 I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions. I would ask those members who wish to request a supplementary question if they could press the request-to-speak buttons now or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letter R during the relevant question. Again, succinct questions and answers would be much appreciated. Question 1, Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in light of reported concerns, what consideration it is giving to additional funding for increased security personnel and security for MSP surgeries and local offices. At our meeting on 4 November, we considered options for further security support that would be available to members following the death of Sir David Amos. We recognised any changes to security provision that would be expected to have budget implications. However, the corporate body is clear that the safety of members and their staff should not be compromised on grounds of cost. For members' information, we have commissioned the following urgent work, a review of advice regarding loan working in local offices, including extending the provision of loan work devices. Working with Police Scotland to introduce an annual security briefing targeted to issues in members' regions, and a project to establish how to effectively provide security support to MSPs at surgery meetings, including an assessment of viability of providing security operatives if that is appropriate. As the member can appreciate, those are sensitive matters to discuss in a public forum, and the corporate body has agreed that a fuller security update will be shared with members soon. Jamie Greene. I do appreciate the sensitivity of the nature of the discussions, and everyone in the chamber will send our thoughts and condolences to the friends and family of Sir David Amos. No one in public service or public office or, indeed, politics should go to work and not come home. However, we also have a duty to protect our staff and also members of the public who attend our surgeries and our local offices, and we are keen to be as accessible as we can. However, if consideration is being given to a centralised approach to the procurement of offering potential third-party security presents for those members who feel that they might need it, and for members who might just want to do it now, are they free to contract those services privately, and will their current office provision allow them to do so? The member raises important points, and I do appreciate the comments around members' security and staff security. The Parliament does offer a centralised security upgrade for local officers, although members can choose to go ahead and contract that work themselves. I advise members to contact the security office to discuss the matter further if they wish to proceed with security measures at this point in time. 2. Jackie Baillie To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it will make a decision regarding the level of MSP allowances for staff for 2022-23. Jackson Carlaw. All my antennae have been trained to suppose that this is a trick question because Ms Baillie knows the answer even better than I do, I think, to the question that she has asked. The SPCB will be submitting its budget for 2022-23 for consideration at the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 21 December. That will include the proposed uprating of the staff cost provision for 2022-23. Jackie Baillie Never a trick question, I can assure you of that, Presiding Officer, and I am delighted to hear the timetable. Of course, when the Scottish Parliament last uprated the staff salary allowance, it did so based on Ash and AWE, the annual survey of hours and earnings, and the average weekly earnings. At that time, it generated an increase of 2.96 per cent. According to SPICE, the comparable figure from both those sources, it would this time be 4.4 per cent. Is that the figure that will be applied effective from 1 April 2022? Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Ms Baillie, for that. It probably would be an appropriate way to pre-empt the presentation of the budget to the finance committee, but Ms Baillie would be absolutely correct to say that we have been using the particular measure that she has been suggesting to uprate the office cost provision and staff cost provision. Paul Sweeney To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it last met trade unions representing Scottish Parliamentary Service and MSP staff. Jackson Carlaw. The Corporate Body has a partnership arrangement with the Scottish Parliamentary Service three recognised trade unions, PCS prospect and the FDA. Parliament officials meet regularly with them on a range of employment matters. The last formal partnership board meeting took place in October this year. The SPCB has had no recent meetings with trade unions representing MSP staff. Paul Sweeney I thank Mr Carlaw for that answer. As a member of the GMB trade union, I welcome the strong relationship with trade unions representing parliamentary staff, but this is sorely lacking when it comes to those unions who represent the staff that members and party groups employ. If we truly value the principles of fair work and giving work as a stake in decisions affecting them in this place, surely the SPCB, as the ultimate financial controller of the allowances that we use to pay our staff, has to properly engage with trade unions like the GMB on a regular basis. Jackson Carlaw I understand that various party groupings have arrangements with trade unions, but the SPCB has no locus to do so in relation to MSP staff. The SPCB is responsible for funding of the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme, including the staff cost provision and the determining which indices are used to operate the overall provisions of the scheme. In 2020, the SPCB reviewed the indices used for the operating of the scheme and was made aware of representations from trade unions representing MSP staff. The SPCB agreed to use a basket of indices for more operating the SPCB on the basis that it would provide a more steady basis for future increases. We do so on the basis that individual MSPs remain responsible as employers of their staff for setting and managing their staff's pay and cost of living increases within the provisions of the expenses scheme. It is not within the locus of the SPCB, as we are not the employer of MSP staff—MSPs themselves are. 4. Jackie Dunbar To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what support it provides to MSPs in connection with the employment of armed forces reservists and to armed forces reservists who work for the Scottish Parliament or MSPs. I thank Jackie Dunbar for the question. The corporate body is committed to supporting members of the reserve forces or those wishing to join the reserve forces. Staff who are armed forces reservists are entitled to take five days paid special leave each year to attend training. MSPs, as the employers of their staff, also have discretion to grant the same entitlement to their staff. Reservists who are mobilised for active service are protected in law from detriment such as the termination of their employment because they have been called up to active service. Mobilisation of reservists can sometimes happen at short notice and leave employers with unplanned training and recruitment costs. The MOD acknowledges that and reflects it in the form of compensation provided to non-public sector employers. Would the SPCB consider making additional budget available to MSPs who have staff mobilised to cover expenses arising from mobilisation? That is an interesting suggestion and it is one that I shall take back and discuss with my colleagues on the corporate body. Question 5, James Dornan, who is joining us remotely. Slightly changed the order to see if we can sort out whatever technical difficulty has arisen. I call question 6, Emma Roddick. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, what review has been undertaken of heating the Parliament building in light of updated ventilation requirements? Ventilation of workplaces is an increasingly important mitigation in limiting the spread of Covid-19 and other viruses. A review of the ventilation system at Holyrood took place earlier this year, which confirms that the mechanical ventilation systems at Holyrood are working well. There is a building management system at Holyrood that monitors temperatures across the campus. It controls the temperature during the preset hours of occupancy and automatically activates the heating system if temperatures fall below a certain point. There are parts of the building, however, that rely on natural ventilation, and that means opening windows, vents and doors to provide sufficient fresh air. Given the importance of staying safe and healthy this year more than ever, could the corporate body advise what the ambient temperature should be in the Parliament building, specifically in offices, and outline what support can be given to members, staff and SPCB staff to ensure that they have a comfortable and safe working environment? I do appreciate that there can be a challenging building to heat, and it varies between different points of the building. I would urge the member to contact facilities management and report any issues, as is a particular concern about her own circumstances or staff circumstances, and they will work quickly to resolve any issues. We are facing winter and we are trying to find a balance between sufficient ventilation and making sure that members and their staff are comfortable in their workspaces. To ask the Scottish Parliament for a corporate body to outline its position on collective decision making following media reports of division regarding the security of MSPs and the Scottish Parliament building. As the member will know, members of the corporate body are elected by the Parliament and, when acting as members of the corporate body, they do so in a non-party political manner. All members of SPCB are entitled to their views on a range of significant policy, operational and resourcing decisions that are considered by the corporate body. At the end of the day, any decision is taken the name of the corporate body, and that is what is important. We all found out about the Parliament's designated status through Maggie Chapman's briefing of the press. I have been on a number of boards of directors through all my years. I cannot fathom a situation where a board member would publicly criticise one of our decisions as a board and then retain their place on the board. You simply cannot work in a situation where one person is intent on sabotaging the collective decisions of the board. So does the corporate body agree with me that any of its members who publicly undermine its decisions should resign from the board? The member raises the issue in his characteristic fashion and his views are noted. I would say that the minutes from each meeting are published and our work is transparent and is open to scrutiny. The corporate body operates on a collegiate basis. Of course, as the member would expect, there can be differing views, and that is to be encouraged, and they are important in shaping our decisions. Our discussions often reflect the wide range of views that may be shared by members in the chamber as well as wider society. The important things are that all decisions are fully discussed and determined in the name of the corporate body and are not part of political, and I am satisfied that the corporate body is effectively working together in a cooperative way. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it has taken to assess the effectiveness and utility of the new Scottish Parliament website. We use web analytics, user research and feedback to assess the effectiveness of the website on an on-going basis. We have a continuous improvement programme for taking forward work on the Parliament website, and we use that insight to inform how we prioritise various bits of work. We are proactive in seeking feedback, and to give you an example of that, we are about to launch an online user survey to gather further information. I am not speaking alone, as I have had conversations with colleagues, with students, with stakeholders and constituents who are having trouble finding information that they need on the new website. The committee sections, for example, are difficult to navigate, list meetings without any context, or unlike the previous website. Something frustrating to me is a convener who inherited from two different session 5 committees the drop-downs in the old website have now been changed, making it very difficult to search the OR. I am concerned that this could be reputationally damaging for the Parliament, and I am asking the corporate body to consider an independent review that includes a website comparison with other legislatures offerings. I apologise, Presiding Officer, on how you finished it. Thank you for that supplementary, Ms Addison. Some of the frustrations that you have outlined are shared by members of the corporate body as well. In response to that, my answer would be that no website is ever finished. We have an ongoing programme of changes and enhancements to make to the website, informed by feedback, your feedback and the feedback of others. The previous website was over 10 years old and built on outdated technology that was no longer supported, so we had to make substantial changes to the technical side of the website to make improvements. We know that there are things that we need to adapt. For example, the search function is part of on-going work. We have already made some changes, for example, in filtering options and that kind of thing. In response to feedback and other improvements will be made by the end of this financial year. Committee reports, spice briefings and those kinds of things are currently on a different site, which makes things difficult. We are in the process of creating the uniform site, and that should be done in the next few months. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what the Scottish Parliament's budget is for both inbound and outbound school visits. I thank Paul McClellan for his question. Pre-Covid, our education services offered three different support packages to schools—a visit to the Scottish Parliament, a visit to the school and resources for independent use in the classroom by the teacher. The average annual spend across the years 2018 to 2020 was £194,260. The cost of providing inward and outward visits is roughly equal—97,802 for inward and 96,458 for outward, including travel costs. We are budgeting in the 22-23 year for a similar amount as we anticipate a gradual return to pre-Covid demand and service levels towards the end of this academic year. In 2020-21 and 2021-22, we have not been travelling and have ensured that the budget has been available to support other areas of the Parliament where required. Can I ask which schools, if any, are regulars and how schools that do not engage or those in areas can be encouraged? Paul McClellan, for that supplementary question, I think that there are a couple of things for us to consider here. We want to make sure that the offer that we make to schools is available for all schools, regardless of their proximity to Parliament and their regularity of engagement. We have seen over the past few months that the work that the team is doing to reach out to schools. We are reaching new schools and we are trying to enhance that engagement to make sure that we do not see schools that have repeated engagement while other areas are left neglected or out of touch. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assistance it will provide to MSPs to make improvements to the ventilation of the local officers in order to support the reopening when that decision is taken. I thank the member for his question. As recognised in a previous answer, ventilation of workplaces is an increasingly important mitigation in limiting the spread of Covid-19. Recognising the different types of premises that members have for their local officers, a range of support will be put in place. First, some general advice has been prepared and will point members and their staff towards helpful information that is available from the Scottish Government and Health and Safety Executive. As part of that guidance, there are tools available that can be used to identify where ventilation improvements may be needed. Secondly, a drop-in ventilation clinic will be run online later this month and officials will be in touch with details. Thirdly, specialist expertise will be made available over the telephone or in person for officers that have particularly complex or unclear requirements. I thank Clare Baker for that reply and certainly at some point we will be allowed to fully reopen our constituency offices. Can I ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to prioritise those members whose offices will be short fronts or on the high streets, where there will be other particular challenges that will affect the officers? Certainly, I am quite sure that colleagues across the chamber will also want to ensure that the staff who do work in those offices will have a healthy, clean-working environment. I appreciate that the priority so far has been ensuring that Holyrood can operate safely as possible, and that has rightly been the focus. However, local officers will need to be given support in order to carry out risk assessments on how to operate those premises safely. The focus will now shift towards local officers and addressing their ventilation considerations. I recognise the importance of meeting the needs of all officers. Members have various arrangements and challenges in achieving a safe workplace for their staff and constituents. That is something that the corporate body will look at closely as we develop the plans for reopening of offices. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether members' annual reports can be delivered after 4 February 2022, and if not, what the reasons are for its position on the matter? As per the allowance notice that was issued to all members on 10 November, members' annual reports cannot be issued between 5 February 2022 and the election to local authorities on 5 May, including in line with the SPC's long-standing policy on members' publications. The corporate body has taken that long-standing position to ensure the neutrality of any election without any undue or perceived influence, intentional or unintentional, coming through the issuing of members' parliamentary funded publications. Advanced notice of that has been provided to enable members to plan the issuing of their publications over the next three months prior to the deadline. Annual reports and other parliamentary funded publications can be issued as normal following that election. John Mason. However, if the main reason is that it is a long-standing decision, I do not accept that every long-standing decision is necessarily the correct one. It seems to me that three months is an excessively long period to stop members, and especially perhaps new members, from issuing an important annual report. For example, Parliament stopped six weeks before the election last year, and six weeks would seem to me a more reasonable time than three months. Corporate body actually did last consider this matter in the previous session in 2019 in relation to the unexpected UK general election. At that point, the corporate body agreed that it remained vital to maintain the prohibited period and the neutrality that comes with not issuing such publications. Anytime we have discussed it as a corporate body, although I have some sympathy with the argument that Mr Mason makes, there is the potential—I think that it does exist—when this Parliament is sitting, given that the UK Parliament does not fund such publications themselves. However, there is the opportunity, however intentional or unintentional, for a publication that is submitted by members of this Parliament to potentially, for example, include people who might be standing in the local authority election thereafter, and that that would be an unreasonable use of parliamentary resources and potentially breach the political neutrality intended by the annual reports that are there for members to communicate with their constituents. The reason that we give as much notice as we do is to allow people to make proper provision so that they can fit within that schedule. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration has been given to providing parliamentary services outwith the usual hours. I thank Willie Coffey for that question. The SPCB recognises the importance of providing flexible responsive parliamentary services that support MSPs and their staff in fulfilling their roles. The pandemic has shown us new ways of working and there are lessons such as the value of extending IT support until the end of members' business that we can take forward, both in terms of our response to the pandemic and more broadly in relation to the provision of services. Providing comprehensive parliamentary services has to be balanced with staff rotors and shifts, a commitment to fair work employment practices and the budgetary constraints that the Parliament works within. SPCB is currently discussing how services may be able to adapt and improve post-pandemic. We will seek to take members' views as part of this so that we can ensure that we are providing excellent parliamentary services to support members and the way in which they choose to work. I thank my colleague for that answer. I am content with that response. I am happy to allow us to move on to next business. We have a supplementary from Jamie Greene. Can I ask the SPCB when it is likely that cross-party groups will be able to meet in person? Those are vital functions of the Parliament and the ability for members of the public to engage with members and its Parliament. I am sure that all of us would like to see them running as soon as possible. Given that other members of the public are already coming into the Parliament for other functions. I thank Jamie Greene for that supplementary question. SPGs and others are eager to get back to meeting in person. We review this on a regular basis, on an on-going basis, and we are balancing risks and mitigations to the risks of virus transmission in the building. We hope that we will have an update prior to the Christmas recess in advance of returning next January. That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is portfolio questions. This is on rural fares and islands. I will allow a short pause to allow front-benchers to change their seats.