 The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. I would invite members who are wishing to ask a supplementary question to press their question speak buttons during the relevant question. The time for this item of business has been extended, but there is an awful lot of interest. The usual plea for brevity in questions and responses, as far as possible. Question number one, Rhaetol Hamill. Ysgolwys Ffg ddechrau'r gweithio'r gwestfadau a'r ddyntgen o'r gweithio'r gwestfadau sgolwys Ffg ddechrau'r gwestfadau sy'n ddechrau'r gwestfadau. Jec Éan Carlawd. I can confirm, Presiding Officer, that the extension was not at the request of the members of the corporate body. I thank Rachel Hamilton for her question. I know that this is an issue that is of interest to a number of MSPs. The member sponsored events and exhibitions programme is very popular, with that in mind, the corporate body previously agreed that that event organisers could book up to 12 months in advance, which means the events and exhibition team are currently taking bookings from event organizers sponsoring members for events up to March 2025.級W that we pride ourselves in being a people's parliament, what is being done to ensure that stakeholders and citizens have the opportunity to engage with parliamentarians? Is this an issue of bureaucracy, or do we need to offer more flexibility of spaces to be used for events? First of all, I say that in order to manage resources across the parliamentary teams as well as the parliamentary campus on busy business nights, an agreement was given by the corporate body to limit the number of events accordingly. We currently deliver and support between nine and ten member-sponsored events and two member-sponsored exhibitions weekly. The events and exhibitions team will lead on the delivery and programming of the member-sponsored events and the exhibition programme, and also design and deliver the corporate body's agreed major events and exhibitions programme that supports the goals of the Scottish Parliament's public engagement strategy. It is, however, open to members out with that to organise events that are consistent with the meeting room booking policy should they wish to do so, but, of course, they then would have to provide the infrastructural support to allow that meeting to take place, which I suppose reasonably is not practical for a large gathering, but would be practical for a smaller gathering. In terms of the wider point, the corporate body will look to see whether, as part of, I think, the legacy report of this Parliament to the next. If we reflect and find that there has been a significant increase in the whole demand for member-sponsored events, whether it would, at that point, be appropriate to suggest that that particular part of the corporate body infrastructure received additional resource? You may not have asked for the extension in time, Mr Carlaw, but with answers that long, we are going to need a further extension. I call question number two, Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Parliament the corporate body what plans it has to commission a portrait of King Charles as head of state. I thank the member for his question. The SPCB is happy to consider suggestions from new commissions. We have asked parliamentary officials to explore options with a view to providing advice and recommendation to the SPCB in due course. We will keep you fully informed of those decisions, Deputy Presiding Officer. Murdo Fraser. I thank Christine Grahame for that answer, and I am sure that she is as enthusiastic as I am about the prospect of having a portrait of our head of state displayed in the building, as would be appropriate in a national parliament. We already have a photographic portrait of the late Her Majesty the Queen opposite the public entrance. It is much admired by visitors. I am sure that we would not want that to be removed but complemented by a portrait of our new head of state. Can the member tell me whether there are any plans to relocate the existing portrait of Her Majesty the Queen and ensure that it continues to be displayed in the building? I thank the member for his questions, which I am delighted to answer. The position about whether we keep the portrait of the late Queen will be considered by the SPCB in due course when considering the new commission for King Charles. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what steps it is taking to address any ethnicity-related pay gap among Scottish Parliamentary corporate body staff. It is a complicated response, but the corporate body is proud of the steps that it has taken to develop our minority ethnic staff, including an award-winning emerging leaders development programme, which was jointly developed by the Scottish Parliamentary Service, Edinburgh College and the Scottish Association of Minority Ethnic Educators. That programme supported 13 staff to develop their leadership skills and prepare them for career development and advancement. The corporate body has also implemented a positive action approach to recruitment, which has significantly increased the numbers of applications received from people who identify as being minority ethnic and the successful appointment of such applicants. While progress has been made, we recognise that more needs to be done to reduce our ethnicity pay gap further, which is why we have made a commitment to develop a race strategy to tackle barriers in the workplace. Recent reports on diversity monitoring and pay gaps for 2021-22 show that ethnicity pay gap for all staff has increased from 27.6 per cent to 21 to 30.1 per cent to 22. Further to that, just 18 per cent of applications for jobs in the Scottish Parliament were from minority ethnic candidates in 2022 compared to 78 per cent from white candidates, with gaps existing in the success rates from those applications. Can the corporate body be clearer on what actual steps it is taking in the coming financial year to ensure that not only are staff from ethnic minority backgrounds paid fairly but that those vacancies are adequately promoted to ensure accessibility for those candidates? The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body began reporting on its ethnicity pay gap in 2018-2019. The media and ethnicity pay gap for 2022-23 stood at 20.1 per cent, which I think is a more up-to-date figure than the one Carol Mocken had, which was obviously down from the 30.1 per cent in the previous year. In large part, that reduction has been achieved through concerted positive action in our recruitment approach, which has successfully increased our proportion of applicants and successful appointments for people who identify as minority ethnic. We have also reviewed our pay arrangements to ensure that they are transparent, equitable, consistent, flexible and fair. To ask the SPCB whether it will provide an update on its plans to increase access to child care in the creche beyond three hours per day. After considerable engagement with the care inspectorate and our service provider, Ohana, we successfully achieved a variation to our registration December last year, increasing the hours from four hours a week to three hours a day, more than doubling the hours of childcare that can be provided. Alternatively, four hours can be taken in a single session if that is the only visit in a week. Since then, we have looked at further improving access of the creche to outdoor space, so children would have a free-flowing access to an outdoor space, and that might give us more flexibility with the care commission. However, to be clear, the Parliament design was always for a creche, and a nursery has very different requirements which our facilities cannot meet. We want to deliver the best facilities for children that we can and to meet the most up-to-date guidance and criteria. Can I put on record my immense thanks to the SPCB, the care inspectorate and the parliamentary authorities for pursuing this, especially getting the changes that Clare Baker has outlined in such a timely manner? I know that a huge amount of work went into it, and I am enormously grateful. Since the last time I asked this question, I think that there have been two, although others might be able to correct me, reports of MSPs having children this summer. They will also need childcare when it comes to returning to work. I am sure that the SPCB would agree with me that MSPs work more than three hours per day, so it is quite likely that there will continue to be demand for a facility that delivers what parents need in the Parliament, rather than based on guidance that does not meet the need. I appreciate Kate Forbes' welcome for the work that has been done by the corporate body and the care inspectorate that has improved offer that we have. We recognise that members have a particular challenge with childcare that they need to care both in Edinburgh and in their constituencies, and the creche is a service that can offer some support. As I said, the design of the Parliament was to include a creche for occasional use. It is unfortunately not possible to convert this facility into a nursery and also meet the requirements of the care inspectorate. The Parliament is trying to be more family friendly. I think that our on-going investment in remote working for MSPs can provide some flexibility in managing care and responsibilities. We are continuing to speak to the Scottish Government about the nursery at Victoria Quay. We do recognise that late business can have an impact on unpredictable hours. It can be difficult for parents and care and responsibilities, and we have made representation to the bureau regarding that. How many visitors to the Scottish Parliament have been asked by security and other SPCB staff to remove badges and other apparels since May 2021? We do not hold data on the number of visitors whose items were retained, just the item details. Since reopening to the public in March 2022, security staff have retained 26 items at the main public entrance, which meet the criteria in the member's question, including five badges. The reasons for retaining the items are not currently held. From badges to suffrage colours, it seems that parliamentary staff are with growing frequency subjectively enforcing the visitor code of conduct. It has become one rule for some, but not others. In the seat of Scottish democracy, policies of so-called inclusion are leading to the exclusion of women. This is a worrying and dangerous precedent, and it is unacceptable, and it must not continue. Will the SPCB commit to review not just the visitor behaviour policy in the Scottish Parliament, but all guidance and policies in relation to banners, flags, political slogans, to ensure clarity, fairness and public participation? I thank the member for the supplementary. The Scottish and the corporate body have commissioned a review of the protest policy that will include looking at items and dress. I recognise the need for policy to be consistent and to provide clarity. Corporate body staff must conduct themselves in an impartial manner. As an update, corporate body staff have until recently been allowed to wear personalised lanyards. That was introduced in 2017 as part of diversity inclusion strategy. However, a review of the code of conduct has just been completed and a decision has been taken that all staff must wear the Parliament-issued purple lanyard staff who are employed by corporate body. That decision will help to minimise the risk of perceived bias and avoid any perception that wearing such items may be influencing our own decision making. As the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, will it give further consideration to allowing events to start in the Parliament building while members' business debates are on-going? I thank the member for his question. As my written answer to the member's question in November on this said, to enable all members to take part in events and recognising that parliamentary business needs to take precedence, events do not take place at the same time as parliamentary business in the chamber. However, when business runs late, parliamentary officials will, where appropriate, work with the event organisers to ensure that refreshments are served to event guests and they can go to the room where the event is taking place and meet members, where possible. Speeches should only take place once parliamentary business is concluded, so all members have the opportunity to hear them. The pragmatic approach appears to be working, but, as I said to the member on November, we continually keep this under review. I have a written response because I was not able to ask my question verbally at that time. I am asking for a review of the policy. I did not want to know what the policy is, I know that, but people look forward to visiting this Parliament. They can go to a lot of time and expense to be here. I think that we should do better by them. Some events have to be cancelled. The worst example was one that was sponsored by Michael Marr on colleges when people were actually on their way to the Parliament and it got cancelled. People are kept waiting in the lobby and events have to be curtailed. I would just plead to the corporate body that they have a review of the policy, which seems devoid of any common sense to me. As the member will appreciate, late sittings are not a matter for the bureau, that is not a matter for the corporate body, but a matter for the bureau for which we have no control. I put some context into this. Between January and June 23, there were six events cancelled due to Parliament sitting late. However, from September 2023 until this week, only one event had to be cancelled. That is a total of seven out of three hundred and twenty-four events. Of the seven that were cancelled since January 2023, three have been rescheduled. We have always tried to give priority to events that we have had to reschedule, but I hear what the member is saying that if there can be improvements, I am sure that the corporate body will consider it. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will look into rolling out accessibility options such as BSL and easy read as standard across all forms of public participation. When planning what participation support is needed for parliamentary activities, including committees, staff generally recommend a targeted approach based on the audiences identified as priority groups for each piece of work and taking into account the barriers to their participation. Accessibility options relevant to the audience are developed with partners. For example, the healthcare in remote and rural areas inquiry was developed in easy read as we knew adults with learning disabilities would face additional barriers. Work plan for the disability commissioner Scotland Bill will include BSL and easy read versions of the call for views. Lastly, Karen Adam will be interested to know that a public consultation for our new BSL plan, due to run from 2024 to 2030, is scheduled to take place this summer, and it will involve the use of citizen space and will be made fully BSL accessible. I am delighted and thankful for the member for that answer. I am particularly proud that, for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament, the Quality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which I convene, will be the first committee to trial the use of WhatsApp to allow the BSL users to respond to our call for views on Jeremy Balfour's disability commissioner bill. We have also ensured that easy read and other accessible versions of our call for views are ready at the time of launch to ensure parity. Will the SPCB join me in encouraging other committees and the Scottish Parliament more widely to promote equality and inclusion by adopting those practices? I thank Karen Adam for that supplementary. The WhatsApp trial will give us really good experience on how to receive evidence by video, and we are hoping that this will be of use not only to our BSL communities but to others too. Of course, it is not for corporate body to dictate committees how to do their business, but if the pilot works, then other committees may wish to use this method, and it is perhaps something that the convener's group can discuss further. Of course, we want to make sure that we are promoting different practices, alternative ways of getting unwidening participation. Given that this is British Sign Language week, I find that response slightly disappointing, as I am sure many BSL users will. It is not for us or the body to decide editorially what BSL users may or may not be interested in from a committee point of view. Surely in this modern day and age we could make you better use of technologies to ensure a wider participation in parliamentary activity. I thank Jamie Greene for that supplementary. I think that we recognise that people with accessibility requirements are interested in many issues, as you outline, not just specific those linked to their access needs. By focusing on barrier removal, we think that we have the balance of interest levels right in terms of access costs to the public purse and so on. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee's recent report welcomed our work to develop systematic and cost effective approaches to the use of different languages and formats to increase accessibility in our consultation and participation work. Of course, we are always eager to do more and would welcome further conversations and ideas and suggestions that the member may have. To ask the corporate body what consideration it is giving to the establishment of a permanent memorial to Michael Mick Magahy in this Parliament. I thank the member for his question. We are due to consider the request that the member has made to the SPCB at her next meeting on Thursday 18 April, and we will update the member as soon as we can. The SPCB notes the support expressed during the recent member's debate, and we will take that into consideration. I thank Christine Grahame for that answer. The National Union of Mine workers, the Magahy family, green MSPs, Labour MSPs, Liberal MSPs, SNP Government ministers, journalists past and present, and just this week the STUC all support a memorial. Will the corporate body meet the NUM, the family and me to work out how a fitting legacy to this working class hero can be delivered in time for the centenary of his birth next year? It is a very kind invitation but it is not the practice of the corporate body to meet with any one individual. With regard to the point being made because we are holding our meeting, those decisions are not taken on a blank canvas. The SPCB has a number of related policies, including the memorial policy and the Scottish Parliament's art collection development policy, which we will all take into account when we come to a decision whether or not there is a memorial to Michael Mick Magahy. On the topic of permanent memorials, one of my constituents, who approached me as one of my first constituency cases 27 years ago, was affected by the contaminated blood scandal. He is keen to establish some form of memorial in this Parliament to recognise those who have lost their lives in this scandal. As the United Kingdom inquiry is expected to report shortly, would the corporate body give consideration to the question of whether or not the Parliament may be a suitable venue for a memorial to those who have lost their lives in the contaminated blood scandal? I will duplicate the answer that I gave to Mr Leonard. If he makes an application to the corporate body, we will consider it against the backcloth of the memorial policy, the Parliament's art collection and other representations. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what systems are in place to ensure that changes to IT systems and processes in the Parliament that will impact on the daily working practices of MSPs and their staff are consulted upon, tested, introduced, explained and evaluated? Where projects are changing the way that members and their staff work, officials will build in opportunities for consultation and feedback and often roll out the change to a smaller pilot group to gather feedback, tweak implementation and prepare appropriate training and communications. There are times when it is necessary to introduce certain changes at short notice. For example, to protect against emerging cyber security threats. The corporate body is keen to hear from members if and when they feel that we can collectively do better to keep them and their staff informed of any changes or developments. My question is prompted by introduction of system changes. For example, the recent quarantine system that has added another layer of complexity made it more difficult to find and, in some cases, has lost track of important communication from constituents and has added to MSP staff's workload. Prior to that, the introduction of the new reimbursement system in its early stages was cumbersome and difficult to operate. The point that I am making to the body is that, to what extent, it feels empowered to push back on the IT department that may come with new whiz buying systems introduced but has not been thought through and checked with MSP staff as to the implication on workload and whether, in fact, it is often necessary at all. The interesting issue that has come as a bit of a surprise to some in the chamber in the main corporate body access is software and cloud services on a subscription basis, including the Microsoft 365 applications for our email system and other office functions. Microsoft makes modifications and updates that are then available immediately to users, enhancing functions or addressing cyber vulnerabilities. Quarantine is one such update introduced to protect users from emails that are potentially harmful, such as phishing or malware. BIT recently introduced the new alerting system to let members know when email messages had been placed in quarantine. I think that that is the change that Ms McKee is referencing. The notification system was introduced by BIT because it would otherwise not be automatically obvious to users that messages had been quarantined, and that was in response to something that Microsoft had done behind the scenes. As far as the alerting system is being updated, members and staff were offered a range of training options during the roll-out of the system, with step-by-step instructional material available on the internet. Aluncers' offices and other parts of the parliamentary estate continue to provide support and advice to members. Of course, we always welcome feedback and challenge and pushback where members or their staff think that that will not work and that those views will be taken into consideration. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider stocking alcohol-free variants of spirits, wine and other alcoholic beverages in the Scottish Parliament gift shop. I thank the member for a question. I agree with him that this would be good for the shop to stock alcohol-free options. A retail manager regularly checks the market for such products most recently at the start of this year. Unfortunately, we have so far been unable to find a product that could be branded and meet our requirements for low-minimum quantity ordering. We will keep checking though and update the member if we are successful. I thank Christine Grahame for her answer. Many people now do not drink alcohol for all sorts of reasons, including health and religion, not that anyone ever needs a reason. A recent survey suggested that 44 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds now regularly or occasionally drink alcohol alternatives. Alcohol alternatives now mean that they do not need to drink alcohol to be able to enjoy the taste of some of our nation's most famous drinks. What more can be done to encourage producers and suppliers to the part of the Parliament to offer alcohol-free alternatives, allowing our Parliament to move with the times and to stock a more inclusive range of gifts? I advise the member the difficulty is that branded items designed for us and available nowhere else remain popular to customers from the tartan scarves to malt whisky. We know our alcohol products are popular because the Parliament's branding and uniqueness to us. Our whisky range is currently supplied under contract by the own label company or based in Edinburgh. They do not, unfortunately, yet have alcohol-free drinks in their product portfolio, but we continue to investigate that. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it is considering to ensure the safety of the public, MSPs and staff entering or exiting the Scottish Parliament campus in light of a number of recent events of concern. The Corporate Body takes its security and safety responsibilities very seriously. There are a wide range of physical and personal security arrangements in place to ensure the safety of everyone visiting or working in the building. The security arrangements reflect height and response. That is the required stance for the UK threat level, which is presently set at substantial. While there have been recent incidents, the threat and subsequent response level have not changed since February 2022. I thank the member for that, but despite all of that, in recent weeks we have seen a spate of attempts to disrupt this democracy in this Parliament. We have had interference from the gallery during FMQs, members of the public, being harassed or even prevented from entering the building during protests. Members and even our staff accosted by those protesters upon exiting various points of the building. Of course, the building outside was dobbed in red paint just last week. Some might say that that was an improvement, but seriously, in the current feeble environment that politics is, this is more than unacceptable, and it could be potentially dangerous. Has there been any investigation into those specific protests? And if any of them were facilitated or aided by any MSP or MSP group? And secondly, why is exterior security in the Parliament clearly failing to keep all of us, the building, our staff and the public, safe? The member has raised a number of points. In terms of protests that have been outside the building, we do welcome peaceful protests outside the building, but I do recognise there have been some recent incidents that have been a cause for concern. The management of protests and the safety of the public are a matter for Police Scotland, and while we work very closely with Police Scotland, they are responsible for public safety. I can, however, confirm that a review of the protests that took place last month, its impact and lessons learned, was immediately commissioned by the security team and is currently under way. I can also confirm that we are looking into allegations that pass holders helped protesters block entrances by sharing information. I was going to come in as a supplementary to be helpful, but to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it will take to ensure that any protests and demonstrations to disrupt the ability of MSPs, staff and the public to access the Scottish Parliament are fully investigated with any findings and lessons learned available to MSPs. As I said, we do welcome peaceful protests outside the building. We do recognise that there have been recent incidents and a review of the protests and its impact and lessons learned is currently under way. As I said, the safety of the public outside the building is an issue for Police Scotland. We are assured that the security office is progressing on the review. If there are any recommendations that require proper body approval, we will consider the findings in due course, and any approved recommendations will be notified to members. I heard the answer just given and the previous answers. It is clearly unacceptable that any group or individual attempt to disrupt the workings of this Parliament or bar people from either entering or leaving the building. However, we have had a number of instances that have just been described by Jamie Greene. It is clearly intolerable that any of those activities were aided and abetted by members of this Parliament. That has happened. We all know that it has happened. It has been boasted about on social media. When those reports that were described become available and their findings, can any breach of the MSP code of conduct be published and made available to members? Will the corporate body, as it is now established in precedent, make any reports that have in relation to MSP complicity in those activities subject to a referral to the standards committee of this Parliament? I assume that the member is aware of the mechanism for reporting any concerns over MSP's behaviour, and that that would not be a matter for the corporate body. As I said, it is not a matter for the corporate body. As I said earlier, we are looking into allegations that pastholders helped to protest our block entrances by sharing information, but at this point in time, that is allegations. That concludes the Scottish Parliamentary corporate body questions. There will be a brief pause till we move to the next item of business to allow the front benches to change.