Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I will bring Clare McKinlay in to speak to the detail of that.

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.

I will bring in Clare McKinlay to respond to that.

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.

I think that what you are alluding to, Mr Stewart, is the patchy nature of what is offered.

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.

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 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.

Good morning. The order that is before us today responds to a European convention on human rights compliance issue that has been identified in relation to voting rights for Scottish Parliament elections.

Section 3A(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits some people who have been detained on mental health grounds related to criminal justice from voting in elections in the United Kingdom. This is a blanket ban that is similar to the one that used to be in place for prisoner voting. The Scottish Government considers that the changes made by this order are required for convention compliance ahead of the election on 7 May 2026.

The order makes minor changes to maintain consistency with the exceptions made for prisoner voting in 2020. A person who has been detained on a mental health ground but sentenced to 12 months or less will be able to vote. A person who has been charged or convicted of criminal conduct but has received a mental health detention rather than a prison sentence will be able to vote only if the maximum sentence or sentences possible would have amounted to 12 months or less.

A further category that has been granted voting rights is that of persons who are subject to a temporary compulsion order. For these people, there has not yet been any finding of fact as to the alleged conduct in their case. They are therefore in a similar situation to remand prisoners, who are currently able to vote in all UK elections. Similarly, persons who are subject to guardianship orders retain the right to vote, as these orders do not permit detention.

The order came into force on 19 November last year but applies only to elections between 7 May 2026 and 28 February 2030. This is intended to ensure that affected people can vote in the Scottish Parliament election and subsequent by-elections, and also that a full consultation can be held on the matter, with the next Parliament considering a permanent change to the law.

Although I will not be returning as Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans after the election, members will recall that I wrote to the committee on 30 January, highlighting a number of proposed topics for a public consultation on electoral reform ahead of future possible legislation.

In summary, the order makes limited changes that are considered necessary for ECHR compliance ahead of May’s election. It is subject to a sunset clause, as it is considered that the next Parliament should reach a settled view on the law in this area.

I am happy to take any questions.