 Good afternoon. The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time. I do recommend brief questions and responses wherever possible when looking for a supplementary should press the request-to-speak button during an relevant question. I call question number one, Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body under what circumstances fair trade products are used and catered in the Scottish Parliament. It is incumbent on our catering services provider, Sodexo, to source and use fair trade products whenever possible as part of the delivery of the catering service in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament does include a wide range of fair trade products, including fresh fruit, coffee, hot chocolate and a range of tea and fruit and herbal teas. A member of the cross-party group in Fair Trade raised with me my capacity as convener of the group that non-fair trade coffee was being served at a recent parliamentary reception, so I'm keen to know on what occasions and why would the decision be taken to serve a non-fair trade product when a fair trade option was available and in fact is the norm within the Parliament. Will the corporate body consider publishing the level of fair trade spend within the Parliament? I thank the member for raising that issue. Fair trade tea, coffee and sugar sashes are served where possible. I do know that, recently, due to a supply chain issue, an alternative had to be sourced. The team will continue to work with a supplier to ensure that the sachet options are fair trade and that should be standard. The coffee served in flasks are always fair trade. In terms of disaggregation of spend, we can look at that. I think that it is around £25,000 of spent on fair trade. At the moment, that's about 5 per cent of our total spend, but I can write to the member with a fuller response. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body whether it will consider having a third exhibition area in light of there being considerable demand for such spaces. I thank the member for his question. Apart from the two existing spaces, there are currently no other suitable spaces in the busy parliamentary campus or available resources to support an additional member-sponsored exhibition space. However, the SPCB is sympathetic to that, and we are happy to explore that as part of future work on the use of the building. Although there is a lot of demand for member-sponsored exhibitions, most can be accommodated within the current arrangements. When that is not possible, parliamentary officials will always seek to offer an alternative date to accommodate the exhibition or, where appropriate, offer organisers a member-sponsored event instead. John Mason. I thank the member for that answer, but I would have to slightly disagree with her and suggest that there are other places where we could have an exhibition. I think that, near the pass office, there is quite a lot of space in the garden lobby, and perhaps other options I would be happy to discuss it with her. Just the other night, we were at the Gypsy Traveller cross-party group, and they have been able to book a space, but not until next October. Well, it is not simply a matter of space, it is to do with resources, the equipment that is required, the staffing and so on. However, as I said, the SPCB is sympathetic, and we will see if there is another space that can be found as we explore future work on the use of the building, especially since Covid and the use of the building has changed. Jackie Baillie To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how the staff cost provision upgrading for 24.25 will be calculated. Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. You know Christmas is coming, because this question always precedes it. I can say to Jackie Baillie that, as part of the annual budget cycle, the SPCB considers the indexation of all provisions, including staff cost provision, the index to be applied is a matter for SPCB judgment rather than automatic application, and it will of course be confirmed when the SPCB submits its budget for consideration to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the coming weeks. Jackie Baillie And here was me thinking that Jackson Carlaw was auditioning to be Santa. I fear he might disappoint me, but allow me to point out to him that the SPCB have used a figure of 6.7% for average weekly earnings and 6.2% for the annual survey for hours and earnings, but data published last week shows the annualised increase in AWE from October to September this year was in fact 7.5%. So can I encourage him and the SPCB to use the most recent figure to operate the staff cost provision to ensure that staff receive the uplift they deserve and he gets the title of the best Santa ever? Jackson Carlaw Well, if I'm Santa, Jackie Baillie can be one of the elves. I'm very happy to support her application in that regard. I take note of what she says. The corporate body does consider the various indices. They do consider them a point of time. I'm not sure I actually do recognise the figure that she has quoted there, but we do recognise and we did apply AWE as the figure in relation to the staff cost provision last year. We thought that that was an admirable decision. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what difficulties there are, if any, in recruiting staff for jobs in the Scottish Parliament. Jackson Carlaw The corporate body is proud of its ability to attract and retain talented staff from a wide range of backgrounds, despite on-going challenges with which I think we're all familiar in the recruitment market and with vacancies for some roles outstripping the number of people actively looking for work. The corporate body continues to be successful in attracting people with the right skills and experience for our roles. The SPCB takes a strategic approach to recruitment. We assess the market constantly, including benchmarking salaries, and we engage with candidates at all stages of the recruitment process to learn about how we can improve. Our competitive salaries and benefits, including flexible and hybrid working arrangements, are attractive for job seekers, meaning that we continue to be successful in attracting high-quality candidates for our vacancies. Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank all of the hard-working staff who keep this place going and look after us so well. It seems that there have been a number of vacancies in recent times in security and catering in particular. What is the corporate body doing to ensure that we have good, the best, paying conditions in place for our staff? Has shift pattern changes had an impact on recruiting and retaining staff? Jackson Carlaw The corporate body obviously puts fair work at the centre of its approach to employment, and our staff constantly respond in their results positively regarding the employment package that we offer. We take a number of approaches to ensure that this is the case. Salaries are regularly benchmarked with comparator employers to ensure that they are fair, competitive and attract candidates with the right skills and experience. We also have a no compulsory redundancy guarantee in place until the end of this parliamentary session, giving staff security and the organisational values of inclusiveness and respect to ensure that the SPZ staff feels safe to be themselves at work. I am not aware that shift working has created any particular difficulty. The one area in which we have found an exception to our ability to recruit has been in the appointment of senior software developers. However, we have reviewed our recruitment approach for those particular vacancies and are confident that we are well placed to advertise those roles again with the expectation that we will be successful this time. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on its work to ensure that the Cresh facility can offer more than four hours per week per child. We are working hard to try to find a solution here. The main reason for the current four hours per week restriction is the lack of access to an adequate outdoor space. The Facilities Management Office met with the Care Inspectorate and our Cresh provider on Tuesday 7 November to look at options for creating a new outdoor space that would allow the current restrictions to be eased. An initial feasibility report has been drafted by our property services consultant and outlined that design work is now under way. Once the design work has been completed, further work will take place in relation to timescales budget and liaison with the Care Inspectorate. Of course, the same facility has not changed only the limits imposed on it. Last term, at least four MSPs, who are also mothers, stepped down from the Parliament, citing the possibility of balancing childcare and political office. That figure is guaranteed to increase unless the ridiculous and unnecessary limit of four hours per week per child is resolved. That would ultimately mean lettuce representation in Parliament of working parents in Scotland. Does the SPCB understand the urgency of the matter and will it work tirelessly to try and resolve it? I do appreciate how challenging combining the role of an MSP and caring responsibilities can be. I was a user of the Cresh myself and my daughter was one when I was first elected, so I recognise how important it is for MSPs to get a level of support. We are working hard to try and find a solution and the first instance to get us up back to the four hours a day provision that we had before. To be clear, it is the Care Commission who has put in these restrictions on us. In terms of longer-term ambition, we are having some discussions with the Scottish Government that might enable us to use their nursery and, as I say, we have set out a design consultancy process and we will be looking at all options that can be available to us. Will I support the efforts that Kate Forbes and Megan Gallacher are making in order to extend the hours of the Cresh facility? However, I have grave concerns that I hope Clare Baker can address about security in relation to children in this building. I was baffled and greatly concerned that a member of the SPCB, Maggie Chapman, encouraged and endorsed and applauded an illegal protest on the roof of this very building. That is totally unsatisfactory from a member of the SPCB, but can she give me assurances in this regard? I do not think that that is relevant to the original question. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when SPCB staff were notified by Michael Matheson of his holiday in Morocco and intention to take a parliamentary device abroad. I thank the member for the question. Mr Matheson did not notify Parliament's IT team about his intention to take his device abroad. As the member himself has confirmed to the chamber, he contacted the Parliament IT team on 28 December from Morocco seeking assistance with a parliamentary device. I thank the member for that answer. Obviously, some arrangement has been made to allow Michael Matheson to pay only £3,000 from his office expenses to offset the £11,000 bill. Can the member confirm when Michael Matheson first offered to pay a contribution, who set the amount and on what basis it was set? As the member will know, the SPCB has issued a statement today that was circulated to all MSPs. This morning, we determined that it would undertake an investigation in line with its duties under the MSP code of conduct. The investigation will consider whether the claims for £11,000 of public money incurred through data roaming charges were proper and met the requirements of the scheme and whether the resources were used for parliamentary purposes in accordance with all corporate body policies. We will seek to conclude our investigations promptly and our findings will be published. Depending on those findings, there may be a number of options open to the corporate body as set out in section 9 of the code of conduct, including referral to the SPPA committee. I am sure that the member will appreciate that, in the interests of fairness to all and to avoid prejudicing our investigation, the corporate body will, as of now, not comment on any matters that could have a bearing on this process. It is important to stress, however, that the corporate body remains wholly committed to open this in transparency and will release all material that it can, when it can, in line with our legal obligations. I am grateful to the member for the information given, but I would be grateful if the corporate body could give an idea of the timescale for its investigation into Michael Matheson's inappropriate use of expenses. I note that the statement says that it will be promptly, but what does promptly actually mean? I am sure that the member will appreciate that. This has been announced this morning and the corporate body recognises the interests of members. We will undertake the work as promptly as we can, and we will respond. I am afraid that this afternoon I cannot give a proper timescale to that. We want to make sure that it is a fair, transparent process, and we will undertake the investigation in those terms. I refer the member to my earlier statement. In response to the investigation, I believe that, after FMQs this afternoon, the First Minister's official spokesperson has confirmed that Humza Yousaf will co-operate fully with the corporate body investigation. Can the member confirm that all interested parties, including the health secretary, will be interviewed as part of this process and will feed into the investigation that has now been launched? As the member would expect, this will be a fair and due process. The member who is involved in this investigation would be able to provide us with further written representation if they wish to do so. To ask the SPCB what its position is on whether the £3,000 used from Michael Matheson's office of expenses for roaming charges constituted value for money, as required of all expense claims under the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme. As I have said, the investigation that we are undertaking will consider whether the claims through £11,000 of public money incurred through data roaming charges were proper and met the requirements of the scheme and whether resources were used for parliamentary purposes in accordance with SPCB policies. Michael Matheson's roaming charge bill, partially paid for by parliamentary expenses, was more than double the value of the rest of the MSP mobile phone bill claims combined. This clearly cannot represent value for money for the taxpayer and the expenses claim has now been deleted from the Parliament website. So was this expenses claim removed from the Parliament's website because it blatantly did not comply with the requirement that expenses claims must represent value for money? As the member will know, Michael Matheson paid the £11,000, recently paid that back to Parliament, and the expenses database has been updated to reflect that. That concludes Corporate Body Question Time. We are going to have to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause to allow the front benches to change.