 On a point of order, on Tuesday this week, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution was asked by my colleague Oliver Mundell in the chamber what the proposed date would be for his party's illegal skexit referendum. He declined to give a specific answer, even though he knew full well that he was proposing to hold it in October 2023, as he revealed in a media interview the next day. In fact, it was on Good Morning Scotland, on BBC Radio Scotland. I have lost count of the number of times you have asked the Scottish Government to make significant announcements to the Parliament in the first instance and not to the media. At the Minister for Parliamentary Business's conclusion that Tuesday's last-minute referendum announcement was not significant, it contained a very significant policy announcement. Indeed, the Scottish Government has made it their normal practice to willfully ignore Parliament and choose instead to run the country through media appearances and spend. Do you view this as being in order? If not, what can we do as parliamentarians to heighten scrutiny on a Government that does not even attempt to disguise the disrespect and disregard that it has for the Scottish Parliament? I thank the member for his point of order. It is the case that announcements on important matters should be made to the Parliament before they are released to the media. The intended date of a referendum is, of course, a matter of interest to this Parliament. Members will be aware that the First Minister has indicated that she will provide an update to the Parliament before recess, and I hope that no further information appears elsewhere before this update is provided. I would now like to move on to the next item of business, which is Scottish parliamentary corporate body questions. Should any member wish to ask a supplementary question, they should press the request to speak buttons during the relevant question or enter the letter R in the chat function. To sync questions and answers would be much appreciated. I call question 1, Mark Ruskell. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body, as an employer located in the zone, how it will help to meet the objectives of the Edinburgh low emissions zone. Mark Ruskell, for that question. The Edinburgh low emissions zone was introduced by the Edinburgh Council in May 2022. Those travelling to the Parliament will go through the LEZ. The objectives of the LEZ are cleaner air, healthier people and active travel options. The Scottish Parliament has a sustainable travel plan, which encourages active travel and lower carbon emissions from community business and visitor travel to the Scottish Parliament building. Walking, cycling and public transport are all encouraged and over 80 per cent of regular building users use one of these as their main mode of transport. We do provide secure bike storage and changing facilities interest-free bike loans, which includes for electric bikes and bike maintenance facilities. We have plans in place to encourage more car sharing rather than individual journeys and we are investing in electric charging points in our car park. We currently have 16 and we have plans to increase this. Mark Ruskell. I thank the Member for that response. Today is obviously clean air day and it is really important that the Parliament as an institution takes the lead on tackling what is a huge public health crisis that is killing thousands of people every year. I really welcome what the Member has laid out in terms of the work that the Parliament is doing as a cycle-friendly employer. Would the SPCB also look at the allowance system? For example, should it be right that the Parliament should reimburse mileage claims for journeys within low-emission zones that are taken in cars that are actually banned under the regulations that this very Parliament has approved? I thank Mark Ruskell for that supplementary. I think that is an interesting idea and especially something that we should be considering given our net zero ambitions. It is something that the corporate body and Parliament as a whole can certainly consider. We currently base reimbursement on HMRC rates set out in legislation, so we would need to see what is possible and what changes could be made, if any, to our scheme. I undertake to raise that at forthcoming corporate body meetings and consider whether we can incentivise members to shift away from using carbon emitting vehicles, including those that would be charged under the LEZ scheme. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it last reviewed the requirements for members to access legal services funded through the member's expense scheme in order to ascertain whether the current criteria are fit for purpose. I thank Brian Whittle for his question. I begin by acknowledging that I understand the particular circumstance that he has been facing as an MSP and the discussions he has had with me and the corporate body, and that they remain on-going. In general terms, I say that the corporate body reviews the reimbursement of members' expense scheme each parliamentary session to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We last reviewed the scheme in 2019 and there were revisions to the scheme introduced at the beginning of this session. In addition, the corporate body also has a legal advice scheme for members, which is separate to the member's expense scheme, and it was last reviewed in 2016. Neither review highlighted any need for a change to the underlying principles or criteria for access to legal services. The operation of both schemes has demonstrated that its scope is sufficient to address the needs of a high majority of members, while we understand and accept that particular circumstances can arise where the corporate body scheme does not. There are opportunities for members to consider one-off applications to the corporate body in those circumstances. Brian Whittle I thank Jackson Carlaw for that answer. As he alluded to, he is aware of the situation that I have been facing. It comes to my attention that the current legal services provision for members is only available to defend a member if a legal action is taken against them and does not support a member taking legal action to recover funds paid to a third party through the scheme if a dispute occurs. This effectively means that, in the event of a landlord not returning a deposit or a contractor failing to rectify an issue with a product after it has been paid for, a member cannot, if necessary, pursue a court action to recover public funds. I wonder whether the corporate body believes that this is an acceptable situation and, if not, will it agree to review the position on the future provision of legal services? Jackson Carlaw I am sympathetic, as are the corporate body, to the particular situation in which the member has found himself. However, it is, we understand, the only time that such an experience has been felt or circumstance by a member. Therefore, there is not a view in the corporate body at the moment that there needs to be a much wider review of the scheme in consequence. However, as I said earlier, there is the opportunity for an exceptional application to be made to the corporate body where that is felt to be appropriate. Jim Fairlie Excuse me. I would like to ask the Scottish corporate body what steps it has taken to ensure the availability of Scottish produce on the menu in the Scottish Parliament. Maggie Chapman I thank Jim Fairlie for that question. The catering services at the Scottish Parliament are provided through our contract with Sodexo. We monitor the percentage of fresh Scottish produce used in our services and, last year, approximately 60 per cent of fresh produce was used by our services and that was produced in Scotland. We invite many of our suppliers in to showcase their produce on site and to speak to members and staff directly. This is perhaps most notable during Scottish food and drink fortnight, which we participate in annually. We regularly support and organise events on site that promote Scottish produce. Last month we held our Scotland in Spring dining evening in the Holyrood room, showcasing seasonal produce such as accredited Scottish lamb, locally grown berries and asparagus. Jim Fairlie I would like to thank you for that answer. Can I ask the Scottish Parliament the corporate body how it is monitoring the carbon footprint, including food miles from its sourcing and product supply? Maggie Chapman I thank Jim Fairlie for that information. We have carbon auditing and carbon monitoring as part of all of our Scottish Parliament operations. I will undertake to write to the member with more details about the specific processes for our food and drink. Elena Wism To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether an assessment has been made of the chairs and the MSP block for use by members and staff in relation to occupational health and the later standards. Christine Grahame Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the member for a question. Our office furniture contracts require suppliers to ensure that chairs meet all relevant standards in force at the time of purchase. We inspect chairs at regular intervals to make sure that they remain in safe condition and replace them when they reach the end of life. If a member of staff feels that they require support for a particular health concern, they can contact the People and Culture Office, formerly HR, for support. If necessary, a workplace assessment can be arranged with our occupational health provider. Christine Grahame I thank the member for the supplementary question. I do not have to hand the date of actual purchase. I do not need to know if they were all purchased at the same time. I will endeavour to find this out and to write to the member advising. In the meantime, chairs are replaced if they do not pass an inspection. This is in line with our environmental policy. I am sure that we will be able to do that. I am sure that we will be able to do that. I am sure that we will be able to do that. I am sure that we will be able to do that. I am sure that we will be able to do that. Natalie Don I ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the re-opening of the Scottish Parliament case. Maggie Chapman I thank Natalie Don for that question. In March of this year, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body agreed to procure a new provider to re-establish and run the on-site crash facility here at Holyrood. The decision was taken in order to maintain our commitment to to accessibility and continue to provide childcare for visitors and pass holders to the building who have young children. Officials have completed all the procurement requirements and are ready to go out to market later this month. A corporate body expects to award the contract in October this year, October 22. In line with Care Inspectorate guidance, we have allowed for a six month mobilisation period and intend the new service therefore to open in spring 2023. As the corporate body is aware, the provision of a high-quality care service in the building allows MSPs, parliamentary staff and visitors the childcare facilities they require to perform their duties. As we return from a long period of hybrid working, we need to ensure that staff and members are supported fully with this transition. As a new member and a mother to young children, the care service has not been in use since I was elected over 12 months ago. Can the corporate body advise what efforts have been made to prioritise the re-implementation of the service? Can I thank Natalie Donne for her supplementary question? We have had detailed conversations about this at corporate body and one of the challenges we had was because of lockdown and because of the closure of the Parliament at the start of the pandemic, the crash service was ceased. Changes to Care Inspectorate guidance means that we have had to change as well how the crash operates, which is why we need to go out to retender for that. I understand and appreciate the difficulties that that has caused and perhaps some other members as well in the last year or so, but we are hoping to have a contract approved in October this year and the crash up and running by spring next year. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it has explored the possibility of creating apps for parliamentary functions. Maggie Chapman. I thank Stephen Kerr for that question. The Parliament already provides a few mobile friendly applications and services to support members in their roles and to support parliamentary business. Examples of these include the questions and motions mobile application, which allows members to raise questions and to raise and support motions at any time and from any location on any device with a browser and internet connection. Also, the digital voting application was developed and delivered along with other aspects of the hybrid Parliament in response to the pandemic to ensure that members could continue to participate in parliamentary business using mobile devices from wherever they had internet access. Officials are in the early stages of work to understand how we can improve the digital delivery of information and services to members and input from members has been and will continue to be sought to ensure that this work is a success. Stephen Kerr. When I'm talking about his actual apps, I'm supposed to put money in a jar whenever I mention Westminster. According to my staff, there should be quite a lot of money in that jar, I can do it, but down south there are excellent standalone apps, actual apps, which enhance the functions of Parliament. We should have this too at the Scottish Parliament. Business papers, spice briefings, broadcast footage, questions and motions, voting records and even division bell push notifications could be included as features in such a set of apps. Sadly, our current reliance on web apps or email notifications is outdated and they are simply not as effective of standalone apps. Does the corporate body accept that moves in this direction would make Parliament more accessible for both Holyrood staff and, more importantly, the voters who keep us here and are they open to looking into the proposal further? I thank Stephen Kerr for his supplementary. We are more than open to input from members and others as we start to look at exactly what information members need to carry out their business and what information should be available and in what forms for members of the public. Traditionally, we have produced apps that can run on any device rather than specific apps for Apple or Android devices. There are significant cost-saving reasons for this. Being able to run apps' applications off a web-based platform means that we don't need to maintain relationships with individual app providers and tendering of those individual apps can be significantly expensive—much more costly than a web-based version. We will take the member's comments on board and we will include them as part of our conversations as we discuss how we further develop the support that we provide.