Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I think that there are some issues underlying the petition, but I am afraid that time is short in this parliamentary session and I do not know that we can do justice to them. It is a petition that somebody might like to consider bringing back, in order to challenge the Government’s assertion in relation to some of those matters. At this stage, I think that the committee is minded to close the petition. Do colleagues agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent the unnecessary use of public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.

We last considered this petition at our previous meeting, which was on 4 June 2025. At that meeting, we heard evidence from Hazel Johnson, director of the Built Environment Forum Scotland; Laura Shanks, chair of Local Authority Building Standards Scotland; and Professor Gordon Masterton, chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers panel for historical engineering works.

We are also joined online by our colleague Paul Sweeney MSP, a former member of the committee, who has taken an on-going interest in this petition. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. Before the committee considers how we might proceed on the basis of the evidence that we heard last week, I invite you to offer the committee your thoughts.

Oh, it seems that Mr Sweeney’s connection has dropped—I saw his name on the screen in front of me and assumed that we had him. We are actively trying to get him back.

We will return to the petition later in the meeting, once we have Mr Sweeney with us again.

In the meantime, we turn to PE2098, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh—I am stuck, because it is all in Gaelic. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring investment in the Gaelic language to sustainable levels by increasing Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s annual budget to at least £8.5 million and to increase funding in line with inflation each year.

We last considered this petition on 11 September 2024 when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on the Gaelic officer scheme.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it provided funding to ensure that the Gaelic officer scheme was able to continue until the end of the financial year 2024-25, and that it then provided Bòrd na Gàidhlig with a further £510,000 to support the scheme in 2025-26.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?