To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to recognise pride month, including how it supports LGBTQ+ staff and visitors by ensuring that the Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment. (S6O-03587)

The corporate body recognises the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring and takes immense pride in the values and culture of this Parliament by providing a positive, inclusive working environment where LGBTQ+ inclusion is embedded in everything that we do. As an employer, the corporate body takes an intersectional approach to diversity and inclusion to address the on-going legacy of historic prejudice and the continuing barriers to full inclusion. We will work in partnership with the recognised trade unions and LGBTQ+ staff to ensure that Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment.

Finally, the commitment to LGBTQ+ staff members, visitors and the public is long standing and non-negotiable. As in previous years, the corporate body this morning agreed to a request to fly the progress flag this year to mark pride day in Edinburgh.

I am delighted to hear about that decision regarding the progress pride flag.

I ask my question in the wake of the decision not so long ago to require Parliament staff not to wear rainbow lanyards—a decision that I regard as unnecessary and unhelpful. Members are still allowed to make that small, simple and utterly inoffensive gesture of inclusion and support. On the other hand, corporate body staff are not. Is the corporate body aware that, in the wake of that decision, some individuals who actively campaign against the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer people actively welcomed the decision? Is the corporate body troubled by that and does it recognise that it has a responsibility assertively to challenge such suggestions and to use pride month to reassert very clearly the inclusive nature of Parliament?

On that latter point, I agree with Mr Harvie. I hope that he will accept that my personal record on these matters is such that I would not be a party to a decision that was trying to promote the kind of conclusive outcome that some people might be trying to come to as a result of the decision.

However, political parties have political views; the institution of the Parliament does not. The Parliament is welcome, open and accessible to all visitors—it is rated as a five-star visitor attraction by VisitScotland and, in an assessment in June 2023, it scored 10 out of 10 for inclusivity—but it is important that people who visit the Parliament feel that the Parliament itself is not expressing any particular kind of view. That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did.

I can squeeze in question 8, if I could please have succinct questions and answers.