 The next item of business is the Scottish Parliament corporate body questions, question number one is withdrawn, question two, Claudia Beamish, please. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what its response is to the call by just transition for divestment of its pension fund from fossil fuels. Kezia Dugdale. I thank Claudia Beamish for the question and, indeed, recognise her long-standing commitment to the just transition agenda that says to her from the off that there is a clear separation of duties between the Scottish Parliament corporate body and the fund trustees to avoid any sense of a conflict of interest. If I can just explain to her in detail, under schedule 1 part b rule 8 of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is responsible for the appointment of fund trustees. Under part d rule 32 of that same act, the corporate body is also responsible for providing the funding for the employer pension contributions. Part b rule 5 of the act says that the fund trustees are responsible for the governance, management and administration of the scheme and for the management of the scheme's assets, and that includes decisions about investments. If I could say to Claudia Beamish that any decision about divestment is therefore a matter for fund trustees and not the corporate body. Claudia Beamish. I thank Kezia Dugdale for that answer on behalf of the corporate body, and I do understand that division, which she helpfully explained for the public record as well. I just do want to highlight, because this is an opportunity with the forbearance of the Presiding Officer, that in recognising the legal fiduciary duty of the pension trustees and the pension fund responsibilities and, indeed, the division of responsibilities and the reasons for that. I would like to highlight that a number of MSPs have recently signed a divest Scotland pledge, which says that I pledge to support the Scottish Government and Parliament divesting from fossil fuels and investing in a just transition to a zero-carbon economy over an appropriate timescale. While I am not in any way asking for reassurances, that would not be appropriate, but I wonder if it is appropriate for the corporate body simply to highlight the pledge to the fund trustees, which I would also be doing. I recognise that, in addition to safeguarding the financial stability of our funds, there is work on-going, I understand, to explore further the wider ethical considerations such as... No, no, thank you. I think that we have got the gist, and Ms Dugdale has made the corporate body's position clear, but if you want to just do a brief response. I welcome the response from the member. I reiterate the points about how aware we are of our responsibilities not to go beyond the scope of the 2009 act, but perhaps to make the member aware that we know that the fund manager operates an environmental, social and corporate governance policy that is in line with, and we are a signatory to, the UN principles for responsible investing. Those things are considered, but it is a matter for fund trustees, and she is perfectly placed to make direct representations to those members. Morddo Fraser. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are tens of thousands of Scottish workers currently employed in the oil and gas sector, and this Parliament is meant to represent the whole of Scotland. Does the member not agree that it was in a very unfortunate message from the corporate body of this Parliament, and on behalf of this Parliament, if we were to divest ourselves from a sector responsible for supporting so many Scottish families, their jobs and their livelihoods? I think that those are a bit wide of the mark, but Ms Dugdale, it is up to you to say if you think that they are a bit wide of the mark. I would just simply remind the member that that is beyond the scope of the responsibilities of the corporate body, and I would refer him to his own party's representative on the fund, trusteeves. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it ensures the quality of the wealth of access for those wishing to hold parliamentary events on site. Liam McArthur. I thank Elaine Smith for the question. Any organisation can hold an event at the Scottish Parliament as long as they fulfil the SPCB's agreed criteria for member-sponsored events. That includes completing an event request form and securing a sponsoring member for an event that all members will be invited to attend. If the event meets the criteria, then it is allocated accordingly, and an events officer will work with the event organiser to ensure that all planning, organisation and delivery of the event is completed. In order to ensure the equality of access for member-sponsored events, there is no charge for venue hire or for any of the Parliament's audio-visual equipment, for example plasma screens with built-in PCs. However, any hired-in services such as catering or additional audio-visual equipment, for example the PA system, video recording etc., are recharged back to the event organiser. I thank the member for the response, but I am thinking beyond just organised events through the events team. In my first speech 20 years ago, I chose to promote the need for an accessible Parliament building with a crash and arena for trade and industry exhibits and innovative schemes during recess for young people and a resource for community groups. Some of that has happened, but what I did not expect was the creeping commercialisation of events that pricing people out of use in the building unless they can get corporate sponsorship. Is the SPCB aware that the costs associated with additional necessary equipment, for example the provision of microphones in the PA system, particularly to assist the hard of hearing and allowing access to an induction loop, is prohibitive for many organisations in MSP-sponsored events and will they look at removing those barriers in line with their founding principles, which emphasise accessibility and equality of access? I thank Elaine Smith for her follow-up supplementary. I entirely agree with her in relation to the founding principle that the Parliament was about accessibility. I think that we have a strong track record in that respect. I would be interested in the specifics of the concerns if they relate to a particular incident. I can say that the committee rooms are all fitted with induction loops. There is a mobile induction loop in the member's room that can be used, although, for obvious reasons, it would not necessarily want to have that on a permanent basis. Support is there for events. It is not unreasonable for the Parliament to draw a distinction between member-sponsored events and the other activities and events that take part in the Parliament. I think that the costs that are incurred through that are rightly following the event organising. I do not think that that inhibits the accessibility of this Parliament, which has a fairly proud record of being able to host a very wide range of events through the course of any given year. I am following on from Elaine Smith's question. One of the things that I find very difficult and very poor here is the IT support that we get when we are trying to run CPGs. On several occasions, we have had to scurry around trying to find a technician. In fact, I had to haul somebody off a bus stop line and lots of very long ago to come back in and persuade him to sort it out, because we had two presentations. This is not really a good presentation of the Parliament. If we are going to ask people to come in and encourage them to come in and have these cross-party groups, what can the corporate body do to amend that and to ensure that we, as conveners of cross-party groups, have the confidence that we can deliver our presentations for our people coming in our groups reliably? It is probably important to point out that the cross-party groups have access to the facilities, the rooms and the IT equipment in those rooms, but we take a step beyond what would be reasonable to have the parliamentary staffing to support the CPGs. That has never been the case. The costs of running CPGs have never been met by the Parliament and they do sit distinct from member-sponsored events. The technology absolutely should be made available. We cannot get into the situation where we have the staff available. I think that Maurice Corry is right that, where staff are on hand, they are invariably more than willing to help out. However, in terms of the preparation for the events, it is incumbent on those organisations, whether the convener of the CPG or indeed those who are acting as a secretariat, to identify what the needs are going to be in terms of IT and ensure that the equipment is there and that functions properly. I am aware that there are sometimes issues around password accessibility. However, again, that is about the preparation for the CPG rather than necessarily something that the Scottish Parliament, as I say, can go beyond what we do at the moment in relation to the support for the CPGs. I would like to highlight and ask Liam McArthur, if he could take back to the corporate body, that if we have the equipment, we need the support. Frankly, there are a lot of very marginalised communities, groups and individuals who come into the wide range of groups. I am very disappointed to hear that the equipment is there, but we are not all IT experts and I have been put in the same position as Maurice Corry in the past. I would ask him to take it back to the corporate body, please. Liam McArthur. I am happy enough to ask the corporate body to reflect further on this. I am not sure whether Claudia Beamish is asking the corporate body for a fundamental rethink of the relationship that we have with CPGs. If we go down that track, there is a risk that we end up in a situation where, not only are we providing the IT support but that we are supporting those in the same way as we support members' sponsored events. That has a whole series of consequences that Claudia Beamish might want to reflect on. In terms of the IT support, we have all been in situations where, at the start of meetings, passwords have not been put in correctly and that there are glitches in the system. I think that all that that does is re-emphasise the need to make sure that, in the preparation for those events, there is consideration given to what the IT requirements are and to make sure that that is where Parliament staff are more than willing to provide whatever support that they can, but requiring parliamentary staff to be here and on hand to provide on-going support for CPGs that go on and can go on until fairly late in the evening. We have put a strain on that parliamentary staff and on the parliamentary resources, which are consequences that Claudia Beamish might want to reflect on further. That concludes corporate body questions. We are going to move on to the next size of my business shortly, while the front benches take their positions.