Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thought that I had changed identity for a moment, Presiding Officer.

It is a bitter irony that, as we debate the issue, men and women on both sides in Ukraine are dying and being injured in a conflict that is entirely manufactured. It is an invasion of a sovereign, independent nation in Europe by a bellicose and expansionist regime that is led by a paranoid megalomaniac, Vladimir Putin.

In my lifetime, we have sent troops to the Falklands, to Iraq twice and to Afghanistan. Each war is horrendous and destructive for generations. Today, with mobile phones providing instant, local reporting, we are there with the people and soldiers who are risking life and limb. It reminds us—if we needed reminding—of the cost of conflict.

Representing Penicuik, with the Glencorse barracks nearby, and the Borders, which has centuries of tradition of army service, I have long held an interest not only in where we send forces into conflict and why, but what happens on their return.

In my time in the Parliament since 1999, the MOD has gradually recognised its duty of care to troops not only on the front line but on their return and for years afterwards. That is perhaps exemplified most by the armed forces covenant—a statement of the moral obligation that exists between the UK, the UK Government and the armed forces. It was published in May 2011, and its core principles were enshrined in law for the first time in the Armed Forces Act 2011. I quote:

“we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or who have served in the armed forces, and their families, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy and society they serve with their lives.”

The 38 recommendations of the “Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan” for veterans are based on three key principles, but I will focus on one:

“Veterans will have equal access to mental health and wellbeing services, regardless of where they live”—

I note the reference to the postcode lottery in previous times. That access should focus

“on keeping veterans and their families well by providing support for the wider determinants of mental well health and wellbeing”,

with services provided

“as close to home as possible”.

In 2014, the Scottish Government appointed a Scottish veterans commissioner—as colleagues have said, the current commissioner is Charles Wallace, who had 35 years of Army service—to act as an ambassador for improvements in supporting veterans. Wales is announcing a commissioner this year. I am not aware of England announcing one, but I recommend that it does.

The Scottish veterans fund was initiated in 2008-09 and has received £1.7 million for more than 180 projects. Last year, the Scottish Government committed to increase the annual fund to £500,000 from 2022-23.

I will focus on the veterans employability strategic group, which has membership from the private sector for the first time. The Scottish Government is launching a public awareness campaign about it because, as the cabinet secretary said, health, a happy home, employment and helping families are interlinked.

I accept that many veterans return to civvies without any issues, but there are stresses in doing so. It is difficult to fit in with employment demands, although veterans’ skills are often transferable. The mental health transition and recovery plan, which was published in October 2020, had a specific commitment to identify

“prevention opportunities in relation to veterans at risk of suicide”,

which other speakers have referred to.

Locally, we have the veterans centre in Dalkeith, which serves my constituents in Midlothian south. It is located in the heart of Dalkeith town centre and is primarily designed as a drop-in centre, with no appointments being necessary—at least, that was the case pre-Covid. The aim is to advise and support former members of the armed forces, reservists and their families throughout Edinburgh and the Lothians through any disadvantage that they have post service. It has a small team of dedicated staff, who are readily available to tackle any challenges that present, however minor or complex. I understand that the centre has bacon roll mornings every Friday—I fancy going to one of those. They are extremely popular, with a great atmosphere, and are, naturally, well attended.

There is also the Veterans First Point in Galashiels, and I note that the cabinet secretary announced further funding for Veterans First Point initiatives. Veterans First Point provides support and advice for ex-forces personnel, their families and carers. The team includes veterans as peer support workers, as well as clinicians and therapists, who listen and help.

For years, we have been aware that, due to the disconnect when they leave the forces, and perhaps their experience of conflict, some veterans go into a downward spiral, with relationship break-ups, addictions, homelessness and even criminality.

We have not always treated our veterans well, even when they were still serving in the armed forces. In Iraq, from 2003 to 2008, they had poor equipment, the wrong shoes and the wrong vehicles. Sadly, it is also the case that, following the 1990-91 Gulf war, veterans had to fight for recognition of Gulf war syndrome. As my colleague Graeme Dey said, post-traumatic stress disorder manifests itself in many ways and over a long period of time.

Finally, I say this: we politicians—although perhaps not those in this chamber—are the people who send our armed forces into conflicts, mainly because we have failed. Therefore, we have a huge to duty to them once they have been discharged, whatever condition they are in when they are discharged.

Skyrora, a rocket launching company with a base in Midlothian, has Ukrainian employees here in Scotland but also has 44 employees in Dnipro in the east of Ukraine. It is asking what contingencies there will be for its employees. The cabinet secretary mentioned sponsorship. Does he consider that corporate sponsorship should be introduced by the UK, which would allow those employees and their families, if they so wish, to come to Scotland to be employed?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report by Andrew Webster QC into the handling by Scottish Borders Council of school assault allegations, in particular those relating to the abuse of vulnerable children in the Tweeddale support unit. (S6F-00842)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that Russia must be expelled as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? We must find a way for that to happen.

I am something of an insomniac and, as is typical, I woke up at 3 am this morning and turned my small bedside television on to News 24, so I saw minute by minute the developments at the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and I saw the invasion of and declaration of war on Ukraine by Putin.

I listened to the submissions by the Ukrainian representative—some were painful—as he heard about the attacks on his homeland. Something he said really caught my attention. He challenged the Russian representative to produce minutes of a meeting in 1991. I had no idea what he was talking about, but I looked into it.

As we know, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council—one of five, along with China, France, the UK and the US. The council is, ironically, a legacy of what happened post world war two. Any member can veto any substantive resolution, so we are stuck. Russia, along with the four other members, is charged with maintenance of international peace and security—not with disrupting it. Obviously, Russia cannot remain a member. My understanding is that it takes a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly to suspend or expel a country from the UN—but that is unlikely.

However, there is another avenue to explore. Russia was not always a permanent member of the Security Council—the Soviet Union was. Was it legal, therefore, for Russia simply to step into the shoes of the Soviet Union in 1991? It is an entirely different country, with different territorial boundaries—although Putin, in his political madness, obviously has plans for other surrounding countries.

There is a precedent. In 1971, under Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist Government, the Republic of China was replaced on the UN by the People’s Republic of China, which does not include Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan is still not a member of the UN. Under UN General Assembly resolution 2758, the General Assembly recognised the People’s Republic of China as the rightful representative of China in the UN and gave it the seat on the Security Council.

I am not an expert on international law, but I am not aware of any such resolution to recognise Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union, whose territory changed considerably.

That might seem to be dry legal stuff, but is that a route to expelling Russia from its permanent seat on the UN Security Council? That is a real test for the United Nations. The League of Nations failed. It is a test to see whether, with legalities, the UN can expel the disgraceful and atrocious behaviour of Putin from the UN Security Council.

The QC described the actions of the council as “reprehensible”. The parents’ voices were ignored for four years. There was an internal inquiry and the parents were told that it was done and dusted—nothing to see here, please move on. They had to press for a successful criminal prosecution and for the independent inquiry, which took four years.

I asked the parents what they wanted to ask the Scottish Government. This is it: will the First Minister consider making it mandatory that, when children are in the care of a local authority and issues of child protection arise, investigations are not in-house, because there is more than a whiff of a cover-up in this case?

Given the fact that, during those four years, many of the relevant officers have retired or been employed elsewhere—one has even promoted to chief executive of another council—disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant and, in fact, redundant. Will the Scottish Government therefore consider exploring extending the principle of corporate crime to councils and their officials?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I have only four minutes but, if you are going to say something interesting, I will take your intervention.

I beg your pardon. The member used the term “businesses” to describe dental practices. That is what I am reflecting on; it is not a criticism. We have a hybrid situation, where the NHS is contracting to provide services through professionals who also have to make profits, take on partners and run businesses. There is the same conflict in GP practices, and we must be frank about that and address it.

The minister addressed the fact that, if we add together everything that she said at the beginning of her speech, £112.5 million of public funding has already gone out to dentists. Finlay Carson talked about his constituency, which is in Dumfries and Galloway. Where the provision of dentists is insufficient, from 7 February, there has been an offer of £25,000 over two years for dentists to go into areas where there is a difficulty with retention, such as Kelso and Berwickshire—not my patch, but in the Borders—and parts of Dumfries and Galloway. That offer is subject to certain criteria around recruitment and retention. I accept that there is a difficulty, but the Government is endeavouring to address that.

In the real world, which I live in, we have fixed budgets. Every time I hear Conservative and Labour members call for funding, I ask myself, “Where is your money tree that neither I nor the Government have in our back gardens?” If, collectively, those parties want such things, they should say where the money is coming from and have it in their budgets.

This is a path that we are taking; we will not get there tomorrow, which is obvious from what the minister said.

Your headline news is very good for the tabloids. “Preventing the collapse of NHS dentistry in Scotland”—what a headline. [Interruption.] I will come to that in a minute.

Mr Gulhane made an interesting point. Although, along with other medical professions, dentists received a 3 per cent pay rise last year—in recognition of their efforts during the pandemic and in line with the recommendation of the independent United Kingdom review body on doctors and dentists remuneration—as Mr Gulhane reminded us, their practices are businesses, not services. That is not a criticism of dentists but a fact. They are in contracts with the NHS and there is a conflict—[Interruption.]

They are businesses, just as many general practices are. You used the term, Mr Gulhane.