Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I lost connectivity there; I would have voted no.

[Inaudible.]—the cabinet secretary’s comments about families and accessibility and how people can—

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I support the proposals that have been set out by Labour, as amended by the Scottish Government. The addition of the wording on empty homes and the importance of equitable distribution will add value to the Labour motion.

Although the cost of living crisis brings bad news for almost everyone, it is the people who are on low to middle incomes for whom it potentially poses an unmanageable challenge. It is predicted that the situation will get worse.

Inflation is now at a 40-year high, and the Office for National Statistics blames higher food prices—particularly the price of everyday staples including bread, cereal and meat—for the increase. Although higher earners might be able to absorb that cost, years of austerity and low income growth under Tory Governments have left the people who are on the lowest earnings with little to no room for manoeuvre.

The Resolution Foundation reported that disposable incomes of the people who have the lowest earnings increased by £3,456 between 2000 and 2020. However, income for the richest grew by £12,393.

The supermarket Asda commented today that some shoppers are setting £30 limits at checkouts and at petrol pumps. Customers are putting less in their baskets and are switching to budget ranges.

Although the doubling of the energy discount to £400 is not unwelcome, it falls short of mitigating price increases for those who are least able to afford their energy bills. Although owners of second homes will receive double payments, others are not eligible for any payments. I have been contacted by constituents who live on a park home estate. Due to their having no direct utility accounts, they will not receive any help with their energy bills. That concern has not been addressed, but the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen to spend only half of the £30 billion that he has at his disposal.

Over the past two years, the Scottish budget has fallen by 5.2 per cent, with another 1 per cent sustained until 2026. Despite that, the Scottish Government has made an investment of £770 million in cost of living support. The Scottish child payment doubled in April and will rise again by the end of the year. Together with the three best start grants and best start food, that will provide Scottish families with more than £10,000 by the time their first child turns six.

The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that the combined value of Scottish Government policies along with lower childcare costs reduces the net cost of bringing up a child by up to 31 per cent for low-income families, and provides much-needed relief.

Furthermore, to help to address the current cost of living pressures and to recognise the needs of families with pre-school-age children, SNP-run North Ayrshire Council has agreed to increase from £130 to £230 the scheduled summer child bridging payment. That is an additional one-off payment of £100 for families in my constituency and throughout North Ayrshire who are already entitled to free school meals and the child bridging payment.

There is no respite from the relentless rise in prices, with some people facing the terrifying reality of not being able to afford the basics. Increasing numbers of people are facing stark choices. Westminster holds most of the powers over what is needed to tackle the cost of living crisis. It is time that it flexed its fiscal powers and realised that lower-income households do not have the flexibility that higher-income households use in managing price increases.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I appreciated hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments on families, the importance of compassion and the steps that are being taken to increase accessibility.

Will the cabinet secretary update us on steps that are being taken to provide mental health support to people in prison, specifically with regard to suicide prevention?

It is a significant concern that Brexit continues to harm Scotland’s economy and is a persistent reminder of the on-going cost that Scotland is paying for Westminster mismanagement. Last week, the Scottish Government published an analysis paper that showed that the status quo is not allowing Scotland to fulfil our full potential, and that the UK economic model and Westminster decision making are holding us back. Can the minister say any more about how, with full control of economic powers, we would be better placed to realise Scotland’s full economic potential?

Will the cabinet secretary provide any further information about how measures to reduce the cost of the school day will be supported by investment presented in the resource spending review?

To ask the Scottish Government what its latest assessment is of the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s economy. (S6O-01260)

On “Brexit freedoms”, “getting Brexit done”, and “levelling up”, does the cabinet secretary feel the same frustrations that many of my constituents feel about the UK Government’s list of empty post-Brexit slogans, and is the Scottish Government dismayed, as I am, about the potential damage that will be done by such heavy-handed and sweeping legislation, despite its light title?

Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country. They are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a key legal document that defines a refugee as:

“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everybody is entitled to seek asylum.

Here, in the UK, we should reflect on how our involvement in various conflicts destabilised many of the regions and countries that folk are having to flee from, but that will need a whole other debate. Therefore, today, as we focus on refugees, let us simply ask ourselves this: if we were fleeing for our very lives, and with a right to seek asylum guaranteed under international law, how would we wish to be treated at the places where we sought sanctuary? If we or our families, friends or loved ones had cause to flee from our homes, towns or villages, taking only what we could carry and in fear for our lives, how would we want to be treated? Would we want to be shown compassion, care, decency and humanity? Would we expect to be able to work and contribute to our new community?

How we treat those who need our help defines who we are and what we value as individuals and as a society. We have a moral and legal obligation to provide refuge to our brothers and sisters who find themselves in that situation. However, the UK Government is abdicating responsibility for those moral and legal obligations through its planned offshoring of asylum processing. Priti Patel, Boris Johnson’s Home Secretary, has described the deal, which will cost at least £120 million in the next five years, as a “first-class policy”. The United Nations does not agree, and it stated in its analysis of the scheme that it is

“incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

The UN also raised a host of potential problems, including a shortage of interpreters in Rwanda, a risk of discrimination against LGBTQ people and a lack of capacity to process hundreds, if not thousands, of diverted asylum claims.

Officials said that there would be 130 people on the first flight to Kigali, but, after dozens of successful legal challenges, only seven asylum seekers were taken to the airbase. Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, told the media:

“I can’t say exactly how many people will be on the flight. But the really important thing is that we establish the principle.”

The principle of rich countries buying their way out of international obligations and trading in human misery by paying poorer countries to take vulnerable humans to somewhere where they might be at further risk of harm is not a principle that I share. I agree with the UN’s assessment that it is wrong. It is also expensive and ineffective in meeting the UK Government’s stated aims of preventing people from crossing the Channel.

As the minister pointed out in opening the debate, that can be done by providing safe routes and by removing the financial incentive for traffickers by disrupting the market for humans. In particular, in relation to women and girls who are trafficked for prostitution, it can be done with a robust justice response to men who purchase sex. The UK Government’s approach will not work. Even former hardline Prime Minister Theresa May of the “go home” vans is criticising the plan on the grounds of “legality, practicality and efficacy.”

I hope that Scottish Conservative colleagues in this chamber will be given cause for concern and do what they can by either speaking out or speaking privately and using whatever influence they have with their UK Government colleagues to change that inhumane and ineffective policy, which is shaming us all globally.

We could do so much better. As well as the simple democratic case for our nation restoring its independence, there are a myriad of specific policy reasons. A different approach to foreign policy and migration is one of those. With independence, and full power over migration policy, we can build an asylum and immigration system that is geared to meeting Scotland’s needs, which are different from those of the rest of the UK. For example, we need more working age people here.

We could have a system that is founded on fairness and human rights, which we have shown is possible with the Scottish social security system. An immigration system that fulfils our moral and legal obligations and that brings benefits to our nation is achievable for Scotland, but to achieve it we must have the full powers that only an independent nation has.

I welcome people who have sought refuge in Scotland over the years and recognise the contribution that those who have arrived here make to our culture and communities. Refugees are welcome here. Our country is richer for the diversity that you have brought—thank you.

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important topic to the chamber and highlighting the positive impact of men’s sheds. I also welcome the shedders who are in the gallery, and I congratulate Clare Prenton, Inspiring Life and the gentlemen of Peebles and District men’s shed, who collaborated to create and produce “Men Don’t Talk”.

According to the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association, there are 127 established men’s sheds in Scotland, three of which are in my constituency. They are Three Towns men’s shed, Irvine Harbourside men’s shed and Irvine Newtown men’s shed, which, in September 2019, along with Garnock Valley men’s shed, created the Ayrshire men’s shed network.

A man’s shed might conjure up the image of a lone man making or mending items by hand, content at the bottom of his garden, and away from the family, as Christine Grahame said. However, what we are talking about today is a wee bit different. Men’s sheds are about social connections, friendship building, sharing skills and knowledge, banter and, of course, a biscuit or two.

We all know that men’s health can be overlooked, with men being more predisposed to physical illness and injury, on top of being vastly more susceptible than women to mental health problems and suicide. It is often reported that men are less likely to access professional interventions. Men’s sheds raise awareness and encourage shedders to look after themselves and seek help when needed.

The Three Towns men’s shed, in conjunction with other organisations, co-ordinated a very successful men’s wellbeing event, which featured the Prostate Scotland virtual toolbox workshop to raise awareness of prostate disease.

The Scottish Shedder, the official free magazine of the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association, not only promotes news from men’s sheds across Scotland to showcase their successes, but includes a health section, which promotes topics from first aid to the benefits of physical activity and support services. It also includes personal stories from men on how becoming a member of their local shed helped to turn their lives around.

With an increase in online activities and the use of social media, one particular area of concern for men is social isolation and loneliness. As I am sure we can all understand, that was exacerbated during lockdown, when there were limited social interactions and community spaces were closed.

Organisations such as Age Scotland herald men’s sheds for offering opportunities to interact meaningfully with others. What is more, many sheds get involved in community projects such as restoring village features, helping to maintain parks and green spaces, and building things for schools, libraries and individuals in need.

At the end of last year, Irvine Harbourside men’s shed were made aware of a young apprentice joiner in the town who did not have any tools. It quickly stepped in to help by gifting a tool bag and basic toolkit to get him started. It also recently made planters and a bookshelf for the Puffer cafe at the Scottish Maritime Museum in Irvine.

The Three Towns men’s shed runs evening classes that provide basic do-it-yourself skills, camera skills and painting and decorating advice, which allow members to share their skill set with the wider community.

Irvine Newtown men’s shed turned pallets donated by a local business into fabulous benches, decorations and planters for the garden at Dreghorn library.

Men’s sheds are vital. They are community spaces for men to connect, converse and create. They help reduce loneliness and isolation and take into consideration differing male behaviours and the attitudes towards men’s physical and mental health. More importantly, they are fun and I wish them all the best.