecuting domestic abuse. We are coming to the end of the session. Can we expect the outcome of those discussions soon, or is there an update on how they are going?
I will bring Clare McKinlay in to speak to the detail of that.
During the past few days, we have had further engagement at official level with the Ministry of Defence, and it has been agreed that the legislative consent process does not extend to clause 6 and that little part of schedule 3 simply because of the reserved nature of the provision.
That is symptomatic of the good working that has been going on at both official and ministerial level. There has been a very collaborative approach.
I meet monthly with Al Carns from the UK Government, who is my ministerial counterpart, and we are both committed not only to getting this right but to ironing out any problems. I know that committees and the Parliament get frustrated when supplementary LCMs are required, and sometimes that is unavoidable, but we are working very hard to get this right first time.
That concludes our questions. Is the committee content to recommend to the Parliament that consent should be given for the relevant provisions covered by LCM-S6-73?
Members indicated agreement.
Convener, before we move on, given that this may be the last time that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans will be in front of us—and considering the Herculean challenges that he has had during the past few weeks in trying to make Parliament deliver on all the legislation that is still to be disposed of—I put on record my thanks to the minister for all his efforts in the Parliament, not only in the short term but during the longer term.
I echo that. On behalf of the committee, I wish the minister good luck in the future.
Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to draft a report to the Parliament on the LCM?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, minister, and your officials as well. We will have a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.
09:17
Meeting suspended.
09:19
On resuming—
Air adhart
Adult Disability Payment