Chamber and committees

By seeking to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, the UK Government is putting the economic wellbeing of the north of Ireland behind its desire to impose its Brexit-infused British ideology on people. Such unilateral action also damages trust in politics. As the First Minister has said, we know that Brexit is already damaging Scottish businesses. Indeed, some in the north-east, in my region, have decided to stop all international business due to Brexit.

What can we do to ensure that any actions by the EU in response to the UK Government’s riding roughshod over international treaties does not further damage Scotland’s economy? Does the First Minister agree that independence for Scotland is now very clearly the best route to securing our country’s position as an outward-looking and internationally responsible European nation?

I thank Christine Grahame for lodging her motion and securing the debate.

The patriarchy does not hurt only women. The myth of masculinity, which a 2013 study of men’s sheds described as

“physical dominance, emotional control and achievement through paid work”

completely fails to respect or acknowledge the reality of men’s lives, emotions, relationships, needs and experiences. It is perhaps no coincidence that the men’s shed movement originated in Australia, a repository of so many patriarchal fantasies, or that it has taken such root in Scotland, where we are, I hope, beginning to recognise that all of us, regardless of gender, can talk, feel and cry.

As a member for the North East region, I am fortunate to represent the members of many wonderful men’s sheds. We have men’s and community sheds in our cities, from Lochee in Dundee to Bridge of Don in Aberdeen; in towns across Aberdeenshire and Angus, from Banchory to Brechin and from Fraserburgh to Forfar and in many village and rural communities. Some, such as the Carse of Gowrie men’s shed, which meets in Dundee’s technology park, bring the city and countryside together.

Whatever their setting, men’s sheds fulfil the same core functions, providing a place for people to meet and talk, to share skills, projects and ideas and to be active in the company of others. Some, such as the Westhill shed, host talks by experts in local history and health issues, while the one in Inverurie has a music group. The connections between activity, social relationships and good physical and mental health are well established, and men’s sheds play a vital role in supporting their members’ wellbeing, in body, mind and spirit.

Men’s sheds benefit more than their own members. They provide huge benefits to their local communities, as analysed by the Gable Endies men’s shed in Montrose, and to the wider world. Many of the concepts that we discuss in this Parliament and the changes that we want to see happen are already being dealt with quietly, practically and wisely by men’s sheds.

Reuse, repair and recycle is not just an aspiration for the men’s sheds of the North East, it is a daily reality. Across the region, tools, machines and furniture are rescued, refurbished and returned to active use and love. Peterhead men’s shed even refits boats, while the one at Ferryhill is linked with the Railway Heritage Trust.

Men’s sheds meet community needs in immediate and practical ways. In Turiff, they built children’s picnic tables and Banff and Macduff built a mud kitchen, both for local primary schools. That positive relationship with local schools is replicated in many communities through teaching and doing woodworking, gardening and more.

Men’s sheds have long addressed the crises of food insecurity and poverty. Ellon men’s shed, like many others, has a polytunnel and raised beds, while Alford produces vegetable and herb plants for sale. Men’s sheds can address global needs too: in Broughty Ferry hand tools are collected, refurbished and shipped to Malawi, where they are a vital resource for communities. It is inspiring.

As we have heard, men’s sheds themselves face challenges, both institutionally and to their individual members. The Covid pandemic has had a deeply damaging effect on capacity, with many still waiting to resume their previous projects. Health issues, both physical and mental, the cost of living crisis and growing pension poverty limit many men’s engagement with their local sheds. There are also challenges of inclusion, while some communities that could benefit from men’s sheds are yet to be reached.

In reflecting on the wonderful achievements of men’s sheds in the North East, across Scotland and the world, we should ask ourselves how we can do more. How can the decisions that we make in this Parliament, the priorities that we decide upon and the messages that we send support and extend the vital work of men’s sheds, now and into the future? I look forward to continuing the discussion.

The Edinburgh low emission zone was introduced by the City of Edinburgh Council in May 2022. Those who travel to the Parliament go through the LEZ. The objectives of the LEZ are cleaner air, healthier people and active travel options.

The Scottish Parliament has a sustainable travel plan, which encourages active travel and lower carbon emissions from commuter, business and visitor travel to the Scottish Parliament building. Walking, cycling and public transport are all encouraged, and over 80 per cent of regular building users use one of those as their main mode of transport. We provide secure bike storage and changing facilities, interest-free bike loans, including for electric bikes, and bike maintenance facilities. We have plans in place to encourage more car sharing instead of individual journeys. We are also investing in electric charging points in our car park; we have 16 currently, and have plans to increase that number.

Parliament already provides a few mobile-friendly applications and services to support members in their roles and to support parliamentary business. Examples of those services include the questions and motions mobile application, which allows members to raise questions and to raise and support motions at any time and from any location on any device with a browser and an internet connection.

In addition, the digital voting application was developed and delivered, along with other aspects of the hybrid Parliament, in response to the pandemic to ensure that members could continue to participate in parliamentary business, using mobile devices from wherever they had internet access.

Officials are in the early stages of work to understand how we can improve the digital delivery of information and services to members, and input from members has been, and will continue to be, sought to ensure that that work is a success.

I begin by thanking the miners, family members and friends who spoke so movingly to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee as we scrutinised the bill, and I welcome many of those miners and their friends and colleagues to the chamber. To them, I say that I appreciate that, today, we might not have delivered all that you hoped for, but please know that we have heard you, and I know that I am not alone in believing that our work on this is not yet complete.

I thank my fellow committee members and other MSPs for the discussions and debates that we have had at committee and this afternoon, and I thank the clerks, researchers and bill team, who have supported our work.

As Alex Rowley said, this is a good day. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill and the pardon that it confers. I wish that that pardon had happened decades ago. I wish, too, that it covered the whole of the UK and not just Scotland.

The miners strike defined a generation. The injustice that was inflicted on the miners was shameful. It was an ideologically driven attack by a Tory Government that cared more about breaking the trade union movement than it did about the rights and wellbeing of the people and communities that it was supposed to represent. For the workers and communities that were caught up in the dispute, it was a devastating era of violence, betrayal and division. Local police officers found themselves facing down family and friends, creating wounds that, in some cases, never healed.

The bill matters because it acknowledges the past and the harm that has been done—some of it deliberate and some inadvertent, careless or callous, poisoned by a toxic and persistent ideology. We do not have to be personally or institutionally culpable to share, as a society, a common responsibility to address that harm.

Through discussing the bill, we are also reminded of the importance of trade union solidarity. Trade unions exist to protect their workers. Rightly, they will protect jobs and terms and conditions whenever they can. We must allow that right to be exercised without fear of violence.

I will say a few words about some of the amendments that were not agreed to today. As I said a few moments ago, our work on this issue is not yet finished. The 16 people whom Richard Leonard spoke about and who were convicted under section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 should be pardoned, and I await with interest the reply to the cabinet secretary’s letter, which seeks a robust mechanism for doing just that.

Similarly, the Scottish Greens believe in the principle of financial redress for those who lost earnings, jobs, future employment prospects or pensions as a consequence of participating in the miners strike. We also think that there should be an inquiry to examine the allegations that were made at the time, and repeated at committee, of political interference in police operations and allegations of collusion between the National Coal Board and different parts of the justice system.

Pursuing those measures will be complex and time consuming. If we sought to include them in the bill that is before us, we would delay, perhaps by years, the passing of the pardon. However, we give our commitment to work with the Scottish Government and others to pursue those measures.

Today, therefore, we acknowledge the past, the harm that was done to individuals and communities, and the on-going injustices and inequalities that continue in the former mining communities across Scotland. Although we welcome the collective and posthumous pardon that the bill offers, we must, as we remember and look back on the events and actions that made the bill necessary, learn from the mistakes that were made, and pledge never to repeat them.

That links to the point that you have made a few times about visions for places and ensuring that people who live, work, study and play in places are involved in generating a vision for them.

We heard about a couple of challenges with that. One of them is the lack of expertise and capacity, to which a potential solution would be to have a central resource of expertise and support that could be mobilised to different parts of the country at different times to support communities to develop. There have been discussions about that; I am not sure that proceeding with it is the settled view of the committee, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on it.

One of the other challenges we have heard about, which is linked to that, is that when funding is available for visioning projects it is often short term. Where funding has been successful, projects have been given a pot of money without the provider knowing what the end product will be. On such projects there is trust and the community is given freedom to run with them—sometimes they do so for 10 years. That would be a marked shift in how we support community visioning projects. What is your perspective on that?

Good morning, Tom, and thank you for being here and for what you have said so far.

I want to explore a couple of areas, the first of which is community engagement. In your opening remarks, you said that you see town centres as being at the heart of decision making. What do you mean by that? How can we make it happen?

Thank you for that. You have talked about engaging with the community, but how we define the community matters. There will be competing and conflicting definitions or qualifying criteria, in that respect.

One of the things that we have heard about is a potential lack of capacity in some areas to ensure community engagement and direct community involvement in planning and, indeed, democracy. The situation varies considerably across Scotland. What possibilities for supporting capacity building in, say, community councils or development trusts can the committee think about? Are there different ways of bringing people in? How do we ensure that we engage with the community as a whole, and not just with those who have vested interests, loud voices or deep pockets?

Thank you; that was helpful. There is a tension between financial support and other support for capital projects, as you mentioned. There is also something about financing and supporting the process of determining projects in the first place, which is often where there are gaps or weaknesses. I will leave it there for now.

The north-east has a significant number of military veterans, including disabled veterans, but does not have an adequate supply of accessible housing. I thank the minister for the detail that she has already provided in previous answers, but what steps can we take to ensure that there is a supply of accessible social housing that is proportionate to the needs of the whole community, and in particular the needs of veterans in geographical hotspots?