Parliament Facilities
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its response is to the open letter to the Presiding Officer, signed by cross-party MSPs and staff, regarding the interim position on the use of facilities in the Parliament building.
I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the question, because it is important that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, for whom I speak, has the opportunity to set out the rationale for this collective and cross-party decision and to provide assurance that it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all those who work at and visit Holyrood.
Although we have been made aware of the open letter’s existence via media reports, we have, in fact, only just received it this afternoon, so the SPCB has not yet had a chance to consider it. We will, of course, consider the letter and will be happy to provide a response. In the meantime, our having considered this sensitive issue, I would like to make the following general points on the SPCB’s behalf, if I may, in response to Mr Harvie’s question.
The SPCB remains deeply committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. That includes people in the trans and non-binary community, as well as those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. In fulfilling its various roles and responsibilities, the SPCB must balance the needs and requirements of all those with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and must also take all necessary steps to ensure that Parliament complies with its legal responsibilities in a timely manner.
As stated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, is “effective immediately” and those who have duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. The SPCB has, for many years, provided a wide range of inclusive facilities at Holyrood, including gender-neutral facilities.
In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, our advisers have considered an interim stance—and I emphasise the term “interim”—that supports the SPCB in continuing to meet its legal responsibilities and to do so in a way that provides clarity and is inclusive for all those using our facilities. A detailed equality impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on people with each of the protected characteristics, and that was published, together with the SPCB paper, as part of the interim stance. That shows how we are balancing requirements across all groups, based on the facilities currently available at Holyrood, to create the optimal range of facilities for all users, again balancing the different protected characteristics.
Members will be aware that the next phase of work, which will look at changes in the medium to long term, includes a wide consultation with staff, members, members’ staff and other stakeholders. That will include consultation with external groups and organisations that work regularly and closely with people with all the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. That will include stakeholders with insight into, and experience of, gender reassignment as well as other groups with protected characteristics, because the SPCB is required to balance the rights of all those with a protected characteristic.
I am just about to come to the end of my answer, Deputy Presiding Officer.
That further phase will also enable us to take account of the new EHRC code of practice when that is published, later this year.
I hope that that is helpful.
Before I call the member, I advise any members who wish to ask a supplementary question but who have not already pressed their request-to-speak buttons to do so now.
I hope for more brevity in responses to supplementary questions.
The cross-party letter, which has been published online, has the support of 17 members from four political parties and 31 members of staff. It expresses serious concerns about the decision that has recently been made and draws attention to the comments made by Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, who said that the Supreme Court’s judgment has been misunderstood. In his words:
“It is important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these facilities, but you are not obliged to.”
I am concerned that, in making the decision to take an exclusive and exclusionary approach, the SPCB risks taking us back to the breach of human rights that existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and to a position that, as little as 10 years ago, was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the United States Republican Party.
It is not enough to use words such as “inclusive experience” or “welcoming environment”. Does the corporate body recognise the impact that the decision has already had on those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities such as toilets on the same basis as everyone else and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace?
We also need more brevity in questions.
Some of the language that Mr Harvie has used is rather unfortunate, because I hope that the corporate body has acted in a tolerant, sensitive, delicate and balanced manner.
The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect its founding principles, to be an open and accessible institution and to promote participation and equal opportunities, and we remain deeply committed to those principles and to providing—I know that Mr Harvie does not like the word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary communities, feel supported and welcome to work and to visit. The Parliament has, for many years, provided a wide and varied range of facilities across the building, including a number of single-occupancy spaces that are available for, and used by, everyone.
If that is the intention and what the corporate body wishes to achieve—I do not doubt that it may intend that—I have to say that the decision that was made recently fails to do that.
The member mentions the code of practice on which the EHRC is currently consulting. That code of practice suggests that birth certificates could be required from people merely because they are suspected of being transgender. I have to say that I feel almost nauseous using that language, because I am old enough to remember how other queer people felt when we had to worry about whether we were suspected of being who we are in our society.
Can the corporate body promise us that nobody will be required to provide birth certificates or other paperwork merely because someone intolerant suspects them of being transgender?
I am sorry if that issue is being raised. As a service provider and an employer, when we make facilities available there is an expectation that people will choose a facility respecting what we have done to balance different rights in line with our legal responsibilities. Our staff are always able to provide advice on the facilities that are available at Holyrood. I assure the member that this is not going to be policed by the corporate body. Like other public sector bodies, we have a complaints process, which staff can advise on and which is set out on our website, for those who wish to complain, and we will consider any complaints. However, we are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body.
A number of members wish to ask supplementary questions. I hope that they will be suitably brief and the responses likewise.
I know that the guidance will have been drawn together with a desire to comply with the recent Supreme Court ruling and with the best of intentions, but it has created a degree of segregation that we have not experienced under the Equality Act 2010. How does the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body intend to resolve a situation in which trans and non-binary people are reporting that they feel excluded from their nation’s Parliament?
When I refer to complaining, that goes for complainers of all characteristics.
There is nothing in the interim stance that will take away from the rights of anybody entering this Parliament. We await the full guidance from the ECHR on what can and cannot be done. This is simply the interim stance. I ask those concerned to bear with the corporate body until we are able to do a full consultation. We aim to balance fairly and with justice and sensitivity the rights of all users of this Parliament.
The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children’s education, getting a general practitioner appointment, fixing the roads and keeping communities safe, yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets. Does Parliament agree with the Scottish Conservatives that this is a farcical waste of time?
That is simply not a question for the corporate body. The urgent question was accepted and I am obliged to respond to it.
What consideration was given to the difference between the facilities that are available to the public and the facilities that are available to members of parliamentary staff but also staff who are employed by MSPs?
Officials consider the SPCB’s various responsibilities as an employer, workplace provider, service provider and public authority, which adds to the complexity of fulfilling our obligations in ensuring that Holyrood is as inclusive as possible for all. Many of our staff use facilities in the public areas of the building and many members of the public use facilities in the private areas, particularly during events, meetings and evening receptions. The SPCB’s interim stance as set out in the EqIA seeks to balance those different requirements.
Christine Grahame suggests that the decision was taken on the basis of the need to balance the legal responsibilities of the Parliament related to the Supreme Court judgment. However, as we heard from Patrick Harvie, the former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption has made it clear that there are no legal responsibilities for the Parliament. He said that judges did not take a side and that the judgment does not provide an obligation to create single-sex spaces—it is a matter of choice for institutions. The EHRC has been challenged on how it will police that. We have heard about the use of birth certificates. I understand that the SPCB does not expect this to be policed, but others may. Can I ask that no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future?
As, I am sure, all members do, I expect that members and the public will treat each other with respect throughout their engagement—casual or formal—in the building. That would include the situation set out in the remarks that the member just made.
The decision seems premature and inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling. The consultation that Christine Grahame mentioned should have happened before any decision was made. How will the SPCB ensure the dignity of trans and non-binary staff who are working in the Parliament? Does it recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put them in an impossible situation and, potentially, a hostile working environment?
I certainly hope and expect that it will not put anyone in the Parliament into a hostile environment. That is not the culture in this building, and it has not been so in my 20-odd years here. As I have said, this is simply an interim decision—an interim practical choice—being made to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. A full consultation is now going ahead, and I fully expect that, at the end of that, members will see that the important balance between the rights of individuals, whatever their position, is dealt with appropriately and with sensitivity.
We have reached the time that has been set for decision time. Three more members wish to ask a question. I will get their questions in, but they will need to be brief.
Contrary to the view that this subject is simply a load of nonsense, many members are far more concerned about the wellbeing of those who choose to make the Parliament their workplace. We owe them dignity and respect. Given the answer to a previous question, I ask the corporate body simply to ensure that the aforementioned complaints procedure must not and will not be used as a means of prejudicing anyone in the Parliament, nor to force the disclosure of any details of their private life, including their status relative to their gender.
I would have to write about how the complaints procedure works on the face of it; I have not accessed it. However, I can certainly tell you that it has previously been used by a member of the public to make a complaint about somebody accessing facilities in the public area, which was dealt with appropriately by the officials and the corporate body. Certainly, if there was any sense of its being used for abuse, the corporate body would be mindful.
Always speak through the chair, please.
Members may be aware of a lively internet conspiracy that I am a trans woman. If a complaint is made about my using a women’s toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use that toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination? Please be clear.
Always speak through the chair.
No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything. I fully intend to use the gender-neutral toilets.
Will Christine Grahame say whether the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body’s decision was unanimous and, if so, whether that means that the Green member of that body both supported the measures and wrote a letter in opposition to them?
The letter that was written is a private matter. I am not in a position to disclose it. The recipients may disclose the contents of that letter if they wish.
Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote; they are made simply by consent.
That concludes the urgent question, and it is time to move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Community-owned EnergyAir adhart
Decision Time