 The next item of business is, afternoon, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body questions. Question number one is Ruth Maguire. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it gives to inclusive communication and what improvements it can make to parliamentary broadcasts in this regard. Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The corporate body is committed to making its communications as accessible as possible and regularly looks at a range of technology to make improvements to parliamentary broadcasts. Currently we use YouTube technology in which we caption a number of video archives using the text from the official report. This began in September 2013 with First Minister's questions. The service was then extended to include general questions and ministerial statements from September 2014 and topical and portfolio questions were added in November 2016. These videos can be viewed on YouTube the following day with this text added in where there is a particular demand. We also provide the facility for chamber debates. We also caption all short video packages and video clips for social media channels. In addition, where possible, we provide simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary business into British Sign Language and other languages on request. The corporate body also provides a range of information resources such as British Sign Language videos. Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the member for that answer. I wonder if the parliamentary corporate body would consider subtitling all debates in the chamber. I appreciate that they provide subtitles and sign language on some specific debates, but it would feel really important when they are doing such a good job on all other areas, providing an inclusive service that we made the debates that we had and the questions accessible to all people. Andy Wightman. The Parliament has been considering that, which is why it started in September 2013 with the captioning. In 2013, the corporate body undertook a feasibility study on providing subtitles across all in-house distribution, including live streaming. Following a consultant's report, however, the option of respeaking that is somebody sitting, listening to what is being said and respeaking it into a machine, a computer with voice recognition for their voice, was identified as providing the greatest accuracy, about 90 per cent accuracy. Cost for this system, which requires technical infrastructure and additional staff, were, however, considered prohibitive. When the corporate body stands up here and says that the Parliament is keeping things under review, we genuinely are keeping things under review. One of the corporate body's contractors, a company called Groovy Gecko, has recently carried out a pilot with the UK Parliament to look at simultaneous voice recognition. That system was only 60 to 70 per cent accurate. I am sure that all members would agree that services such as this, which are communicating what is being said in Parliament, have to avoid errors, and they have to avoid, obviously, particularly embarrassing errors. Often, to get the required level of accuracy requires a lot of manual input, and to date, those costs are deemed to be prohibitive. However, as I said at the beginning, Parliament is continuing to look at the area of technology that is evolving very, very fast. We would love to be able to provide more subtitling across all parliamentary output as soon as the technology and costs allow it. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body whether it will provide staff to assist cross-party groups to set up equipment at meetings held in the Parliament after 6 p.m. I thank the member for the question and say to her that cross-party groups are not a formal part of parliamentary business and the corporate body's responsibilities to ensure the provision of resources for parliamentary purposes do not extend to cross-party groups. Section 6 of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that CPGs may use the Parliament's facilities only where they are available for public use, and the groups may not draw on the resources of parliamentary staff to service meetings other than to book the meeting rooms themselves. On that basis, staff are not made available after 6 p.m. to provide assistance to the cross-party groups. However, our porters are in the building until 6 p.m. to be helpful. They may provide some limited assistance to MSP members of CPGs, but only if time allows, as parliamentary business and official events do take precedence in the building. Christine Grahame Well, it is a very disappointing but not unexpected answer. I say not for the first and obviously not for the last time. The cross-party group on animal welfare has been without audio-visual equipment despite requisitioning it some months before and despite that being confirmed. It has all been highly embarrassing with nobody around to either bring it in or to assist in setting it up. If I cannot have help after 6 p.m., who keeps a log of those requests for the audio-visual equipment? Who maintains the data on saying that, yes, we have said that we will provide it and set it up even if, thereafter, it cannot provide backup? Kezia Dugdale If I could say to the member that I accept that the work of cross-party groups is exceptionally important in this building and I tear a number myself, but that is the rules that are laid out in the code of conduct. If the member is keen to see that change and to see enhanced support for cross-party groups, she should seek to amend section 6 of the code of conduct. She can do that by first approaching the standards committee. I say to her further, though, that I am sorry that her cross-party group has had a negative experience of trying to use the audio-visual commitment, especially if she has been promised that in advance and if she wants to share her specific experience of that with a member of the corporate body. We will look to find out why she was not at the very least advised as to why that audio and visual equipment was not provided on the day, because I accept that that was inconvenient and, to the extent, embarrassing for the member. I have not realised that there was a six o'clock deadline. I would have to say that in chairing one cross-party group, we needed visual equipment, phone and the help desk, and that was delivered straight away by a porter. That was someone obviously working outside their contract and doing a special favour, so I would be grateful if you would pass on my thanks to them. I think that gratitude would be exceptionally welcomed by the staff and the member will know that throughout the building the staff go above and beyond to do whatever they can to facilitate the business within the building. That extends to cross-party groups where the resources are available, where the conflict arises and where the Parliament is particularly busy with official events. That might detract porters from their ability to assist cross-party groups, which is why some might experience better experiences of using the equipment than others, and that is entirely down to the nature of parliamentary business. That concludes SPCB Questions, and we will move on to the next item of business. I will give a short time for people to change their seats.