Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is simply not a question for the corporate body. The urgent question was accepted and I am obliged to respond to it.

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.

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.

Will the minister take another intervention?

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.

No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything. I fully intend to use the gender-neutral toilets.

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.

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.

I do not know about you, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I have certainly had a long afternoon.

I congratulate Elena Whitham on securing the debate. Some time ago, the cross-party group on animal welfare had an informative briefing on Scotland’s deer population and management—and I should declare an interest as convener of the group.

There are more than 1 million wild deer in Scotland, with no natural predator. Although deer are free ranging and belong to no one, the right to take or shoot deer is associated with land ownership, so whoever owns the land that the deer are on has the right to shoot them.

Red deer might travel long distances in search of food, however, often covering more than one land ownership area. Therefore, managing red deer sustainably in the uplands requires collaboration, as has been mentioned, and that is made possible by voluntary deer management groups. NatureScot works with the Association of Deer Management Groups, local deer management groups and others.

The deer in lowland and urban areas are predominantly roe deer, which are more solitary, secretive and territorial than red deer. Land ownership patterns are more fragmented in those areas, and managing roe deer there is very different from managing the red deer in the uplands. Although deer management across Scotland is a voluntary and collaborative activity, NatureScot has statutory duties to intervene in specific circumstances.

Fences are sometimes used to manage deer, say, for road safety or to protect woodlands in the short term while they recover. However, depending on the situation and the area, fences are expensive and do not always work. They can damage other animals, and they simply move a large deer population from one area to another.

The fact is that there are too many deer, and they need to be managed. I am not talking about some stereotypical rich foreigner swanning around a landed estate in his plus fours, having a poor beast practically lined up for him to shoot. I am talking about sensitive, selective culling for the health of the animals, because gone are the wolves that would have predated on them.

Such an approach protects the landscape, too. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 sets out when, where, how and by whom deer can be shot, and it also defines the periods of the year when the killing of deer is or is not permitted. Those periods are known as open and closed seasons, respectively, and the dates vary according to the deer species. Following consultation, the Scottish Government removed the closed season for male deer of all species in Scotland, with effect from 21 October 2023. The 1996 act also requires that only certain specifications of firearms and ammunition can be used to kill deer, to ensure that the deer are shot as humanely as possible.

On the broader issue of deer culling, I should say that I take no pleasure in deer being culled, but the situation with the deer population means, unfortunately, that it is a necessary evil. There are 1 million wild deer in Scotland, up from around 500,000 in 1990, and that increase in the deer population has led in some areas to overgrazing, which can strip the environments that other species need to thrive. Indeed, the 2023 “State of Nature Scotland” report found that, since 1994, when the monitoring of 407 species of plant and animal life began, the abundance of such species has declined by an average of 15 per cent. In the past decade alone, there has been a decline of 43 per cent. I am not saying that the decline is all attributable to the deer, but it is a fact.

Where culls are necessary, it is essential that they are carried out in a way that minimises suffering and takes animal welfare into account. For example, I would want culls to be undertaken by experienced shooters, who are more assured of a quick kill and know how to identify animals that might be diseased than an inexperienced shooter who would run the risk of maiming. Moreover, I want culls to be restricted to areas where there is evidence that the number of deer is a problem.

I understand that culling is a highly emotive issue, and I do support animal welfare, but appropriate—and appropriately monitored—culling is about animal welfare, too. I hope that that provides some context.

In taking all reasonable steps to ensure that customers are no worse off, should there be a discount on the bill if, to use my example, white metering means that customers will pay more than they paid under the old metering system? Should there be a discount on their bill, once it has been compared with previous bills?