 Does that make out any questions being put? Therefore, would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press their request to speak buttons? My colleagues have supported my motion that includes the removal of phone boxes across Scotland. I would also like to thank Brian Whittle and Jamie Greene who are present in the chamber to discuss an issue that affects a great number of people in a variety of tangible ways. I would also like to thank Mark Dames and Mark Johnson of British Telecom for taking the time to discuss this issue a fortnight ago before this debate was even scheduled. When I was first informed of the decision taken by BT to remove 947 pay boxes across Scotland, including 24 boxes located in North Ayrshire, I was immediately concerned about the impact that this would have on my constituents. Although significant efforts have been made to improve mobile infrastructure across the UK, many areas within Scotland still receive only a partial mobile phone signal, which is both unreliable and inconsistent. Those so-called not-spots are not only frustrating when trying to send a text or make a call, but can prove dangerous in the case of an emergency. This concern is of particular relevance to those living on Scotland's islands, such as Arn and Cumbry, in my constituency, where mobile coverage can be extremely poor. That is increasing isolation for island residents, as well as affecting the many tourists who visit our islands each year and who are consistently surprised by just how sporadic signal provision can be. Due to those concerns, I consider it a priority to meet with BT to discuss the reasoning behind this decision and fully understand the impact it would have on the people of Scotland. I am grateful for BT for engaging with MSPs on this issue. I would like to share some of what we discussed today. First, it is undeniable that our telephone usage and relationship with technology have been dramatically transformed in recent times. 93 per cent of all our apps now own a mobile phone, and as such, payphone usage across the UK has declined by 90 per cent over the past decade. In fact, not one call was made from more than 700 BT kiosks over the last year, demonstrating just how little use they are in some locations. I am not surprised that, when we have access to devices that allow us to make calls, send texts, check emails, browse the internet and even play games, call boxes are no longer used in the way they once were. In light of that, perhaps our focus should now be even more on increasing mobile coverage and reliability in remote and rural areas in particular, which currently do not enjoy the same connectivity as the rest of Scotland. I would like to hope to see more initiatives such as a pilot scheme launched in 2016 by then-elins minister Derek Mackay, which saw non-domestic rates relief on new mobile masks offered in two locations on Arn and one in Cairn Gorn to encourage the provision of mobile services and further investment in those areas. Such projects would mean that phone boxes would no longer be a necessity, and those living in Scotland's rural areas would be able to enjoy the full range of mobile services. It is also worth noting that Pratys decision BT entered into consultation with local authorities across Scotland, with 1,500 payphones originally earmarked for removal by 2020. Following consultation, which also allowed communities to voice their concerns over the removal of essential payphones, BT agreed to drop the number to 957, meaning that we will see the removal of some 433 boxes across Scotland with a further 111. That is being taken over by the adopt a kiosk initiative, as opposed to the loss of a third of all current payphones, as was initially proposed. That demonstrates BT's willingness to engage with those who rely on payphone services most and to protect services where they are deemed vital. I am pleased to highlight that, after reviewing the consultation responses, the decision was made not to remove any payphones on any Scottish island. That will guarantee the safety of island residents and visitors as these phone boxes can act as a lifeline in the emergency situation. Payphones have also been protected by the consultation identified as social need for the box, such as accident black spots, suicide hotspots and coastal payphones, where connectivity may prove life-saving. Other boxes were protected when meeting a number of criteria, such as the payphone being within 800 metres, used to make at least 12 calls within a 12-month period and located within a local population is not fewer than 500 households within one kilometre of the payphone. Finally, I would like to draw attention to BT's adopt a kiosk scheme, which was introduced in 2008 and offers local authorities, charities and communities the opportunity to adopt their local phone box for just £1 and transform it into an asset for the community as an alternative to removal. Following consultation, as I mentioned earlier, 111 phone boxes are currently being considered for adoption, with an exciting and eclectic mix of transformed kiosks already in use across Scotland and, indeed, some 3,000 across the UK. Some boxes are fitted with life-saving defibrillators, tiny libraries or venture art galleries that have been maintained by local communities in Scotland and, indeed, in England, many coffee shops and meditation space have even been created, so there is a wealth of opportunity and inspiration for transforming poorly maintained and unused phone boxes into a unique and creative community solution. In fact, that is exactly the kind of albeit modest community empowerment that I would like to see more of in my own constituency of Cunningham North, and I would encourage everyone watching this debate to consider if a phone box in their locale could become something that I catching is essential or, indeed, just a bit of good fun. What is interesting is that, when we look at those 111 boxes, 28 are in Angus, 18 in Fife, but none are in 18 local authorities, including my one of North Ayrshire, so that is something that I will personally be pursuing. I should point out, of course, when we are fighting to retain call boxes, that BT currently looses some £20 million a year in retaining them, and while there is a real issue of retaining them in rural areas in particular, some, and I would say only some, urban areas are not so keen because of perceived concerns that these call boxes actually cause in some communities in BT are fairly much aware of that. In closing, I would ask everyone present to remember that connectivity is not just a matter of economic necessity, but a vital part of guaranteeing the safety of our constituencies. By retaining phone boxes where they are essential, as well as looking at creative and effective solutions to signal coverage in rural and remote areas, we can ensure that everyone has access to telephone services wherever and whenever they need it most. I would like to start off, first of all, by thanking Kenny Gibson for bringing this to the less-than-pack chamber today, but nonetheless, lots of people will be watching this from afar, no doubt, in paying a close interest in what BT's plans are. Like him, I also engaged with BT to get some background as to what their plans are and also to get a better understanding of why they were doing what they were doing. Clearly, it is essential that any changes to pay phones do not hinder the important community needs of a pay call box such as access and emergency services, but more importantly, in places where there is no other means of contacting people where there is poor mobile coverage. Kenny Gibson's motion states the fair point that, although people do use still pay phones, the adoption of smartphones has dramatically increased in recent years. In the last decade, pay phone usage has dropped by over 90 per cent, and that is no small figure. In fact, some phone boxes are used by less than a dozen people a year, and anecdotally, some phone boxes are used by no one at all. As is often the case with those things, you do not miss something until it is gone, so usage has very much a big part to play in the decision making process, I have no doubt. To comment on the motion itself, BT did want to make it clear, however, that of removing specific pay phones from North Ayrshire, there will be 84 remaining in North Ayrshire, which is slightly more than the 35 stated in the motion. Nonetheless, there will still be a loss of pay phones in that part of the world. BT also should declare that I live in North Ayrshire and, on occasion, have been known to use a phone box when my mobile is either out of battery or out of coverage, and that unfortunately still happens more than too often. BT has said that absolutely it would not remove a pay phone that has been identified as a social need pay phone, and it has set some quite clear criteria for that. Mr Gibson outlined the criteria in terms of the location and usage of where those pay boxes are. If that criteria is met, then a kiosk cannot be removed, and that is the right thing to do. It is also worth pointing out that BT consults with local authorities on any proposed removals, and if that authority is against that, that will be taken into account. That second level of scrutiny is important. Moving on to the issue of the adopt a kiosk scheme, I think that what we are talking about here is finding alternative uses for things that have been made redundant. Not that there are many red phone boxes left, but those that are are certainly worth preserving to their fullest. When I did a quick internet search of some of the uses of adopt a kiosk, it was quite bemused by the images. I encourage you to have a look at what people have done this year, ingenuity and creativity of people and what they have done with their old phone boxes. They have been turned into an amazing array of purposes. In addition to some of the ones mentioned, I have seen coffee shops, automated coffee vending machines, salad bars, boot cases and people selling a whole wide range of cottage industry products. He would not believe how much he can fit into a phone box. In essence, I would like to support the motion. We should be careful that we are not taking away vital access to telecommunications points, especially for people in rural communities. We should also think about the fact that not everyone owns a mobile phone. Mobile phones can be prohibitively expensive for people. Even if coverage is available, I know that we will probably hear on the ambitious plans that the Scottish Government has on ensuring that we have full connectivity in Scotland. Mobile phone coverage, like internet access to many, is still unaffordable. Therefore, the simple phone box is a cheap and alternative solution to people to make calls. Many people still use them and rely on them for that form of accessing and calling people. I would say that any removals that are done should follow the strict process that the BT put in place. Clearly, any that are removed are ones that have been identified that are simply not being used by the public. I encourage people to engage in consultations around that. The old user or loser adage is very important, so I encourage people, if there is one, to make use of it before it might be too light. I urge people in Ershire to think about the adopt kiosk scheme and some of the creative things that we could do with any that are decommissioned. I look forward to seeing the results of that. Brian Whittle Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and my thanks to Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to the chamber. The technology that we use to communicate continues to evolve at an incredible speed. Hard though it may be to believe, the first mobile phone call was made in 1973. For some of us in this chamber, that may feel like last week, but it highlights just how many people today have grown up in a world where you didn't need a physical connection to a phone line to make a call. Some of us can recall the days of police call boxes. They are increasingly only known to the people as doctors who have preferred mode of transport or a local landmark where you can pick up a coffee on the way to work. More recently, we have seen the trend of phone boxes and public pay phones being removed through lack of use. Today, Superman wouldn't be changing in a phone box. He would be using an app to book a short stay in a nearby room for let. That may be an advance in technology, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I am not convinced that it has quite the same drama. I recognise and agree with many of the points highlighted in Kenny Gibson's motion. Although the pay phone may be less popular and more of communication today, that does not inherently make it unnecessary. You can quite reasonably argue that those continuing to make use of phone boxes now are the ones who have no suitable alternative. The very people, the removal of the boxes, could have the biggest impact on. BT seems to be making significant efforts to minimise the impact that those closers will have. They are consulting widely, as has been mentioned, on the removal of each phone box and changing their plans when they receive an objection from the local authority. That being said, I note that one of the criteria for keeping a box in place, even if it is not regularly used, is the lack of any mobile phone signal. While an emergency call can be placed from any mobile phone anywhere with a signal, even if that signal is not from the mobile's own network provider, I am concerned that this is of no benefit in an emergency where people's mobile phone does not even have a charge. I wonder if perhaps BT has given any consideration to providing an emergency charging facility in some of the more isolated phone boxes, perhaps by using solar power. I have recently been involved in discussions between the Royal Bank of Scotland, Age Scotland and others around the impact of branch closers in South Scotland. The issue of the core of that discussion is not that different from what we are discussing today. Technology is changing the way many of us perform tasks, whether that is banking or making a phone call. For those who are not in a position to change, there is concern that they will be left isolated and disadvantaged. While companies such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and BT will always have commercial considerations to take into account when making decisions about closing branches or removing phone boxes, it is important that they also take the wider impact of communities from whom those services can be a lifeline. It seems to have been an improvement on that in recent years, and it is clear from the efforts that BT have made in their consultation that they wish to minimise the impact of those removals. I do have reservations around the removal of phone boxes in rural areas, and they are broadly the same concerns that I have with the loss of other services. Put simply, do those areas losing traditional services provisions have the infrastructure to support the modern alternative? Be it broadband, speed or mobile phone signal, rural areas in particular still experience very real issues with coverage and reliability of digital communications. I note that a switch survey earlier this week highlighted that three out of five slowest areas of broadband in the UK are in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has a particularly high number of regions classified as having low speeds with average speeds in parts of the central belt and only Dundee and North Lanarkshire having high average speeds. Changing technology means change to how we live and work and is inevitable, but we have a responsibility to ensure that no one is left at a disadvantage by that change. That is why, although I am disappointed by the decision to reduce the number of payphones, rather than fight against that change, I encourage members to focus their attention on ensuring that the pace of that change is reasonable and that Scotland's digital infrastructure is up to the standard required. I call Fergus Ewing to respond to this debate. Thank you for Kenneth Gibson for bringing this unusual topic to the debate. As usual, he regaled us with a series of somewhat arcane statistics about a topic that perhaps many of us knew very little. It was an interesting contribution and I am also grateful to the other two contributors. Telecoms is reserved to Westminster. The provision of public call boxes falls within BT's universal service obligations. We have no locust intervene. However, OFCOM informed me that there has, as members have said, been a substantial decline in the usage of telephone boxes, 90 per cent in fact, over the past decade, and indeed many of the proposed removals have not been used to make a single phone call in the last 12 months. So, understandably perhaps, BT has taken action and they publish criteria designed to ensure that boxes are retained, either where they are actively used, which is good, or where there is a social need, also good. The overriding social need criteria are sites where there is no mobile coverage from any provider, suicide hotspots sadly, accident black spots and coastal locations and islands. BT has confirmed that no removals will be proposed in such areas. I very much welcome that approach taken, which I think one can appreciate may well prove to be very advantageous in extremists in urgent situations. There we are. Where removals are proposed, BT will consult with the relevant local authority, who in turn can consult locally, for example with community councils, and I encourage them so to do. Ultimately, the local authority can veto BT's proposed removal if it can demonstrate appropriate grounds. Mr Gibson highlighted the preservation of phone boxes in islands in his constituency. I think he mentioned Aaron, so he is a doubty fighter for the preservation of island telephone boxes, amongst a great many other things, I have to say. I perhaps being not possessed of an extraordinarily active imagination, I wasn't aware of all the things that you could do in phone boxes. It wasn't until the revelatory content of Mr Greene's contribution that I became aware that there could be a coffee shop, a salad bar or a bootcase, I presume not all three at once, but I had thought naively that there was not much that one can do in a phone box. I think that I won't go there, but the imagination does struggle to imagine what other activities could be carried out in a telephone box, and I hesitate to make any contributions of potential activities that are flitting through the cranial area just at the moment. I think that the telephone box is a very attractive piece of heritage. It's a nice thing to see around the place. It's part of history. It would be very sad if they all disappeared. I can imagine that in 100 years time if the television programme Antiques Roadshow is still being screened as well, it might be a quiz of a telephone box, what was this used for? People would ask in astonishment. I do, if I may, just digress a little bit to reflect on the late Ewan Bain, who I know you will have known and enjoyed the works of as a cartoonist, whose famous character was the Hebridean character Angus Og, who was the sort of character that found himself in difficult situations of his own making almost every day. At that time, my mother, if I may say so, was a quite well-known defence lawyer for the criminal fraternity, and Angus Og found himself in this cartoon, in a telephone box, in possession of a very, very large salmon on the phone saying, Oh, Mrs Ewing, Mrs Ewing, I'm in a spot of bother. That was in a telephone box, which goes to prove that there are uses to which they can be put. Before I digress even further from the topic, I accept in some locations that telephone boxes remain important and the removal will not be appropriate, and I'm more than happy to raise members' concerns should they wish me to do so with any local authority. So I'm very pleased to have this opportunity, albeit an unexpected one, to stand up for the phone box in Holyrood. Well, thank you everyone. We were thinking there that we might not need to suspend until 2 o'clock when you started to wax litical, Mr Ewing. However, this meeting is suspended until 2 o'clock.