Chamber and committees

Ah!

I will press you a little further on what “things changing” actually requires. Even in the current framework, I share the hope that you have expressed about relationships and meetings working better. We would hope that UK ministers would be willing to come and talk to Scottish Parliament committees on the record and give us evidence. So far, our efforts to achieve that have not met with success, but I hope that that will change. However, the Scottish Government’s position surely has to be that structural change is needed so that there is a requirement for not just the current UK Government but any future UK Government to make that relationship work. It cannot rely on the goodwill of individual ministers of the Government of the day—whether in Scotland, London or elsewhere—to make that relationship work. There has to be a structural requirement; otherwise, ministers will not have an incentive to do that.

Thank you.

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—

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.

Nearly two months ago, the First Minister hosted a summit on opposing the far right and defending democracy. There was a clear message from many people in the room that Governments need to act to address people’s concerns, to restore the public services that we all rely on, to give local communities more power, to tackle extreme wealth and to tax the big polluters that are profiteering from climate breakdown so that we can invest in our communities.

It was obvious that, without clear action, the summit would just be another talking shop, but I have seen no meaningful change since then. Since that meeting, what exactly has the Scottish Government done differently, in practical terms, to turn promises into action?

It sounds as though the Government’s agenda after the summit is exactly the same as it was before the summit. There is a real sense of drift from the First Minister. He came into the job saying that he wanted to build the best future for our country. Since then, he has watered down rent controls, stalled on plans to help people to stop using expensive fossil fuels, abandoned progress on human rights and equalities laws and ditched environmental actions such as the creation of a new national park. In addition, only today, he has rejected advice from his independent climate experts.

In place of the progressive green policies that the First Minister has walked away from, what is there? I genuinely struggle to think of a single signature policy that he has delivered in his year in the job that shows ambition and leadership. In the face of the threat from the far right, a steady-as-she-goes approach puts us on a course to disaster. Does the First Minister understand that people need to see real progress towards a fairer, greener Scotland and that failure to tackle inequality and injustice will benefit only the snake oil sellers on the far right?

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 documents land in the context of significant cuts to existing prevention services around the country. Through constituents in Glasgow alone, we learn of cuts to the Glasgow psychological trauma service, the Huntington’s disease specialist services, adult mental health services, Flourish house, the falls prevention programme, counselling at the Sandyford sexual health service, and breastfeeding support from the National Childbirth Trust. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that we are already losing successful prevention services as a result of how integration joint board decisions are being made? That will have a human and financial cost in the future. Does he acknowledge that the way that the IJB makes those decisions is democratically unaccountable and needs to change?

I appreciate that but, in short, will the consultation on the 2026 to 2031 strategy consider how to implement the recommendations from the CCC?