 Gweithio, Colleagues. The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliament corporate body questions. I invite members wishing to ask a supplementary question to press the request and speak buttons during the relevant question. There's quite a number on the order paper. I'm keen to get through as many as I can so brief questions and answers were possible. In terms of supplementaries, just to advise colleagues in relation to question 4 and 5, I'm likely to take supplementaries after question 5 has been answered. Nr 1, Neil Bibby To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it will next meet with representatives from the JMBN trade union MSP staff branch. Jackson Carlaw Mr Bibby is a faithful itender of these corporate body sessions. Will I for sure recall the substance of the answer that I gave to Pam Duncan Glancy when she asked this question in November last year? Felly, yn siaradau, dyna nhw'n wneud rhywuniau yn cymryd yn cymryd y cor manually a y dyluniau MSP. Felly, ystai'n gychwyn i ddod y ddw i'n hyn, dyma, mae'n mynd i'r ffordd yn defnyddio gwmpu gan y informaeth gen i'r gymuned gyrtiadau ystaf ddod y MSP hyn am on atenção a'r cymryd. Mae y ddod y cymryd yn cymryd ei dwylo i wedi adnod ddiwylliant i rhagorau argyweithio diogelio'r'n cyfryd yn colliad rhan o ranolwg hyn i ddyn nhw. After that, it is a matter for individual employers and forábig Phoe drillingер. Neil Bibby. diyeach ar d wipeid creediau, Mr Carlaww, for that answer. It recognized what you said about the formal arrangements and I do believe that it is important for the corporate body to fully consider the views of GMBs who represent many labour MSP staff and many other MSP staff to head of staff conservatisation setting process for 2024-25 and on other issues. Gmb of warmly welcomed the chief executive of the Parliament indicating his willingness to be informed by these views and I very much share this. Does the minister agree that that is a welcome development and it is important for the corporate body to hear from the Gmb on staff pay and other significant issues affecting their members before they are made? While ministerial appointments do follow this corporate body session, I am not living in hope, Mr Bibby, but thank you for the attribution. On behalf of the corporate body, can I say that, of course, it is open to MSPs staff to speak with the representative on the corporate body from any given party in order to allow our consideration and deliberations to be informed, but Mr Bibby also makes reference, and I think that while it wouldn't be appropriate for the corporate body to meet with trade unions representing MSP staff, he is correct in that I understand the clerk, the chief executive, has indicated his willingness to do so in advance of the corporate body submitting its budget to the finance and public administration committee. While he has indicated his willingness to do so in order to be informed of the views of the representatives of MSP staff, the corporate body is clear that that is not the equivalent of entering into a formal negotiation. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussion it has had in relation to access to translation services for cross-party groups. The Scottish Parliament's corporate body's committee is providing accessibility support to enable members of the public to engage in parliamentary business. However, as the member is aware, cross-party groups are not a formal part of parliamentary business, and, as such, the corporate body is not responsible for providing resources for them. Nevertheless, a set-out in the member's code of conduct, cross-party groups may use the Parliament's facilities where they are available for public use. That means that MSPs and CPGs can access the interpretation infrastructure of our meeting rooms, which includes a portable set of equipment and headphones. Access to the advice and guidance on language support that is set out on the cross-party group page of the Parliament's internet. In addition, we are aware of the facility within Microsoft Teams to support remote interpretation for informal meetings. We are developing guidance for MSPs and committees on that, and we will also place the guidance on the CPG pages of the internet. I thank the corporate body for that helpful response. As the convener for the cross-party group on migration, I recently asked if our CPG could access translation services as the group has a number of non-English-speaking members. I was told that the group would not have to cover the cost of a translator, but, as a CPG with a number of members who are seeking asylum without the right to work, we do not charge membership fees or have cash to cover translation costs. I appreciate that the Standing Order states that the CPGs are not a formal parliamentary business, but will the corporate body commit to reviewing their policy on access to specifically translation services for all meetings in the Parliament, whether a formal parliamentary business or not, so that we can ensure that this Parliament is accessible to all. Christine Grahame I thank the members that supplemented it. I think that we are prepared to review, but with regard to perhaps cross-party groups having greater access to support, that would be a matter, I think, to be put to the Parliament through the Standards Procedures Group to assist them in their engagement in the public that they bring in. I think that that is worth looking into. Question 3, Carol Mocken. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body whether it will provide an update on pay negotiations with trade unions representing Scottish Parliament staff. I am pleased to be able to confirm that agreement has been reached on a pay deal for the Scottish parliamentary staff in 2324. That deal, which was recommended for acceptance to its members by all three of the corporate body's recognised trade unions, PCS Prospect and FDA, was arrived at following intensive negotiations. I would like to place the corporate body's thanks on record to Lorna Forman, who was leading those negotiations for the Parliament for the first time, and indeed to everybody who participated in the successful outcome of the discussions. The pay award that has been agreed is progressive and fair, ensuring that the highest percentage increases are going to those staff on the lowest grades. The corporate body has also agreed to extend its existing guarantee of no compulsory redundancies until the end of the current parliamentary session. The corporate body's wage bill for 2324 will increase by 5.6 per cent, and as the member will be aware, the staff cost provision that has been accessed by members to employ their staff has also been uplifted by 5.6 per cent for 2324. Therefore, it is for members to determine the salaries for their staff. The corporate body is pleased to be able to support its staff in this way and is grateful to its partner unions for the pace and intensity with which they have engaged in the negotiation and come to an early resolution. The Scottish Parliament is setting a really good example to other employers in providing a £15 minimum wage, but the reality is that not all staff who work in the parliamentary estate will receive the £15 an hour. As the member will be aware, MSP staff paid in the administration and office management job family can have a minimum salary, annual salary of £20,855, equating to £11.46 an hour, case worker equating to £14.3 an hour, and the communications job family at £26,717 equating to £14.68 an hour. Given the £15 an hour minimum wage for Scottish Parliament staff, will the corporate body now consider amending the job families for MSP staff and uplifting the staff cost provision to ensure that MSP staff receive a minimum wage of £15 an hour? I did make a request earlier for brief questions and brief responses. I think that it is important to say that the pay bans that are established by the Parliament are indicative. They are not compulsory and it is very much a matter for individual MSPs to determine what level of pay they would wish to award. The 5.6 per cent that is being paid to the parliamentary staff in total as the 5.6 that is going to the staff cost provision for MSPs means that there are members of the parliamentary staff at higher grades who will be receiving no or very little increase this year and others at the lower end who will be receiving increases in excess of 8 per cent. The whole system is designed to allow a degree of variation to reflect the individual circumstances of the employee, but it is for the members to decide how they deploy the sum that they have as their total staff cost provision. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on what preparations it has made for the launch of the deposit return scheme. The SSPB is continuing to review the requirements under the deposit and return scheme for Scotland regulations 2020 and how they apply to the restaurants, coffee bars and shops on the holiday site. As part of those preparations, the Scottish Parliament has registered as a producer with Circularity Scotland as we sell Scottish Parliament branded whisky in the shop. At the moment, this Parliament's waste is collected by a Scottish-based SME that follows the highest environmental standards in waste management. However, when deposit return eventually launches, the contract to collect empty containers will be handled by a large multinational company that has been fined for illegally dumping waste abroad. Does the minister, in charge of the scheme, raise any concerns about that with the corporate body, and what will happen to the existing contract with the SME provider? As the member will recognise, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the debate that is on-going around the scheme. The contract that is made with Circularity Scotland is not made with the Scottish Parliament, so it is not for me to answer questions on that particular area. The Scottish Parliament is striving to comply with the regulations, and we recognise that all businesses and organisations need essential clarity around some of those issues. Very similarly, to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on what progress it has made in preparing for the operation of the deposit return scheme. The Parliament has a public café and shop that will sell produce subject to DRS legislation. How will the public return those items to the Parliament to redeem their deposit, especially as they cannot re-enter with empty glass bottles? Will it require a reverse vending machine outside Parliament, and how much will that cost? I thank the member for the question. We are considering the need for reverse vending machines, which would be leased or hired. It is likely that those will be used initially for Parliament staff, and we are still considering how we comply with the regulations that would be under our responsibility as a producer in the public areas of the building. The costs at the moment are estimated, and once we have further information, we will share it with members. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it will take to create a more family-friendly environment. The Scottish Parliament was founded with the ambition to be a modern family-friendly Parliament, with a free creche provided uniquely in Europe to try to remove barriers for parents of young children engaging with democracy. The creche will reopen in May. I can say more if you want me to say more about that later. We also have the sitting pattern allowing for Fridays and Mondays to be focused in constituencies or regions, but it is clear that this has not always worked. Given its responsibilities for providing staffing and services to support parliamentary business, the SPCB recently wrote to the Parliamentary Bureau setting out some concerns about the impact of late decision times, whether planned or unplanned. We have asked the Bureau to consider, among other things, providing improved notice of anticipated decision times each day and of planned changes to decision times. We have also asked for its views on introducing a cut-off time for cleanery business. We do hope to have a meeting with the Bureau in the near future to discuss those issues. I remind members coming into the chamber to respect the fact that there are ongoing SPCB questions and to not engage in private chatter. I am very grateful for that answer. The SPCB has a responsibility for the staff in this Parliament. In correspondence, it has become apparent that the SPCB is seeking to obtain further information about the challenges to the family friendly setup that occurs within this Parliament. Could I politely suggest that actually there is plenty of information already available and actually with regard to the staff employed here within the Parliament decisions could be made by the SPCB, which wouldn't need input from Bureau. Would the SPCB consider reaching out to those Members of Staff to get solutions to this problem so that we can move forward to, as the Member has rightly said, anticipation of a family friendly Parliament? I thank the Member for that follow-up question. Yes, he is right, Corporate Body does have responsibility for SPC staff. For those who aren't aware, some SPC staff are required to remain at work for at least two hours after sitting periods have finished, so there is clearly a responsibility and a duty of care that we have. This is why we want to have the discussions with Bureau, but your point is a good one, and we will take that up to ensure that we are getting the information that we need, but also setting the parameters within which discussions and debates can take place, so that we do live up to the expectations that we want to be a family friendly Parliament. I repeat the plea that members coming into the chamber don't engage in private chatter while SPCB questions are on. I am calling on a brief supplementary from Megan Gallagher. As the chamber might be aware, I have been raising this issue for quite some time. Since my return to Parliament in January, it has been challenging to balance here and home life. Talented MSPs have stood down because of the way parliamentary business is structured, and I know that that is an issue for Government and Bureau. However, we don't want to deter people, especially women, from choosing to enter public life. Similar to Martin Whitfield's question, will the Corporate Body consider forming a group of MSPs, staff and SPC staff, to look at how we can make this Parliament more family friendly? I thank the member for that question, and that is something we can certainly consider. I do think, though, that the first conversations that Corporate Body needs to have are with Bureau to make sure that we are all actually discussing the same thing and we are all aware of the constraints that are on the different types of staff we have. Members are staff, but they are different types of SPS staff as well, so we need to make sure that we understand what it is that we are trying to fix here. Thank you very much. We have now reached the point at which we need to move on to the next item of business. With apologies to those, I was not able to call, and there will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business. Point of order, Rachael Hamilton. I hope that it is helpful, but there is something wrong with the microphones. I couldn't hear Brian Whittle earlier, and I struggled to hear Megan Gallagher and yourself. I thank Rachael Hamilton for that point of order. I think that there may be an issue with the microphones that we are investigating, but I would encourage Members to tilt the microphones towards them, which may help in most instances, but we will be looking into it and trying to make improvements if that is possible. As I said, there will be a pause before we move on to the next item of business.