I remind members that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussions it has had with Police Scotland about the policing of the For Women Scotland rally outside the Parliament on 4 September, regarding reports of disruptive behaviour by an individual and a lack of action taken against him by the police.

There was an immediate debrief from the Parliament’s police unit after the For Women Scotland rally and counter-protest by Cabaret Against the Hate Speech. In the debrief, the Parliament’s police unit advised us on the steps that it had taken to manage interaction between the groups. Following a request from For Women Scotland, the Parliament’s police unit asked Cabaret Against the Hate Speech to turn down the volume of its music, a request that the police told us was complied with. It is for the police unit to balance the rights of protesters outside the building.

I will say from the outset that I am the strongest possible supporter of our police. They do an extremely challenging job in difficult circumstances right across the country, and particularly so here in our Parliament. However, the images and the response last Thursday beg many questions. It looked as though, instead of dealing with the problem, the police assembled a protective cordon around this individual to allow him to disrupt an organised rally that was trying to get a message across to the Government. There was controlling and intimidating behaviour by one individual against those at the rally, and that was facilitated by the police. At the time, Joanna Cherry KC said that Police Scotland

“seem unaware of their positive duty to facilitate our right to protest and speak.”

What further work and response does the corporate body expect from Police Scotland? Does Claire Baker agree that there should be a full statement from Chief Constable Jo Farrell, who has been silent on the issue, and that, at the very least, there should be an apology from Police Scotland to For Women Scotland?

I understand the strong feelings around the issue. The member has outlined his understanding of what happened outside. It is for the police to interpret that behaviour, and the issues that are raised are better directed to them. The Parliament is responsible for security inside the building. The police make decisions on and have to deal with protests that are outside the building.

It is helpful if organisations let us know when they are having protests. For Women Scotland did that, which was helpful. Once an event starts, if it is taking place outside the building, it is the police’s responsibility, and they are the ones who make the decisions.

I understand what the member is saying about it being a police responsibility, but she accepted in her opening response that there was a full debrief immediately after. Therefore, the Parliament is involved.

Just today, we had reports of a protest outside Parliament that was interrupted by the constant tooting of a car horn. The driver of that car was told to desist, which they did. Options are available to the police that clearly were not taken last week.

I want to ask about the Parliament’s policy on protests and demonstrations. It states that Parliament has the power

“to move the location of your protest to another part of the estate, if asked to do so by a Parliamentary official or member of the Parliament’s Police Unit. This would be to avoid obstructing others’ use of the estate or if it becomes evident you may be causing a safety risk to yourself or others”.

Was there any discussion by the corporate body about using that power last week? Why was it not used? Why was that one individual allowed to continually disrupt a peaceful protest that attracted hundreds of people in support of For Women Scotland?

The member has referred to our protest policy. Under the protest policy, certain areas of the building are restricted, including the canopy to the building, which is to ensure safe entry in and out of the building. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the police to carry out policing of the area.

The corporate body meets the police annually, but the security team meets the police several times a month to discuss protest activity and other activities that are relevant to the Parliament.

Again, I emphasise that it is not for the Parliament to direct the police on their decision making. If any criminality has taken place, it must be referred and reported to the police.

A number of members wish to ask supplementary questions. I want to get them all in, so they will need to be brief.

The actions of one individual were designed to provoke and disrupt. He was literally trying to drown out the For Women Scotland rally and the voices of women who came to their Parliament. The decibel level of the music played will have breached environmental health standards. I can assure the corporate body that the volume was being turned up, not down.

I ask that the corporate body meet not just Police Scotland but the City of Edinburgh Council, so that protocols can be agreed to prevent a repeat of the antisocial behaviour by that individual.

The member raises a number of points. I will emphasise again that it is for the police to make decisions on events outside the building.

On the activity that happened last week, the police debrief said that the police made a request for the music to be turned down and that it was complied with. I was not outside the building, so I cannot give a view, but that is the information that we have from the police.

There is always a balance to be struck with regard to events outside Parliament. We are an open, inclusive Parliament and, at times, there will be protest and counter-protest. I understand that there are events outside today where there is protest and counter-protest.

It is not for us to make a judgment on the activities that are being protested about or the issues that are being raised outside. It is for us to have a balance and make sure that people can protest in a peaceful manner.

I attended the For Women Scotland rally that was held outside the Parliament last week. It was a peaceful protest. Unfortunately, it was disrupted by a counter-protester, who does not appear to have got permission to protest outside Holyrood, as everyone else is required to do.

That seemed to be a breach of the Scottish Parliament’s rules, yet no action was taken against the protester. The fact that women who were protesting to protect their rights in Scotland appeared to have been treated differently from trans rights activists can give rise to perceptions of bias in the enforcement of the rules. That is an unacceptable situation for the Scottish Parliament to be in. What action have the parliamentary authorities taken to ensure that everyone is being treated equally under the law?

As I said, our protest policy is in place to ensure that everyone can take part in protests in a safe environment. As I also said, For Women Scotland informed us that it was planning to come outside the Parliament—we appreciate that, as we appreciate foreknowledge. However, organisations or individuals do not need permission to protest outside the Parliament. It is for the police to decide when someone is making a legitimate protest.

I again say that it is for the police to decide how things are managed outside the building. We will have discussions with the police if we know that protests are happening, and we will advise. For Women Scotland made us aware that an individual was expected to come along to the event who could be challenging to them. We gave that information to the police, and it was up to the police to decide what to do with it.

A number of female constituents from Lothian have been in touch to tell me that they felt unsafe and insecure last week because of the behaviour of that one individual. Does the member, on behalf of the corporate body, agree that the behaviour of the individual in question was totally unacceptable and that women should be free to advocate for their rights without fear or abuse?

There is a balance in ensuring that everybody can advocate for their rights and feelings outside the Parliament. If people feel intimidated or threatened at an event, they should speak to the police officers who are on duty, and they can make a complaint in future if they feel that there was a criminal offence. Unless a criminal offence has been committed, the police are there to ensure that safe protests can take place. We need to balance the rights of everyone who comes to the Parliament.

I, too, was a Speaker outside the Parliament at the For Women Scotland rally last week. I approached the police who were on duty at the time and requested that the volume be reduced so that everyone could be heard. I was told that that was not going to be possible.

At the same time, there were other protests. Members of Mothers Against Genocide were seeking to read out the names of dead babies—a solemn and peaceful act—and they were also being drowned out by the noise that was being created by the counter-protester.

Both of those groups—they were mainly women—were subjected to very dangerous noise levels. We recorded them as being up to 116 decibels. That was from one man with a sound system who was positioned directly between us all. There are questions for the police, although I accept that Claire Baker is not able to answer for them. Why did they permit that proximity? Why did they fail to act when safe limits were being breached? What steps will the corporate body take with the police to ensure that women who are exercising their democratic rights are properly protected in that in the future?

When we are aware that we will have protests and counter-protests, we have prior discussions with the police. We also request and advise that certain organisations are in different areas of the small space that we have. However, once people are outside, it is for the police to decide. If someone moves somewhere else, unless there is a good reason for that, the police will make a decision on whether they can move that person. It is a police matter.

That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause to allow the members on the front benches to change over before we move to the next item of business.