���˿���

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, June 19, 2025

Official Report 1093KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

Good afternoon. The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.

---

MSP Staff (Parental Leave)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the response to question S6O-04050, what the findings were of the review of the terms and conditions of staff employed by ���˿���, particularly in relation to parental leave policies. (S6O-04832)

I thank Mr Ruskell for his question—and I apologise to Christine Grahame, whose stick I have just knocked off its plinth. I also thank Mr Ruskell for his continuing interest in the matter. Although there has been a delay—I acknowledge that—to the anticipated timescale for considering the matter, the corporate body remains committed to carrying out a review of terms and conditions for members’ staff. We will consider the matter during the course of this year.

Although I cannot give any commitments on the outcomes of the review, after we have considered them, the corporate body undertakes to ensure that members and their staff are provided with a full update as soon as possible. Any changes that the SPCB may agree will be implemented in time for the commencement of the next session of Parliament.

I thank the member for the confirmation that work is under way.

I attended the dad strike that took place outside Parliament last week. It was a great event that brought together families from across Scotland who are concerned about the lack of parental leave policies—particularly paternity leave policies—more widely in society. I talked to them about the arrangements in Parliament and the fact that, as ���˿���, we have provision in our budgets to enable fathers and non-birthing partners to take only two weeks of paternity leave or partner leave. I felt a bit embarrassed about that because although I know that the law says two weeks, I think that public institutions such as the Parliament can and should go a lot further than that. I reflect on my own experiences of having only two weeks after the birth of my two sons, and it is just not enough.

This is the time for the Parliament to lead corporately on the issue and to show leadership. I accept the member’s point that the intention and hope is to have something more all-encompassing in place by the start of the next parliamentary session, but I reiterate that it would be really good for members to have a bit more certainty and an update on that. This is a fantastic place for people to work, but it could be a wee bit better if we had—

Thank you. I call Jackson Carlaw.

That is a perfectly reasonable request from Mr Ruskell. The corporate body would not want to prejudge the outcome of our discussions, but I think that we understand that our provision is not as generous as that for our Westminster and Senedd colleagues.

I confirm that we will be considering the terms and conditions of staff who are employed by comparator employers, including other Parliaments. We will also consider the cost and productivity implications of increasing leave entitlements under the minimum terms and conditions.

It is open to ���˿���, where budget allows, to offer any enhanced leave that they choose to offer from within their provision. However, I recognise that that is not the ideal route by which these matters should be addressed. We hope to come back to Parliament on the issue in due course.

I thank Jackson Carlaw for the answer to the primary question, and in particular for his mention of on-going consideration, which makes me hopeful.

This Parliament very much values itself as a family-friendly Parliament. However, we have a dichotomy, in the sense that we have parliamentary staff as well as the MSP staff that we are speaking about today. Looking specifically at MSP staff, can Jackson Carlaw say anything about the challenges that can be caused by shared parental leave when a partner is nominated to receive up to 50 weeks of displaced leave? Members can face challenges when staff make such requests.

Another benefit in relation to maternity, paternity and adoption leave is that members’ staff can take shared parental leave and receive shared parental pay. Shared parental leave enables a member of staff and their partner, as co-parents, to share leave and pay entitlements that are otherwise available to the birth mother under the maternity policy. When shared parental leave is applied for, the mother or primary carer of a child can convert up to 50 weeks—as Mr Whitfield suggests—of their 52-week maternity or adoption leave entitlement to shared parental leave, which they can share with their partner. That enables fathers or primary carers to take extended leave to care for their child. That is a separate provision, over and above that to which Mr Ruskell alluded, which the corporate body will also look at.

However, the corporate body tries to ensure that, in the round, we are a family-friendly Parliament and that we have policies that reflect that.

---

Parliament Facilities (Interim Policy)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what responses have been received from LGBTQ+ staff or organisations that it has consulted with, or been contacted by, since the announcement of its interim policy on Parliament facilities, following the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling. (S6O-04833)

The corporate body has received correspondence from five organisations and individuals since it implemented its interim stance on facilities at Holyrood to fulfil its legal responsibilities as an employer, workplace provider, service provider and public authority.

The member will be aware of letters made public by the Good Law Project and Scottish Trans, which is part of the Equality Network. Otherwise, SPCB officials have responded directly to organisations but have respected the confidentiality of that correspondence.

In previous discussions in the chamber and in a letter to me, the corporate body has said that it has been and remains committed to providing an inclusive environment. The letter says:

“The SPCB’s intention is that everyone should feel welcome and included at Holyrood”.

However, the letter from the Equality Network and Scottish Trans, which Jackson Carlaw referred to, demonstrates that the opposite is the case. It says:

“this change will make trans people feel significantly less welcome at Parliament”.

It goes on to say:

“We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring ‘confidence, privacy and dignity’ to everyone. It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.”

I am also aware that the response to colleagues in the staff union representing staff in the Scottish Green parliamentary group has not addressed the substantive points that the union raised. The union says that the response did not address the lack of initial consultation, the specific negative impacts on trans staff members or gender non-conforming people and the violation of privacy and dignity; nor did it address the criticism of the equality impact assessment and other points.

Given that—

Can we get to the question, Mr Harvie? You are well over your allotted time.

Yes, indeed.

Given that the corporate body is now well aware that it has not achieved its intention of an inclusive workplace, surely it is time for it to think again and rescind that unclear and unfair interim position until a full position can be consulted on properly.

I will make two points. First, it is important to state that the corporate body is not a committee of the Parliament. In committees of the Parliament and in the parliamentary chamber, politicians are able to debate the rights and wrongs of any ruling that is made by the Supreme Court or any other organisation. However, the corporate body is an executive body with legal responsibilities and the personal liability of the members who sit on it. Even though we are politicians, our job is not to debate the politics of an issue, but to ensure that we are implementing the law as the law is communicated to us.

Having said that, we recognise that the interim stance to fulfil those legal responsibilities is a change. Let me acknowledge on behalf of the SPCB that, for some, that has proved both upsetting and a cause for anxiety and concern for their own wellbeing. With that in mind, managers were asked to immediately engage with their teams to discuss the interim stance, identify any concerns about its impact and support individuals who might be personally affected. It is an on-going process, and our commitment to the wider wellbeing of our staff is embedded in a number of our policies and our management approach.

I understand that the SPCB’s response to the Supreme Court ruling has been discussed at recent partnership group meetings, and I am sure that trade union side colleagues will continue to use that forum to raise anything further that they consider would be appropriate for the SPCB to do to support its staff.

This morning, the corporate body signed off the next phase of work looking at how to improve inclusivity for all those with protected characteristics working at and visiting Holyrood. We will engage Holyrood passholders and external organisations representing those with specific protected characteristics as part of that work. That will inform any further changes and will take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission statutory code, once it is finalised later this year.

I thank Jackson Carlaw for his clarity in responding to the original question. It might be helpful for us to understand why the SPCB took the decision to introduce changes now, rather than wait for the EHRC’s statutory guidance.

As I said a moment ago, notwithstanding the fact that we are politicians who are elected by the chamber to represent the interests of Parliament and colleagues, it is the corporate body’s responsibility to fulfil its legal obligations as an employer, service provider and workplace provider, and as an organisation that is subject to the public sector equality duty.

Recognising that the Supreme Court’s judgment had immediate legal effect—which I understand was confirmed again to members in a briefing this morning—officials took urgent steps following its publication to review the judgment in detail and consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood. That is in line with the EHRC’s statement that

“Those with duties under the Equality Act must comply with the law and should be urgently reviewing what changes need to be made to their existing policies and practices.”

It is for others to determine how they address their own responsibilities.

Let us be clear—we are talking about the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The law is the law, and nobody is above it. This morning, the EHRC was on a call to ���˿��� and stated very clearly that public bodies should comply with the law now. Sex Matters has warned that it will come after organisations that refuse to follow the ruling, which will, once again, leave taxpayers footing the bill. Will the Parliament therefore commit to following and implementing the interim update that was issued by the EHRC on the protection of single-sex spaces?

How other organisations respond is up to them, but it is the responsibility of the corporate body to implement the law and the advice that we receive. That is the corporate body’s duty. I have said, of course, that it is an interim position, that a consultation is taking place and that we remain committed to inclusivity. That is the primary objective of the work that we are doing.

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to everybody present for my unacceptable lateness.

Following the SPCB’s announcement regarding the interim position on the Supreme Court ruling, the executive committee of the Public and Commercial Services Union’s Scottish Parliament branch expressed its concerns about what it said was a complete lack of consultation with the recognised trade unions. The SPCB claims that it is consulting the unions, but I am told that that is categorically untrue and that the trade unions have not been consulted on the interim position. When will meaningful consultation take place with the trade unions on that position?

Our obligation was to implement the ruling, based on the legal advice that we received. As I said, we have today signed off the next phase of consultation by the corporate body. We announced the interim stance and agreed to conduct a consultation. Together with officials, the corporate body has been considering its approach to that consultation and, earlier today, we agreed the next steps.

Various activities were already under way to review our facilities and policies to better support people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Those various workstreams, including the consultation, will now come together under the inclusive Parliament review. We will engage Holyrood passholders and external organisations representing people with specific protected characteristics as part of that work.

It feels as though some members are seeking to turn the Parliament’s management board into a university debating society—unfortunately, that is par for the course in the Scottish Parliament. Does the member agree that the Scottish Parliament, as an institution, must always take the necessary steps to abide by the law?

That is the responsibility of the corporate body. As I said, there are committees and a chamber in which the political issues around such judgments can be debated, but the corporate body is an executive body that is liable and responsible for implementing the law as it stands, and that is what it has done.

That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a short pause to allow front-bench teams to change position.