 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11310, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on a change to the business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Moved, Presiding Officer. I call on Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment 11310.1 up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Now, today's business motion gives Michael Matheson the chance to outline his reasons for attempting to charge the Scottish taxpayers around £11,000 for roaming charges while he was on holiday in Morocco. It has also allowed the First Minister to deflect and avoid questions from Douglas Ross at First Minister's questions today on his understanding of a scandal, including whether he still backs claims that the expense claim was legitimate and for parliamentary purposes only. What the current proposal does not allow for is any form of scrutiny on the content of Mr Matheson's statement. At the end of First Minister's questions, in response to Stephen Caer's point of order, both Mr Matheson and the First Minister intimated that Mr Matheson would be willing to answer questions following his statement. Therefore, the only option that the Parliament has open to it is to suspend Standing Order Rule 13.1.4 to allow for either questions or debate on the content of the statement. Given that both the Government and the Leader Opposition Party have accepted that this should happen, there is a clear parliamentary majority for a suspension of Standing Orders to allow for this questioning to occur. It is only right and proper that the Health Secretary has questioned following his statement given the long and growing list of questions that have arisen over the last week and have become a distraction from his role as Health Secretary. I hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business saw the First Minister indicate his willingness for questions to be allowed and is able to support our amendment without division to prevent any further delay to this afternoon's proceedings. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau up to five minutes. I would like to take a moment just to go through some of the detail there. Mr Matheson made a request to the Presiding Officer to make a personal statement yesterday and offered to take questions. As members will know, and as the Presiding Officer reiterated during a point of order earlier, taking the statement is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer who notifies the Bureau. The Standing Orders are clear that a personal statement must not be debated, so a variation to the Standing Orders is required if members wish to do so today. Therefore, if the Presiding Officer decides to suspend Standing Orders to allow for questions, I would have no issue with that whatsoever. The first question is the amendment 11310.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend business motion 11310, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a change to the business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next item of business is a personal statement by Michael Matheson, and I call on Michael Matheson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The next question is the business motion 11310, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, as amended, on a change to the business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I call on Michael Matheson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to make a personal statement to Parliament. I want to address the significant level of interest in the data roaming charges associated with my parliamentary iPad during a family holiday in Morocco between the 27th of December and the 3rd of January this year. First, I apologise to the chamber for the cost of the roaming charges. As I set out my public statement on Friday, I accept that the charges have come about as a result of not updating the SIM card in my iPad to the new contract provider. I also recognise that I should have informed Parliament IT of my holiday plans in advance of travelling and that I would be taking two devices. That was my responsibility and I accept it in full. Therefore, I think that it is important to set out to the chamber all of the facts of what happened and, in particular, exactly how the charges came about. I travelled to Morocco with my family, wife and two teenage boys on the 27th of December. On the first day of the holiday, the 28th of December, I contacted the Parliament's IT department, told them that I was out of the country and that my parliamentary phone was not working but that my iPad was working. In the course of two phone calls after an initial effort to get the phone working, Parliament's IT department advised that they had checked with the network operator who explained that my data package was suitable for use in Morocco. They also advised that I should try to remove and replace the SIM card from my phone as a problem, maybe a fault with the SIM card. Nothing in those discussions led me to believe that there was any risk in using my iPad while in Morocco. I want to be clear with colleagues that I did not knowingly run up the Roman Chargers bill. Quite the reverse, I checked what I should do before I used my iPad. My mistake and I fully accept this was not to have sorted all of this out long before I went to Morocco. In January this year, I was informed of the high data charges accrued to my iPad. Of course, I queried the charges and Parliament confirmed that they had contacted the provider for more information. At this time, I handed my iPad over to the Parliament for it to be checked. It is important to be clear that, throughout this time, I was not clear what had caused the high charges. I had not used the iPad for any purpose other than parliamentary and constituency business and could not understand how the costs could be so high. Parliament confirmed that the network provider was unable to give further details of what led to the charges. In the absence of a clear explanation of how such a large bill could have happened, I thought it appropriate to make a contribution through office allowances of £3,000 towards the cost. Following the publication of my expenses last week, there was significant media coverage of the charges. It is at this point last Thursday night when I returned home that I was made aware by my wife that other members of her family had made use of the iPad data. That was the first I knew that the data had been used by anyone else. I had previously checked that the truth only emerged after the story was in the news. I should have pressed harder. Perhaps I should have been less willing to believe what I had been told. I need to be very clear with you and colleagues today. The responsibility for the iPad is mine. That is why my wife and I made the immediate decision to reimburse the Parliament the full cost. I contacted Parliament authorities the next day to make clear arrangements to reimburse the full cost of the roaming charges and issue a personal statement to explain the decision. In my statement issued last Friday, I made no reference to the use of data by my family. As a parent, I wanted to protect my family from being part of the political and media scrutiny associated with this, something that I believe any parent would want to do. I am a father first and foremost. I can see now that it is just not possible to explain the data usage without explaining their role. The simple truth is that they were watching football matches. On Tuesday, I told the First Minister that members of my family had made use of the iPad data, and yesterday evening I provided him with a full account of the matter and of my intention to inform Parliament. Disclosing this information about my family has been extremely difficult. Mistakes have been made by me and by my family, and mistakes have been made in the way in which I have handled this. I should have sorted the SIM card, I should have investigated what happened more thoroughly, I accept that, take responsibility and apologise unreservedly. That is why the costs have now been fully reimbursed to Parliament. That is why I have referred myself to the Scottish Parliament corporate body under section 7 of the MSP code of conduct, so that it can consider whether to investigate the matter further to address any remaining questions to this Parliament's full satisfaction. I take very seriously the reputation of the Scottish Parliament, of which I have always striven to be a diligent member since its restoration in 1990. My wish is that I can now focus fully on the vital duties that I have as MSP for Falkirk West and as health secretary. I hope that members will accept my explanation, my self-refero under the code of conduct and my unreserved apology. Given the decision of the Parliament to suspend rule 13.1.4, I will allow a period of around 10 minutes for questions. I would be grateful if any members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I am grateful to Michael Matheson for the personal statement that he has just provided. I can fully see the difficulty it has caused him. However, questions remain. During that statement, Michael Matheson said that he could not understand how he had racked up so much data roaming charges. He went on to say he could not explain the data usage, but of course he did explain the data usage. He told this Parliament when he claimed for expenses that it was a legitimate expense. He promised the Parliament it was a legitimate expense. He gave this Parliament written assurances it was a legitimate expense. If it has now transpired that his son was watching football, why did he claim he was doing parliamentary work? Can he say if he cannot understand at the time or could not explain the data usage how he could 100% say to the Parliament when claiming £11,000 of taxpayers' money that he was doing parliamentary work? The two stories do not align and it does seem that Parliament was misled to make that claim. Does Michael Matheson agree with that? He also said in his statement that he looked for £3,000 to be taken out of his office cost allowance. Was that his only request or did he seek more money and more support out of available budgets? He said he made the immediate decision on hearing from his wife to repay the money. But in the statement that he made to the media and to the Scottish public, he said that was as a direct consequence of using an outdated SIM. Did he mislead the Scottish people by using that argument rather than what we now know to be the case? The health secretary has belatedly been forced to be honest about the circumstances. But what we cannot ignore and we cannot forget is that months ago he wanted the Scottish taxpayer to pay £11,000 for his roaming bill. That roaming bill was accrued not due to parliamentary duties which he claimed and therefore he falsely claimed that money. Will the health secretary accept that? In my statement, I was clear that at the time when I was notified of the high charges associated with my iPad, that the Parliament IT department contacted the network provider to try and find out more details as to how the costs had been associated with my iPad. Unfortunately, the network provider was unable to provide that information to the Parliament. Therefore we were unable to identify how the costs of the roaming charges associated with my iPad had been accrued. At that time I also passed my iPad to the IT department to consider whether there was an issue with it and for them to look at the device. I also made the contribution of £3,000 towards the costs in order to help to meet the costs associated with the Parliament's IT department in meeting the overall costs. That was something that I volunteered in making to the Parliament directly itself. The member made reference to my statement last Friday and I made no reference to the fact that that data usage had occurred through members of my family. As I set out in my statement, this has been a very challenging and emotional time for my family. I chose not to provide details of that in my statement Friday because it would implicate my children in this issue. I chose not to provide that information in order to try and protect them from the inevitable media scrutiny and political interest that that would generate. I did that as a father to protect them. I think that anyone who has had teenage children will understand what has happened, but what people will not understand is the cover-up. That has only had the effect of heightening the media scrutiny, which understandably he did not want for his family. I regret to say that the failure to replace the SIM card, despite reminders over several years, is wholly negligent. I regret that the failure to keep the iPad secure is equally negligent, and I regret that on repeated occasions he assured this Parliament and made statements in the press that were wholly incorrect. There is a serious question of judgement here, but whilst he was focused on this mess of his own making, A&E waiting times had gone up this year to the highest level. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde were named as suspects in a corporate homicide case, and 820,000 patients are waiting too long on NHS waiting lists for treatment. Does he not believe that as a result of that serious question of judgement that people will understandably have lost confidence in his ability to do his job as the Cabinet Secretary for Health? Why did he not investigate the use of data when it was raised with him consistently by parliamentary authorities? Why is it only now that he asked his family what actually happened? I wholly accept that the data usage and the cost that has been associated with that are my responsibility, which is why last Thursday we as a family made a decision to reimbust the Parliament for the full costs that were associated with that. My use of iPad when I was on holiday was purely for constituency and parliamentary purposes, and that was my understanding of all that happened with iPad when it travelled with us. Clearly things have changed as a result of the information that I now have. Can I also be very clear with the member? I did ask an IT sought to try and get further details from the network operator on exactly what the iPad had accrued the charges for, and the network operator were unable to provide that information. I also discussed the matter with my family and received assurances at that time. Had I known that my family had made use of the data at that time, I would have met the costs associated with that, but I did not know that, which is why at that time I could not understand how the costs had been accrued. When it became apparent that we had accrued the costs as a result of actions within my family, we took the immediate decision to reimbust the full amount to the Parliament. I hope that my member will take my reassurance that, as soon as that became apparent to us, Wazer family decided to ensure that Parliament will reimbust for the full costs associated with it. I welcome the member's statement and ask whether he is engaged with the Parliament on data capping on parliamentary devices in the future. I am aware that the Parliament is undertaking a review of the existing arrangements that it has in place in my own painful experience of this. I am more than happy to engage with the Parliament to offer it any assistance that I can from my experience to ensure that no other member experiences that type of difficulty at some point in the future. To access the cabinet secretary's iPad, passwords would need to be sheared. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if he has sheared his devices passwords with anyone? Does he accept that this goes against GDPR rules, given the sense of information held on parliamentary devices, and can he share with the chamber when he first sheared with the First Minister that his family members used his iPad during his family holiday in Morocco? In terms of the information that I have provided to the First Minister, I set that out in my statement. When I engaged with the Parliament's IT department about the difficulties that I had with my phone not operating, the advice that I was given was that I could use the iPad for hotspotting purposes. I had used a hotspot before, and my son helped to facilitate that provision. That is how they have been able to access the data that was provided within the iPad during the course of her holiday period. In my expenses that we use in this Parliament to authorise payments out of the budget that is provided by the Parliament from the taxpayer, we certify that the expenditure was appropriate and arisen. That was not correct in this case, was it? Michael Matheson. It was a cost that was accrued to the Parliament's IT provision, not through my office allowances. It was funded centrally by the Scottish Parliament, so there was no claim for the £11,000 through my parliamentary office. I volunteered to make a contribution towards the cost, given the cost that the Parliament was facing as a result of the high growing charges. Does the member agree with me that standards in public office are very important, and that is why it is right that he has referred himself to the Parliament Bureau? I have been 24 years in this Parliament and I have always sought to maintain the high standards of the Parliament through how I conduct myself, not as a minister but as an MSP, how my constituency office operates in supporting constituents and how we have utilised the public resources that we have provided to undertake our job. There are standards that I have always sought to apply and I will continue to seek to apply. I have acknowledged the errors that have been made in this particular instance and as soon as those errors became apparent to us, the actions that I have taken in order to address them by fully reimbusting the Parliament for the cost. That concludes the personal statement point of order, Douglas Ross. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer. We've had a short time to question the health secretary. I wonder what opportunities there will be for further questioning, particularly with the referral to the corporate body. Michael Matheson said in his role as a Government minister on Monday in response to a journalist question, was there any personal use? Michael Matheson said no. Michael Matheson made very clear, et cetera, et cetera, but we've just heard from Michael Matheson that on Thursday evening he knew there was personal use. Will the investigation by the corporate body look into the conflicting statements that Michael Matheson has given Parliament today, what he said in his role as a Government minister on Monday and the apparent revelation from his family on Thursday evening? Secondly, the First Minister refused to answer questions about this issue at FMQs. Particularly my question is, did he still believe it to be a legitimate claim? I can only assume now he doesn't. However, when did he become aware? Michael Matheson in his statement said he spoke to the First Minister last night, advising that he would be making a personal statement. But between Thursday evening last week and yesterday, when did he inform the First Minister that he had found out that that had been used for personal reasons? Mr Ross, questions to other members are not points of order. Points of order are to question whether proper procedures are or have been followed. They are matters that are covered in the standing orders. I would ask you to conclude very quickly, Mr Ross. Yes, but I did preface my remarks that I'm asking how Parliament can get these answers, given that we've had a very tight timescale and on the point about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Investigation. I will respond to that, Mr Ross. All members will be aware that where there are matters to be pursued further, they should laze with their business managers who can pursue that matter with the Parliamentary Bureau at its meetings, and the corporate body shall of course consider any referral. We'll now move on to the next item. Stephen Kerr, point of order. My colleague Megan Gallagher asked a very important question of Michael Matheson. It has to do with the security of parliamentary devices. I will stop you at that point, Mr Kerr. I have just said that if you want to avail yourself of the standing orders and look at the standing orders with regards to points of order, they are to cover whether or not proper procedures are or have been followed in the chamber in the course of our parliamentary business. This is not, I would suggest, the most appropriate venue for raising the question that you now wish to put. We will move on to the next item of business, which is portfolio questions, and I'll allow a moment for front benches to arrange themselves. Point of order, Stephen Kerr. Presiding Officer, respecting what you have just said from the chair, that this is not the appropriate forum to ask about the security of parliamentary devices, an issue that will be very much a concern of the public, may I ask your advice as to what is the appropriate public forum for this question to be properly addressed? Because this is a clear, what we have heard this afternoon is a clear transgression of GDPR. This is a very serious matter indeed. Thank you. Your comments are on the record, Mr Kerr. I will look at them, I will review them and I will be back in touch with the member, either I or the most appropriate person with regards to the issues he raises will be in touch with Mr Kerr.