Well, let me just fill the detail out in terms of the process here. The Member is right to suggest that we will be supporting their amended motion subject to that, but, when we asked the armed forces—. This isn’t my decision, as Mark Isherwood alluded to when he said it wasn’t his decision; it was somebody else asking for this. Let me just explain about why we’ve got the evidence to suggest that the commission is probably not the right place to do that now. We had the armed forces expert group, and we meet them on several occasions through the year. It was agreed that the expert group should meet with officials and the Royal British Legion, and they would visit the Scottish Veterans Commissioner and other stakeholders to discuss his role and assess any lessons learned, and come back to the expert group and giving me advice on that. The findings were shared with all of the expert group, and it was agreed that it was early days to gain any real benefit from the work the Scottish Veterans Commissioner was undertaking, and the group would continue to have a watching brief over this to secure best practice across the country and beyond. I’m happy for that to continue, and if it merges into a space where recommendations come forward to suggest we should have a commissioner, I’m open to that proposal, but, at this moment in time, there is nothing other than evidence to suggest Scotland has one and that it makes for a better situation than we have here in Wales. So, I would resist the principle, but that’s why we’ve accepted in principle the motion, because we’re not ruling it out completely. That’s exactly what I think Bethan Jenkins was saying—we’re not convinced by the argument to have one at this moment in time.

Our work with veterans is based on continual contact and dialogue with veterans and charities and organisations that provide services for the armed forces community, and I do not believe that a new needs assessment procedure would improve services again in practice. You alluded to things that happen in Scotland or in England. We have some practices that happen here in Wales that don’t happen anywhere else in the UK. Indeed, the issue of the NHS support that we have in each of the health boards—that’s not available in any other part of the country, but is very specific to Wales.

The expert group, with its diverse membership, plays an invaluable role. Together, we determine our future priorities and how we can collaborate to deliver these for the future. I mentioned yesterday our new document called the ‘Welcome to Wales’ programme, tailored specifically for serving personnel and families, it provides information on where to access services and support. We know, as Members suggested today in the Chamber, that housing is one of the biggest challenges we face for veterans and their families. In consultation with our key partners, we have developed a housing referral pathway, helping veterans and their families to make an informed choice on the option that suits their needs.

Another programme that we are very proud of in Wales is providing £50,000 to the Headquarters 160th Infantry brigade and Headquarters Wales, delivering the armed forces employability pathway and again taking steps to help young people turn their lives around using the army plus situation, where we can gain benefits from their knowledge and support a confidence-building process. The Veterans NHS Wales programme, again, is the only one of its kind in the UK. We should celebrate the things that we are doing well here in Wales and not be negative in our contributions all of the time. We’re providing £585,000 a year to maintain that, but I recognise that is under pressure and we have to do more. Ideally, I believe that the armed forces should have a stake in this. As Members contributed today, when you leave the armed forces it shouldn’t be a case of just waving goodbye; there should be a pathway of support from the armed forces, from the Ministry of Defence in the UK for serving and non-serving personnel.

Can I pick up very briefly on some of the points that were raised by Members? Mark Isherwood asked me about the Royal British Legion’s Count Them In campaign. For very serious reasons, we resisted support for that in July this year, on the basis of security advice, because of the issues that Andrew R.T. Davies raised about the fact that some people just don’t want the information of being ex-service personnel in the public domain. We are content with that advice that we’ve received back from the security services, to protect the individuals who don’t want that position and we are supporting the British legion’s campaign and I’ve written to them to explain that process. So, I’m hopeful that the Member will be supportive of that.

Again, it is a regular occurrence—12 months to the day—to have the debate tabled again by the opposition. Again, we generally have two debates in the same week around this. I think it’s an important one; a landmark annual event that places on record our support, as Members, and that of this institution, to represent and respect the people who fought in many wars and conflicts to protect the society that we have today, and I’m very grateful for the opportunity to respond.