Chamber and committees

Do members agree to keep the petition open and write to the minister as Mr Torrance suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2135, lodged by Henry Black Ferguson on behalf of wecollect.scot, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights full legal effect in the devolved law making process prior to the next Holyrood parliamentary election.

The SPICe briefing explains that the international covenant was adopted in 1966 and ratified by the UK in 1976. Many of the rights that are set out in the ICCPR are reflected in international agreements and have been incorporated into UK human rights-related legislation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is committed to a new human rights bill, which will incorporate further international human rights standards into Scots law. The Scottish Government has developed and consulted on proposals to give effect to the recommendations from the national task force for human rights leadership, which comprised a range of experts and stakeholders, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not among the treaties that the task force recommended for incorporation, although it did recommend that further consideration be given to restating the rights that are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The submission explains that when incorporating international treaties into domestic law, the Scottish Parliament can only give effect to provisions within its powers and responsibilities. That route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or Scottish Government to do anything that would previously have been beyond the Parliament’s devolved competence.

The petitioner’s submission questions the Scottish Government’s position and states that the issue of devolved competence is not relevant to the covenant’s full implementation. He believes that the Scottish Government’s submission seeks to restrict and undermine the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will next assemble on 23 April. We will now move into private session to consider agenda items 5 and 6.

Alasdair Graham, this is your debut—we should properly acknowledge your contribution at the start.

You need to ask the cabinet secretary a question, Mr Ewing.

That is the one.

We are also joined by Emma Harper, who has an interest in PE1610, on the A75, and PE1659, on the A77.

Members who join us have no automatic right to ask questions, but I will invite them to follow on and ask questions at the end, if everybody is agreed. It has been my practice to encourage as much active participation and engagement from MSPs on petitions in which they have a constituency interest. I am less interested if they are coming as party spokesmen, but if they are here because of a constituency interest, I am keen to hear from them.

Cabinet secretary, in the light of all that, I understand that you would like to say something to us in advance of our beginning our questions. Rather than the meeting becoming a free-for-all, one colleague will lead a discussion about each of the different petitions, and I know that you will bring in your colleagues as and when you think that would be most helpful.

I have been appalled by an unprecedented series of sectarian attacks targeting St Joseph’s primary school in Busby, which is in my Eastwood constituency, in the past few weeks. The buildings were sprayed with offensive and sectarian discriminatory graffiti and the outdoor play area was set on fire. This past weekend, there was a further arson attack on a children’s area. The school community has been left stupefied and, naturally, distressed, but I pay tribute to Police Scotland and East Renfrewshire Council for the decisive way in which they have intervened to seek to make the community feel safe.

Earlier this month, St Joseph’s received a glowing report from Education Scotland for the exemplary standard of education that the school is providing. Today, of all days, when all of us here are reminded that we live, learn, work and play together, will the First Minister join me in offering a show of solidarity with the St Joseph’s community and make clear that, here in Scotland, faith will not be used as a force for division but that, together, all faiths and those of none must work and come together in order to create the community in which we all want Scotland to live? [Applause.]

The corporate body takes its duties under health and safety legislation seriously and has a range of measures in place to promote good mental health and wellbeing for all staff. Those include regular discussions between managers and staff, during which welfare concerns can be discussed and resolved. Staff can also access the free and confidential employee assistance programme, which provides a range of support, including access to counselling.

The corporate body opposes all forms of unlawful discrimination and will take a zero-tolerance approach to and appropriate action against any individual displaying such behaviour. As part of that, staff can access an independent support service, including advocacy support, to help them to address any concerns and to seek an appropriate resolution.

The corporate body’s commitment to all staff, including LGBTQ+ staff, is long-standing and non-negotiable.

I refer the member to my response of a moment ago, which is the corporate body’s response and attitude to the issue.

The uses of language and other incidents to which the member referred have happened within the chamber and in committee meetings, and they are therefore not a matter that falls within the responsibility of the corporate body. The Parliament’s standing orders say that

“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner and shall respect the authority of the Presiding Officer”

or, in committee meetings, the convener.

I thank Paul Sweeney for his sustained interest in these matters. As a member, he is aware that the Scottish Parliament’s armed forces parliamentary visits programme was established relatively recently, in 2017. Since then, many members, including me, have participated in outward visits to defence bases across Scotland as well as reciprocal visits to the Parliament. I say that as an enthusiastic former member of the Combined Cadet Force.

The current programme is a good fit for the Scottish Parliament and its members, and, although there are no plans to review it at the current time, Mr Sweeney has highlighted some differences between the two schemes. Accordingly, the corporate body has asked parliamentary officials to contact the armed forces parliamentary scheme to inquire whether members of the Scottish Parliament may participate in those programmes. We will update Mr Sweeney and members on that in due course.