 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12010 in the name of Fergus Ewing on Scotland's digital connectivity. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Fergus Ewing to speak and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary of Generous, 14 minutes if you wish. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open this debate on Scotland's digital connectivity and I welcome the broad consensus across this Parliament in support of high quality digital connectivity for all of Scotland. We all want to Scotland that prepares our children to join a digitally skilled workforce that delivers digitally innovative public services to all our communities and that delivers inclusive economic growth with businesses in our rural and urban communities flourishing. We want to Scotland that ensures that we are fully digitally connected, and that is vital to our economic prosperity as a country, but it will also result in significant social and environmental benefits. We will see increased access to fast and reliable broadband and mobile services as enabling greater flexibility in the way that we work. By enabling people to work from home, for example, we reduce the pressure on our transport routes, and that actively helps us to meet our world-leading carbon reduction plans. With improved connectivity in our rural areas, we can not only boost tourism but provide a platform for businesses to transform the way that they work. Better digital connections means more efficient and more effective health provision in our rural and island communities as well as supporting the work of emergency services to keep people safe in the most remote locations. For staff working in remote areas such as forestry and aquaculture, there are obvious health and safety benefits. Greater connectivity also opens up and improves employment opportunities for those with caring commitments. Businesses in the hospitality sector can market themselves far more effectively with good digital connectivity and provide visitors with the same levels of connectivity that they have at home and, increasingly, take as something that should be there for granted. Tourist attractions can embrace the latest technology using augmented reality to transform the visitor experience. It is important to acknowledge that Scotland did, traditionally, lag behind the rest of the UK in broadband coverage. Overcoming the challenge of our geography and rurality required taking a different approach, and that is what digital Scotland's superfast programme has delivered. I thank all the partners in the DSSB who have worked with us to transform the availability of broadband across the country and bridge that gap. As the tables published this week in an answer to a parliamentary question from Gillian Martin show, commercial investment alone would have delivered fibre broadband coverage to just 66 per cent of the nation's premises, largely in urban Scotland. Had that been the case, with no DSSB, coverage in the Highlands and Islands would have been just 21 per cent, and there was no planned commercial coverage at all in Orkinate, Shetland or the Western Islands. The good news is that around 890,000 additional premises now have access to fibre broadband through the digital Scotland roll-out. Our internal data, as well as Think Broadbands and Think Broadbands, are the same independent analysts that are used by the UK Government. Both sets of data show that, by the end of last year, we had exceeded our target of 95 per cent broadband coverage across Scotland. In fact, the vast majority of people in Scotland can now access superfast broadband at 30 megabits or above. This week, in fact, Ofcom released new data, taken from January this year, that showed that, since its last report, superfast broadband coverage in Scotland had increased 4 per cent points to 91 per cent and had halved the gap that I referred to between Scotland and the overall UK from 4 per cent to just 2 per cent. That was indeed the single largest increase of any nation in the UK. On top of that, Think Broadbands data, which purports to give a more up-to-date view of coverage, actually shows that superfast coverage in Scotland is now sitting at over 93 per cent, again within 2 per cent points of the overall UK total. That gap was 10 in 2014 and around 19 in 2012. It has gone to just 2 per cent points now. As has been said in the Labour amendment, that gap has therefore been significantly reduced according to independent, impartial analysts used by us and by our colleagues in the UK Government. No matter what source is referenced, it is simply a matter of fact that Scotland has caught up and caught up dramatically with the rest of the UK. Although we have achieved our original 95 per cent target, which was for fibre broadband through DSSB, I recognise that there is more to be done. I will not be satisfied until every home and business has access to superfast broadband at our stipulated level of 30 megabits per second. I also want to say, as I have said many times before, that for those who still have not got that, it is small comfort that many others are getting it or have got it. I understand that as well. However, I have been very clear and I recognise and accept people's frustration. I know that the promise of 100 per cent by the end of 2021 may just add to the frustration of people who have not yet got it. However, it is only our ambition that is going to remove that frustration. We could have stopped at 95 per cent. We could have decided that the UK universal service obligation set at just 10 megabits per second was sufficient for our rural communities. However, we did not do so. That is why we have committed an initial £600 million to the first phase of the R100 programme. The announcement of this investment during December's budget was, I believe, momentous because there is no other such commitment anywhere else in the UK. I am determined to ensure that R100 focuses on our hardest-to-reach rural area, something that I think mentioned in the Liberal Democrat amendment, leaving coverage gaps in urban areas to be filled by commercial suppliers in the first instance. I would like to place on record that I am greatly encouraged by emerging plans from the likes of BT, virtual media, city fibre and Vodafone, among others, which suggests that that is indeed the correct approach. The scale of our investment and of our ambition is attracting interest from a wide range of telecom suppliers across the UK and Europe. That is a huge public investment, and of course it is vital that we get the right deal for Scotland. The procurement will take time, but the dialogue that we are currently undertaking with the various bidders is key to getting the right outcome. Our aim is to have suppliers in place early next year. Our engagement with local authorities through the DSSB programme has been exemplary. The model that we have used has been recognised by the DCMS as an example of best practice. We are continuing with that approach. I have already set out our plans at the convention of the Highlands and Islands and, crucially, secured the support of all those local authority administrations for our call on the UK Government to pay their fair share towards R100. I did the same thing at the South of Scotland Alliance, which I attended with the Deputy First Minister just a few weeks ago. This week, I also announced the establishment of two strategic groups to inform the delivery of the R100 programme that is being set up. The groups, one covering the north lot and one covering the central and south lots of the programme, will involve Scottish Government and key local agencies sharing and exchanging information that will help the future roll-out of the programme. Indeed, I plan to attend the first meeting of the north group on Monday morning. The Scottish Government understands well the expertise that our councils as community leaders bring to the table. For example, on roadworks and planning matters, we want to utilise that important resource. It will also be an opportunity to discuss with them how our R100 approach complements its own plans on digital connectivity. R100 will differ from the DSSB programme in some key respects. The initial procurement will be split across three regional lots, designed to maximise competition. That is vital both to drive value and innovation. The initial phase of R100 will extend a future-proofed accessible fibre network into remote rural areas, providing the essential platform for delivering superfast broadband for all, for decades to come and for a variety of technologies. To ensure that that happens, it is a mandated requirement of the procurement to deliver new back hall in particular rural and island locations across Scotland. We are purposely targeting the funds where they are needed most in rural Scotland. The initial investment will deliver superfast access to a significant proportion of those premises to be targeted, but we do not expect it to deliver 100 per cent coverage on its own. There will be further phases through which we will ensure that superfast broadband reaches each and every premise in Scotland. We expect that to involve a wide range of superfast technologies supported by a national voucher scheme that is available to individuals and communities. All of that activity is reserved to Westminster, and as I alluded to earlier, it is one where the Scottish Government has had to become active in the absence of a coherent UK-wide strategy for rural connectivity. That has meant that the Scottish Government has had to take the lead, given its economic importance. That is why we committed £600 million to the initial phase of our R100 programme. However, the UK Government contribution to our 100 is just £21 million, which is just 3 per cent of the total funding. Finlay Carson I can ask the cabinet secretary how much the Scottish Government contributed to phase 1 of the roll-out of broadband, and how did that compare to the UK contribution? Cabinet Secretary Yes, I certainly can. The overall figures are that the total programme, and there were two programmes, one in HIE and one the rest of Scotland, cost around £400 million, just over £400 million. The UK Government contributed £100 million of that. The Scottish public sector comprising the Scottish Government, local authorities and HIE in Putin, and I think that this figure is correct, but I will check it later, £164 million. The UK Government put in a solid amount of money, and I made that clear when I gave evidence to the UK select committee explicitly. I went through those figures in brief, £100 million, but the public sector contribution across Scotland as a whole was rather greater than that. I think that the figure is £164 million. I will ask that that be checked and corrected just in case it is out by a couple of million. In addition to that, I think that there is about £10 million or 11 million from the European Union. Those were the figures, but, Presiding Officer, since that point is raised, £100 million was a comparison of £164 million, perhaps around about two thirds, but instead of getting a two thirds contribution in relation to ours, we are getting just 3 per cent for our 100. I think that any fair-minded person could only reach one conclusion that such a dismal and paltry contribution to our 100 is unfair, particularly given, as is accepted by the UK Government and by Mr Hancock, that broadband is a reserved matter such as defence or foreign affairs. To contribute just 3 per cent when, in fact, they are responsible for that matter of public policy can only be seen as unfair. Today, there is an opportunity for us to send a reasonable message across this Parliament to Westminster that we believe that a fairer contribution should be made by them. If we speak in one voice, then I believe that it is entirely in the art of the possible that a reasonable negotiation will result. I am happy to give way if I have time. Yes, there is time for interventions in this debate. Jamie Greene. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Just before we spend the next three hours on this myth that this is a solely reserved matter, the cabinet secretary knows fine well that there was an agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government that the Scottish Government would deliver the contracts for DSSB. The idea that it is entirely reserved and the Scottish Government is simply intervening on its own accord is absolutely a myth, and we should put that myth to bed now at the beginning of the debate before we waste two and a half hours talking about it. Cabinet Secretary. Well, it is not a matter of any jubiety that digital telephony and the internet are reserved. Indeed, if Mr Greene wants to check schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, as I have done, he will see that those words are specifically mentioned. Therefore, there is no jubiety, but not only that. I am answering the points set one by one. Not only that, Presiding Officer, Mr Hancock accepted that it is reserved when he appeared before the Scottish Select Affairs Committee earlier next week. When he says that it is wrong to say that it is purely reserved, I am afraid that that is factually wrong. The second point is that he referred to the DSSB. I would have preferred that the UK Government met all of the responsibilities, but at least it can be said that, in DSSB, it contributed a reasonable amount of £100 million in comparison to our £164 million. That cannot be said about this contract. This contract is vital for rural and island Scotland. Without that investment, there will be no high-speed broadband to the most rural and island communities. In order to deliver that in these islands, we cannot expect commercial providers to invest there. There is simply not a market rationale for doing so. Therefore, public investment must happen, otherwise there will not be rural connectivity. My argument is very simple. This is a reserved matter. The UK has stumped up before, albeit not for their full responsibilities, but at least for a reasonably substantial amount. This time, they are putting in a pifling paltry stingy 3 per cent. Surely no reasonable person could conclude that that was fair. I was keen to deal with that thoroughly. I think that I have perhaps gone over my time, but I will just say, Presiding Officer, that I look forward to this debate. I was genuinely interested in trying to maintain a consensus amongst all parties, particularly as I would like to see, as I said to the select committee in London, that there is a UK standing committee on digital connectivity, where the UK Government and the devolved Administrations play a part towards achievement of what I think are shared objectives and ones that could not be more important to rural and island Scotland and, indeed, their counterparts in the rest of the UK. I move the motion in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will certainly let them know if they are over their time, as you know, so there is time in hand, so I can be relatively generous, but do not test it too far. I call Finlay Carson to speak to and move amendment 12010.2, in the name of Peter Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservative, as the party's spokesman on the digital economy. The importance of the digital connectivity cannot be underestimated. When people miss out on the benefits of good connectivity, they miss out on the benefits of modern society. This SNP Government's slow progress in rolling out superfast broadband to those who need it most is it resulting in communities, particularly in rural areas, missing out on these benefits. In this modern digital world, pure connectivity has an impact on the economy, our health and our society. With technology continuing to change at hugely rapid pace, we must ensure that our digital economy has a strong foundation that requires in terms of connectivity. Digital connectivity is pivotal to the Scottish economy in moving forward. We are now moving into the world of big data, where connection to national networks is not just desirable but essential when it comes to the day-to-day operations of not only our businesses but in the everyday lives of everybody living in Scotland. Fergus Ewing's SNP Government has failed to prioritise and accelerate the roll-out of broadband. Kate Forbes Thank you for taking that intervention. Could he confirm for the record whether broadband is a reserved matter and then tell us whether he believes that it is appropriate that the UK Government is only contributing 3 per cent of the reaching 100 per cent total investment? Finlay Carson I thank the member for that intervention and I will cover those topics later on in the speech. However, I would like to point out right now that Scotland has already benefited from nearly 2.5 times more funding per head for superfast broadband in England. The Fergus Ewing's SNP Government has failed to prioritise and roll out broadband across parts of Scotland with no or poor connectivity. That is serious implications for industry, home workers and for members of the rural community who rely on connection to the internet for personal and professional use. Potentially impact negatively on the economic sustainability of rural Scotland. The closure of local bank branches has disproportionately a detrimental effect on rural residents who are now compelled to rely on computers and mobile phone apps that necessitate a strong broadband signal. Digital connectivity also has implications for the health of the general public and the availability of vital health services in rural areas. In my constituency, due to inadequate broadband provision, the Cacubria medical practice had to physically take medical records back and forth between practices because they couldn't access them online. Fergus Ewing often stands in this chamber and crows about the 95 per cent who have, but what about the have nots? The latest of com figures show worryingly slow progress in the areas of the poorest broadband availability. It is clear that this SNP Government has widened the digital divide through its inability or lack of desire to accelerate the roll-out of broadband where it is needed most. Doing so, the Government has widened the social, economic and democratic deficit between rural and central belt Scotland. I am grateful for Mr Carson's giving way. Is he aware that, thanks to the investment from the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, that in Dumfries and Galloway in 2014, there was only fibre coverage of 20.4 per cent according to Think Broadband, but by the end of the contract delivered in Scotland by the Scottish Government with the funding from the UK Government, I mentioned that 20 per cent had gone up to 82 per cent, again of 62 per cent, in his constituency. How can he claim that somehow we have completely failed when his own constituency has so manifestly benefited? I think that the cabinet secretary fails to recognise that. I do welcome improvements, but what I am saying is that it has not been quick enough in the places where we need it most, and I will move on to that later in the speech. I would suggest to members that the motion today before us is disingenuous. It is clear that Scotland is still lagging behind the rest of the UK. Indeed, Mr Ewing himself admitted in committee that the SNP Government, although it reached its 95 per cent fibre connection target—I welcome that—that that in itself does not necessarily enable superfast speeds. The Government alone has decided where and when to spend money that has come forward. However, the results are in stark contrast to England and Wales, where the digital divide is less and better progress has been made. The Scottish Government has failed to maximise in funding that the UK Government has given. We are trailing behind on full fibre coverage, fibre to the premises and FTPP, which provides fibre optic connections all the way from the telephone exchange or cabinet to the business or home. Only one and 100 premises in Scotland has that, compared with one in 25 in England and Wales. Not only that, but Scotland lags behind England and Wales in provision of superfast speeds above 24 megabits per second. Most importantly, Scotland has a larger proportion of premises that fall below the universal service obligation of 10 megabits per second. Here, 5.5 per cent of premises still have slower speeds than the USO compared with 3.2 per cent in England or 3.98 per cent in Wales. Moreover, six of the worst constituency for downward speeds are in Scotland, and none in Scotland fall into the top 10 areas for the best speeds. In spite of their multitudes of failing, the SNP has tried to claim credit for UK Government in private funding on superfast broadband. However, in reality, £126 million has been funded by T, BT and, as the cabinet secretary alluded to earlier, £283 million has been funded by DCMS, the European regional development fund and the Scottish local authorities, with the Scottish Government only contributing 15 per cent of that total. It is clear that, as usual, the SNP is only good at sharing stats that portray Government successes but are very unwilling to own up to their own mistakes and failings. In fact, if anyone looks at this year's SNP Government's budget, they will quickly realise that, rather than this Government increasing the budget for 2018, the capital connectivity investment by this Government dropped by more than 80 per cent. We continue to hear about the budget for R100 in the years 2019 and 2022, but right now and in 2018, there is a missed opportunity that essentially constitutes a wasted year for broadband roll-out, particularly in rural Scotland. The cabinet secretary may boast of achieving 95 per cent fibre broadband target, but, surely, he must recognise that, for all the talk, the reality on the ground and constituencies across this country is far different and the digital divide has never been greater. We can talk about uplifts and speed for those who are already getting superfast broadband speeds. Those improvements are fine for those, but they are already receiving fast speeds. There are still over 130,000 premises in Scotland who are on 10 megabits per second or below, which, in 2018, is just not good enough. Emma Harper Thank you, Mr Carson, for finally taking an intervention. Are you saying that you are content with the UK Government's 10 megabytes whereas the Scottish Government wants 30? Are you happy with the 10 megabyte download speeds? Thank you for the intervention. It gives me the opportunity to say that we have got, and, as the member fine knows, we have constituents in Galloway and Western Ffries in the south of Scotland that do not have any connectivity at the moment, but at least we have some guarantee that something will happen over the next year with the universal service obligation, whereas constituents through R100 might have to wait not until 2021, but at the end of 2021. Improvements may have been made for those living in the central belt who already have speeds that would allow them to do most things. However, for those living in rural and remote areas, there has been unsatisfactory investment. For those living with speeds of 10 megabytes per cent or below, there has only been an improvement of 1 per cent since May 2017, a meagerly improvement of 21,000 premises in the last year, hardly a statistic to be proud of and certain a statistic that my constituents and constituents across Scotland will only reinforce at this point. Like so many other issues, rural Scotland takes second place to the SNP's preferred central belt. Just as they are failing on improving the attainment gap in our schools, the SNP is failing, too, on closing the digital gap. Community Broadband Scotland, with its red tape, failed to deliver any significant improvement to individuals or businesses, but, given the right guidance and leadership, it could have gone a long way to support in some of the hardest-to-reach areas, but it failed to do so. The Scottish Conservatives are committed to prioritising and accelerating rural superfast broadband roll-out. The introduction of the universal service obligation, by 2020, announced by the UK Government, was a major step forward for broadband right across rural areas. As a member for rural constituents of Galloway and Western Fries, I have many cases in my inbox where businesses are continually let down on when superfast will be rolled out. Where particular relevance to the tourist sector, Auckland, Lerrie, Brighthouse and Whitecare and Holiday Park in my constituency, are all still in the dark as to when they will be able to deliver superfast speeds to holiday guests. It is having an impact right now on bookings. Likewise, the Galloway activity centre, the owner has to travel to a local hotel to pay his staff and check bookings. If you look up his postcode, the digital Scotland website says, Your cabinet is enabled for fibre, but you are too far from the cabinet to get an increased connection and speed. We are working hard to bring faster broadband to as many homes and businesses as possible. The date for superfast is unavailable, it is unknown and there is no timescales, other than a commitment by the Scottish Government of some time before the end of 2021. That is three and a half years. I am sure that everyone across the chamber agrees that it is totally unacceptable. Thank goodness that we have the commitment for at least 10 megabytes everywhere, even over a year away, but having a connection is better than having no connection at all. I have been in correspondence with a company in Dolbite, who is having to commit thousands of pounds to install the weeks line. Oh, you did see my pen? Yes, I did. A few seconds more, please. Thank you. They are going to invest thousands of pounds because they do not know when superfast is going to be rolled out. I am aware of the unprecedented technical and planning issues that affect infrastructure roll-out, but, nowadays, given the time that we have been doing this, uncertainties should be addressed and timescales are easier to predict. For members on the SNP benches— No, no, no, no, no, no. Two seconds. Let's not have a debate of backpacking by the SNP. Let's get this sorted out. I encourage members across the chamber to back the amendments for Peter Chapman and others wishing for this Government to step up to the mark. That was more than two seconds. I'll be very generous. Move your amendment, please. I'll move the amendment to Peter Chapman. Right. I call on Colin Smith to speak to him. I move amendment 12010.3. I mean the same to you, Mr Smith. A generous seven minutes. That's all right, so that means about eight, nine, if you like, at maximum. Getting longer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Every aspect of society and indeed our lives are changing as a result of technology. Access to broadband when we want it and where we want it is becoming an essential part of modern life. Research by which found that nine out of 10 people view a broadband connection as a necessity alongside utilities like water and energy and food and housing, a higher proportion than those who said the same of a TV, a phone, a car or savings. You can see why broadband opens up new opportunities for learning, for leisure, for health, for communication and for business. However, as someone who represents a large rural area, my mailbag can testify that for many people the reality of accessing broadband is often very different from the rhetoric. Like the hotelier told that to compete, they needed to focus on online bookings but who often couldn't access those bookings because their broadband routinely cut out. Or the businessman with an exchange-only line who has been waiting years simply to be told if, not when, they will be able to connect to fibre broadband. Or the family who could see that the shiny new green cabinet at the end of the street for months but no one from Digital Scotland or BT Openreach could tell them, even to a few months, a date when it was likely that they could access fibre broadband until literally the last minute. Or the farmer who contacted me frustrated that no one could ever tell him whether he would be in the dreaded 5 per cent who were never part of the 95 per cent Government fibre broadband target so that he could decide whether he should focus on making his own arrangements through, for example, satellite broadband. It was the family who signed up for speeds up to 30 megabits per second based on the provider's advert only to discover that, like nine out of 10 people, the maximum speed advertised was something that they could never get because their home was so far from the fibre-enabled cabinet that the copper, not fibre optic, cable had to stretch to. Presiding Officer, I could go on about the frustrations of my constituents when it comes to broadband. I am sure that other members will have many similar examples. To be fair, the cabinet secretary recognised those frustrations in his opening comments but, unfortunately, those frustrations and those realities are not reflected in the wording of the Government's motion today. It continues to define what happened in Scotland based on comparing it with the rest of the UK and England in particular, arguing that the gap in broadband coverage between Scotland and the rest of the UK has been bridged in recent years. That gap has certainly been reduced, and I recognise that progress congratulating all those parties involved, including local authorities in Dumfries and Galloway and the Highlands and Islands, who made significant financial contributions to the work to deliver those improvements. However, a gap still remains. According to the website Think Broadband, 95.1 per cent of the UK had availability of UK-defined superfast broadband of speeds of 24 megabits per second or more in the first quarter of 2018, compared to 93.3 per cent in Scotland. The figures will vary depending on what terms you use to describe broadband and how you define it. Herein lies one of the problems in the debate, the interchangeable use of phrases to suit the arguments that people want to make. The current Scottish Government target of 95 per cent is for fibre broadband, and that is not the same as superfast broadband. Just to make sure that the public are left thoroughly confused, the Digital Scotland website calls the target one for high-speed fibre broadbands. I very much welcome the tone and contribution of Mr Smith's speech, just to deal with the specific point that he raises, which I think is quite right about the possibility of confusion. To dispel that confusion, can I just confirm our commitment to rural and island Scotland so that every house and every business has access to superfast broadband at 30 megabits per second? A higher target than the DSSB, but one that I hope Mr Smith will welcome. Thank you for intervention. It is absolutely a commitment that I very much welcome. I will deal with that specific point later in my speech. The difference between the previous 95 per cent target and I think that the far more appropriate and more welcome target that is set out in R100 both in relation to the percentage of coverage but also in relation to a specific commitment around speeds of 30 megabits are above. However, we have to be clear at the moment that Scotland does not have 95 per cent superfast broadband coverage, and that is one of the frustrations that the public have. They believe that that is what they were going to get when that 95 per cent target was rolled out and they have been left disappointed in many areas. The local variations within Scotland can be quite significant. In my own home region of Dumfries and Galloway, there is a 10 per cent difference between the proportion of people with availability of fibre broadband and those who actually have superfast broadband speeds available. An orcney access to fibre broadband sits at 82 per cent, but the availability of superfast speeds is just 65 per cent. However, it is not just rural Scotland where there is a digital divide. Access to the internet is lower in many of our most deprived areas. The Scottish Government's own household survey, albeit in 2016, showed that 27 per cent of households in the most deprived areas had no home internet access compared to 15 per cent elsewhere in Scotland. The availability of broadband is not the same as being able to access it. A report by Ofcom last year found that although at the time 87 per cent of Scottish premises had availability of superfast broadband of 30 megabits per second, only 39 per cent had active connections that are delivering superfast speeds. Even those who can afford it, the often hefty cost of a superfast broadband subscription, are not guaranteed the headline speeds that they thought they had signed up for. Too often, average speeds fall far short of the connections maximum that are claimed. I know that the advertising standards agency is rightly taking action to address that issue. Whether it is rural areas or deprived communities, too many people are being excluded from the opportunities that superfast broadband can provide. R100 is a chance to address those shortcomings. To be clear with the public that everyone will have access to superfast broadband at speeds that make a difference. The commitment to 100 per cent coverage and a clear minimum speed of 30 megabits per second is a step forward. Beyond that, I have to say that inadequate 10 megabits per second speed proposed and the UK Government's universal service obligation. The commitment to an outside in approach is also welcome. What we now need, however, is the detail. A clear timetable that shows exactly how people in rural areas and in our deprived communities will no longer be disadvantaged and, for once, be put first. Again, I am grateful. I confirm to Mr Smith and Mr Rumbles, who has this in his amendment, that as soon as the tender process is completed, we will provide as much detail as we can as to the regional roll-out of the programme. I fully understand that all members want to know that, but until the tender process is completed early next year, it is simply not possible to do that, Presiding Officer, but it shall be done as soon as we possibly can do it. I thank the cabinet secretary for that commitment, because it is a weakness in the previous programme that people simply did not know when their community was likely to have access to fibre broadband. A commitment to have a clear timetable is one that I welcome, but we also need to know exactly how those in the most difficult to reach premises, not included in the initial first-phase procurement, will not be left behind. There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that that is the case, but it is not just when it comes to broadband that Scotland does have a digital divide. Many of our communities are being left behind due to poor mobile connectivity with my own South Scotland region, plagued by so-called not-sports, where a mobile connection, never mind 4G, is simply not available. I can tell the Parliament today that the new £212 million Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary on the edge of the town of Dumfries is hardly the most remote place in the world. It still does not have mobile phone coverage five months after it was opened. There have been some improvements in connectivity across Scotland from mobile network operators, partly driven by compliance with off-coms requirements for spectrum use. The Scottish Government's new 4G infill programme is certainly a step in the right direction, but a huge opportunity lies with the emergency service mobile communications programme. That has real potential to improve services in the rural communities if we ensure that additional commercial coverage can literally piggyback on the mass that will be developed to deliver the emergency services programme. Beyond funding future proofing master upgrades so that they can provide commercial coverage, the Scottish Government also has a role to play in ensuring that a planning system does not act as a barrier to improve mobile connectivity. That is a huge issue for our constituents. Its clear progress has been made in better connection with our communities and we should recognise that, but Scotland still has a digital divide. Too many of our rural and deprived communities have a slow or no broadband and there are parts of my region where 4G is a type of football pitch and certainly not something you are going to get on your mobile phone anytime soon. The motion from the Government and the amendment from the Conservatives partly acknowledges some of the challenges, but, frankly, it is too much about trying to blame each other for that digital divide. A lack of adequate broadband and mobile coverage in too many of our communities is too often being used in the extension of the constitutional tit for tat between both Governments. That is not what our constituents work for. Can you please just conclude and move your amendment? The Government wants to see both Governments working together. I therefore move the amendment in Labour's name. I now call Mike Rumbles to speak to a move amendment 12010.1, Mr Rumbles. I will be generous with you as well. You do not hear me saying that very often to Mr Rumbles, but I have said it today. Up to an extra two minutes to use up, but that would absorb any interventions that you appreciate. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do appreciate those comments. I move amendment in my name now, just in case I forget to do so later on. We have heard many assertions about digital connectivity already in this debate so far, and many promises from the Scottish Government on this issue since it came to power over a decade ago. The first thing I want to do is test the credibility of those assertions, both those in the motion before us and those made by the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon. On 25 November last year, the Cabinet Secretary told us in this chamber that, as a direct result of our investment, more than 800,000 premises now have access to fibre broadband while we are on track to deliver 95 per cent coverage by the end of this year. Time and time again, we have heard Scottish Government ministers claim credit for the success of digital Scotland's superfast broadband programme, and we have heard it again this afternoon. I think that Mr Stevenson will have an opportunity to contribute in the debate. I look forward to that. Not once have we heard that the Scottish Government acknowledged that the vast majority of funding for the programme came from the investment that was delivered by the UK's coalition government. I will make the point first. It came from the UK's coalition government in 2013 and 2014, the European Union, local authorities and British telecom. That included Scotland's share of £530 million from broadband development UK. We have a UK minister in the press and journal this week claiming that the £121 million allocated in 2014 for local fibre roll-out in Scotland is still sitting in Scottish Government coffers. I will certainly give way to the Cabinet Secretary. To reiterate what I have already said in the select equity and what I have said in this place and previous occasions, the DSSB contract was a partnership. Parties put in different amounts. The UK put in £100 million. The Scottish public sector, including the Scottish Government, HIE and local authorities put in £164 million. If my mass is correct, BT put in £126 million. I have made that absolutely clear. The investment was by the Scottish Government because we were running the main contract. It is correct factually to say that the investment was made by us, but I have always acknowledged that the contribution of the UK Government was £100 million. I have never heard that. I have always made it clear. I do it again. I hope that Mr Rumbles is now happy. Mr Rumbles, I am always happy, cabinet secretary, never more so than holding you to account in this chamber. As a matter of fact, the Scottish Government's direct investment into the digital Scotland broadband programme comes to less than a fifth of the total. So, while we can agree on the figures, it is the way that it is presented. That is the issue. In January, I think that the broadband report in that 93.4 per cent of homes in Scotland had access to fibre broadband. In two weeks ago, the cabinet secretary issued what I thought was quite an astonishing press release congratulating the Scottish Government for reaching an unprecedented 95 per cent fibre coverage. The extraordinary thing about that is that I well remember the cabinet secretary coming before this chamber on 19 December last year to give us that very same fact. Either he was mistaken then, or he has a very short memory, or worse, he thinks that we all have short memories. It is unfortunate that, even in areas where new cabling has been laid, the existing poor service has often not improved one iota. Superfast broadband coverage in January of this year was estimated to be between 87 per cent and 89 per cent in Scotland. Ofcom's report this week puts the figure at 91 per cent. The same report states that the figure in England is 95 per cent. Those are the facts. But what must happen now is that the cabinet secretary must start to show real progress for those in rural areas to ensure that those communities are not left behind. However, I believe in credit where credit is due. I welcome the Scottish Government's £600 million investment in the R100 programme, even though this is a reserve responsibility. With new 4G and alternative technologies, I have no doubt that this target is achievable. What I doubt, though, is whether it will be done within the timescale and with the current earmarked resources. The cabinet secretary has said that the Scottish Government will announce initial deployment plans once contracts have been agreed early in 2019. What customers want to know is when they will become part of the throw-out, and that is why the Liberal Democrat amendment in my name calls for a clear regional timetable to be published by the Scottish Government. While I sincerely hope that the UK Government has more to bring to the table, it is the Scottish Government that must now demonstrate that its commitment to expanding rural broadband is more open and transparent. Customers want to know when they will receive superfast broadband, and the Scottish Government needs to be able to tell them. Despite new technologies being developed and speeds for some getting faster and faster, other businesses and residents outside of Scotland cities have too often been left behind. Internet speeds and some parts of rural Aberdeenshire, which Mr Stevenson must know, are woeful, and many other parts of the north-east are not much better. Presiding Officer, without a detailed and published roll-out programme—I heard what the cabinet secretary said earlier on just before he took over the chair—he would publish what he was able to. I do not actually think that that is good enough. We need a really clear, detailed and published roll-out programme where customers can check when they are indeed going to get connected over the next three and a half years, and not just listen to vague promises that they are going to get connected. They want to know when. Many people, if they do not know that, will be left in the dark. Quite simply, Presiding Officer, I urge the cabinet secretary to do nothing else but to put that right. Communications is a very important part of the world economy and every aspect of the world. The first great step forward in digital communications took place 2,000 years ago, when the Romans introduced a system of wigwag, hilltop signalling that carried a signal from Londinium to Roma and back within the course of a single day. That replaced the three months that it took by sea and by cleft stick before then. When the telegraph came in in the early 1800s, there was another quantum leap. When Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone system for the first time in 1876, that took us on voice to another place. Only five years later in Edinburgh, the telephone directory for Edinburgh had 300 connections in a space of only five years when the telephone was first demonstrated. Scotland has been a leader in communications in many ways in the past. The cabinet secretary's opening speech talked about broad consensus and the need for broadband. I am delighted that no one has attempted to break that, because we all know and assert the importance of that. The first digital communication system on which I worked in technology was in the 1960s. It ran at 110 bits per second, not kilobits, not megabits, just bits per second, but we were able to connect all 400 branches of the bank to a real-time data inquiry and data collection system at 110 bits. We moved on rapidly with mobile technology, the GSM, the first digital system, coming in in 1990. I was one of the group of 12 people who piloted it in the UK. My experience as the manager of the Bank of Scotland's data centre, my telecoms bill 30 years ago used to be £10 million. The price that I could buy for that service now is a few hundred pounds. Things progress all the time. I want to just, before going on too much, to just slightly rein in Finn Carson. I heard with the light that the UK is going to deliver 10 megabytes per second to everyone. That's eight times their current promise, because it's 10 megabits, not 10 megabytes, I have to say. I'll also say that smartphones don't rely on the IEEE 802.11 standard, which is Wi-Fi, but on HDMSA, GSM, Edge and GPRS. In other words, they use different communications technologies, so Wi-Fi is really quite irrelevant. I may come back to Finn Carson later, but I want to pick up a particular point of the Tory amendment, which says that the digital gap is widening between urban and rural Scotland. Let's look at some numbers. In 2012, for cities, the penetration of fibre-enabled range from 95 per cent in Dundee to 59 per cent in Stirling. Are the other end of scale in Aberdeenshire, as Mr Rumbles referred to, we were at 25.1, 33.9 percentage points behind the worst city, 74.9 percentage points behind the best. Our guile was on 26, money on 28, high on 23, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland is zero. Has the gap widened? Clearly not. Our guile and beaut has advanced by 54.8 points, money by 66.2, high on by 62.4, Western Isles by 75.9, Orkney by 74.7, Shetland by 79.6, and Aberdeenshire, the council area in which Peter Chapman, Mike Rumbles and myself live by 65.9. Only one city has it grown by more than 20 points, and that Stirling, who was born in the pack, has grown by 34.6 points. I've juggled the numbers left-handed, right-handed, two-handed, off the floor, off the wall, every which way, rural is catching up with cities every single day. More fundamentally, by 2021, people like myself, who are in the 5 per cent, who are not fibred and indeed don't have DBA radio, don't have free view, have no mobile phone signal and cannot see either of the data satellites because of terrain issues, I expect I'm going to be fibre connected to the premise and most of the R100 will end up being that. What that actually means is that rural areas will have the capability of 300 megabits per second if they've got fibre at the premise. We'll actually be ahead of urban areas if we're lucky. Now, we need to see what comes from the contracts, but there's a huge difference between getting that fibre to the premises as he's very likely at outcome of the tender that's currently out there, that's what I hear from some of those who might be interested in bidding, and the miserable 10 megabits per second that is what the UK is guaranteeing to everybody. It's well outside the 30 megabits that our Government is promising, but it's substantially ahead. The fibre of the premises is well likely to have the urban hunt. Is there a challenge here? I won't know when I'll get my fibre until a little man or woman engineer has come and looked at the path to my very door. They'll need to walk from the exchange up to my house, check where they can lay the cable. Every premise will need to be inspected before you can give a date for every premise. You can only do by area in the first instance. The first instance will follow after that. I'm obliged. I'll be very happy to support the Government's motion. I may even think about some of the others, the Tories, a bit the challenge. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to speak in today's debate on digital connectivity, mostly because Stuart Stevens often in the chamber when I'm here and it is a joy to listen to him. First, I would like to remind chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing. Today I'd like to make a couple of points about digital connectivity and I'd like to specifically focus on the south-west of Scotland as a member who represents the south Scotland region. Since becoming an MSP, I have had many constituent calls, emails and queries about broadband and it's a very important issue for everybody in the south of Scotland as well as the south-west that folk both for personal level and vital for our rural businesses. I have hosted sessions in Dumfries, New Galloway and Stranraer with great support from digital broadband, superfast broadband team and community broadband Scotland and I also had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon for a new big green box at spring home, bringing better broadband to the village. The technical knowledge and the know-how of the national and on-the-ground local activity and the solutions to the problems has been greatly welcomed and I thank everyone who has helped. I'd like to thank Fiona Muir and her team from the DSSB who have worked closely with me on many local issues. The Scottish Government has taken action to actively engage with the people of Scotland and has made digital infrastructure investment a priority for Scotland's businesses and Scotland's people. Digital access is vitally important for rural businesses, farm businesses and our GP practices. Yesterday I met with Dr Kerry Lunan and Dr Allister Forbes, chair and deputy chair of the Royal College of GPs. We all exchanged examples of necessity for access to good broadband infrastructure to support the work that is required in patient care today. It is crucial for downloading lab results, viewing and sharing key information and also for the increasing use of telehealth and telemedicine activities. Despite being a matter reserved to the UK Government, the SNP is ensuring that Scotland has world-class digital infrastructure. In the south-west of Scotland, I have been working with Mr Carson on digital access to support local businesses in the moshyard exchange area. There is some progress, although it is still quite challenging, and I think that he would agree with me on that. I note the words in Mike Rumble's motion that he calls for R100, the Reach 100 programme. Yes, of course I will. Finlay Carson It is one of the member who would explain why there has been so little improvement in the broadband speeds for those with the poorest. She well knows that it is all very well increasing speeds, where people already have superfast. Can you say that the progress for those with the slowest speeds has been satisfactory? Emma Harper I think that the progress that has been made has been quite forward moving at least. I think that there are issues that we obviously need to explore with technology and new technology and everything like that, but I welcome everything as we move forward. I support any action that the Scottish Government can take to support access for people in the rural areas. I note the words in Mike Rumble's motion that he calls for R100 to prioritise the remote and rural communities. That is great. I encourage him and Conservative members to lobby the UK Government so that more financial support is committed for the R100, not only made but delivered by the UK Government. An investment in Scottish broadband and improved coverage has not been a priority for the UK Government so far. Indeed, the motion by the cabinet secretary calls on the UK Government to increase its funding contribution to R100 from just 3 per cent of the total to ensure that Scotland sees tangible financial, social and environmental benefits from the broadband universal service obligation. Mike Rumble has whispered in my log. Thank you for taking the intervention. I want to reiterate that I am in agreement with you. I think that the UK Government should give more to the programme. After all, it is a reserved issue. I said that in my opening speech. The more important point, which is a non-partisan point, is that it would not be good if the cabinet secretary could ensure that people's connection periods were published when we have a roll-out programme, so that people know where they are. Thank you, Mr Rumbles, for that intervention. Having the data available, if it is accurate, might be something that we could be asking the Government to do, but I know that there is flux in changes in schedules and timetables, which might make it difficult because then people would have a problem with it if it was found to be inaccurate. I think that the UK Government can do better, they should do better and they have a responsibility to do better. On an interesting note, in order to address specific South Scotland digital and broadband issues, the South Scotland economic partnership, SOSEP, the interim board of the new agency, has established an infrastructure thematic group that will review and make recommendations, including digital infrastructure, building on existing plans and seeking opportunities for innovation. A series of interviews and workshops with businesses are currently being planned, and those will inform the thematic group along with the on-going public consultation. I want to thank Amanda Burgower from the south from Scottish Rural Action, who is also a member of SOSEP for an update on the progress. The partnership will also seek to identify initiatives and prevent any potential duplication of efforts to ensure that monies are invested for the maximum return. SOSEP is keen to address the uptake of digital infrastructure by residents and businesses in the south of Scotland to maximise the social and economic benefits of being digitally connected. Connectivity is improving, and just as an added note, I am keen to mention that from Dumfries, Tister and Rar on the A75, now I have 4G mobile phone signal all the way. That was not the case this time last year. I will conclude. I know that there is work to be done, especially for the south-west, and I look forward to hearing in the future whether the UK Government will commit to more R100 funding to support further, faster access to vital communications that rural south-west and the south and the rest of Scotland deserve. Thank you very much. I call on Edward Mountain to be followed by Gillian Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to look specifically at some facts, figures and timescales. The Scottish Government promised that by the end of 2017, 95 per cent of Scottish homes and businesses would be able to connect to fibre broadband. Although some politicians have claimed that the target was achieved, not all is quite as it seems. The fact is that having a connection to fibre broadband does not automatically give you super-fast speeds of broadband of 25 megabits or more. In fact, it was the Cabinet Secretary who stated this to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on 31 January 2018. He conceded that, and I would like to quote him—that is not something that I always do—by saying, and he said, the roll-out of fibre broadband does not necessarily enable super-fast broadband. So here's the real position. According to the figures, no Cabinet Secretary, I will let you in a minute. Can I just get a little bit further through? Here's the real position, according to the figures, according to Think Broadband. Only 93.66 per cent of homes and businesses in Scotland are connected to fibre broadband that have speeds in excess of 24 megabits per second. So claim that is not quite true. When it comes to the Highlands and Islands, the situation is worse. One in five of our constituents do not have super-fast broadband and are required to watch the debate that we are having today. I welcome the Scottish Government's ambition to increase super-fast broadband coverage with the R100 programme. Every politician would want to see 100 per cent of homes and businesses having access to super-fast broadband. I am struggling to work out when the Cabinet Secretary will deliver on this Government's promise. Here's the promise. Let's not forget that this Government, when it came to delivering infrastructure projects, seems to base opening dates on political opportunities rather than realistic construction dates. To add further flexibility, it often uses seasons rather than dates to hide delays. I can give you three classic examples, the Queen Ferry crossing, the AWPR, the Dow Ready to Kinkirk drooling. I would like to ask the Scottish Government, are they going to deliver broadband on time? It would be very helpful to me, Cabinet Secretary, to confirm what time fail you are working to. Every time I question you—I'm sorry, Ms Martin, if you want to interrupt, I'm very happy to give way to the Cabinet Secretary. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear who it was in the sedentary position. Mr Stevenson, I might have guessed. Every time I question the Cabinet Secretary about when we will all have super-fast broadband, I get confused because I get a different answer. Last year, in the programme for government, you confirmed that 100 per cent of access to super-fast broadband would be achieved by 2021. When I questioned the Cabinet Secretary about that in the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee, I was told that 100 per cent of access to super-fast broadband would now be achieved by the end of 2021. Cabinet Secretary, it's very confusing and I'm very happy to give way to you if you could help me and Parliament with a definitive answer. When will we all have super-fast broadband? Would you like me to give way? Cabinet Secretary, I've already made clear umpteen times and I've always said the same thing in respect of my commitments that we will plan to give everyone access to super-fast broadband and that means every home and every business by the end of 2021. I actually think that's what by 2021 means. I don't think there's any difference frankly. That is the commitment that we've made. I'm completely baffled by the proposition that I've given out a load of different dates because the date is absolutely clear. What baffles me is that people from rural constituencies such as Mr Mountain are not totally behind this project, a unique project in the UK, a project without which the objective of providing access to all rural dwellers and island dwellers could not conceivably be achieved within that timescale. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I'm sorry, Cabinet Secretary, but I'm going to take you to task on this because I have the wonderful ability to look at digital connectivity in this Parliament and find out that you tweeted a retweet from the First Minister on 29 November 2017, which said that the Scottish Government is about to invest hundreds of millions of pounds more getting super-fast broadband to 100 per cent of premises by the end of this Parliament, which is a commitment that the UK Government has not made. That's what it says. Cabinet Secretary, I think that you know as well as I do that the end of this Parliament is at the end of March 2021, so that means that we should have 100 per cent access in November last year as instructed by the First Minister, as agreed by you and republicised by you by the end of this Parliament. The question is, who's right? The First Minister or you, Cabinet Secretary, or perhaps there's a more cynical explanation. Is the Cabinet Secretary trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat by delaying the delivery date, knowing perhaps that he can deliver it before, so that he can claim a victory before an election? If that's the case, Cabinet Secretary, I would say that most people in Scotland would prefer you to be honest. The issue today is that I believe that the Scottish Government is nowhere near achieving its promise to deliver super-fast broadband to all premises by the end of this Parliament. It's clear that they are moving the gold post because they know that they can't deliver and don't want to stand at another election on another broken promise. Householders and businesses across the Highlands and across Scotland need to be moving forward in the digital fast lane. Frankly, Cabinet Secretary, I don't believe that it's good enough and there's no point blaming other people as has been done already this afternoon by saying that it's all somebody else's fault. I would urge you to move forward and not delay any longer and to deliver super-fast broadband to all houses and all businesses by the end of March 2021, which the First Minister said she would do. The time for excuses is over. The time to deliver is now and please deliver on time. As an MSP for a constituency that falls largely within the intervention area of the digital super-fast broadband programme, I'm well aware of the remarkable efforts of that programme but I also share the frustration of constituents that are not yet able to benefit from super-fast broadband. Although that area is reserved to Westminster, the decision by the Scottish Government to intervene has been necessary to ensure that vast swains of rural Scotland are not left behind. Without the intervention of the Scottish Government, most of my constituency would not have any access to super-fast broadband and the impact of 100% access by 2021 is going to be hugely significant for the people in my constituency and in my local economy. To name three areas of benefit, remote working will be enabled, access to digital health will be enabled, businesses will be able to consider rural premises as an option rather than Aberdeen City, which should be a massive boost to the local economy in my constituency. Last month, the goal of 95 per cent of Scottish premises had access to super-fast broadband was reached and I'll off-com notice that super-fast broadband availability in Scotland has increased at a faster rate than other UK nations, which I think is impressive, given the particular geographical challenges of our country. The challenge of delivering fibre broadband in Aberdeenshire is made more difficult in that particular area because we have twice the national average of exchange-only lines, which are more expensive to upgrade. The national average is— Mike Rumbles. I agree with everything that she said. We both represent constituents in Aberdeenshire. She's absolutely correct. Could she respond to the intervention that I made earlier on, which I hope is a non-partisan point about how our constituents would really like to know over the next three and a half years, just approximately when they could be connected, if that would be very helpful? Would it not? Given that my parents are the sort of people who are on the phone asking me when it's going to be delivered to Boority, I reckon that they would like that. I just don't know how feasible and practical it is, given all the various situations that can happen, to make that more difficult to predict. I take your point. If I want to finish the point that I was on just before Mr Rumbles intervened on me, the national average for exchange-only lines is 22 per cent, but Aberdeenshire's figure is over 45 per cent and that's around 50,000 homes. The roll-out of infrastructure to the additional Scotland broadband programme has been primarily achieved by running fibre cable from telephone exchanges to roadside cabinets and relying on existing copper wire that runs from those cabinets to premises. However, with 45 per cent of lines in Aberdeenshire running directly from exchange to premises, it has created a significant challenge. Without the interventions, it's been estimated that only 66 per cent of Scotland would be able to receive fibre broadband, so it's a significant achievement that around 95 per cent of premises in Aberdeenshire currently have access. That's compared to 25.1 per cent that the area would have if it was just left to commercial deployment, and I just think that's absolutely staggering achievement for my constituency. However, while the progress has made so far as welcome, it is clear that more needs to be done because, in the remaining 9.3 per cent, it is very frustrating. I'm grateful that the Scottish Government recognises that and is committed to investing at over £600 million, which is more than the UK Government has ever invested in broadband, to the programme of reaching 100 per cent. North of Scotland has been allocated £384 million of that funding. That's nearly two-thirds of the total sum of £600 million invested in our 100 programme. However, there are people living in some new housing developments that do not have access to superfast broadband. I understand that the intervention areas were defined at the beginning of the contract in 2012 using postcode data from 2011. Of course, that means that new postcode accounts that are created for properties built after that time are not included in the programme's rollout. The Scottish Government updated the Scottish planning policy and national planning framework to allow local authorities to insist on digital connectivity as a requirement of any new development in order to counteract that. The cabinet secretary has also been trying to secure a commitment that Scotland will benefit from the UK Government's universal service obligation. I agree with the cabinet secretary that it would be grossly unfair if people from Scotland were excluded from this despite contributing funding. However, as my colleague Emma Harper rightly pointed out, her programme is only for 10 megabits per second, which is not as ambitious by any means as the Scottish Government's aim of 30 megabits per second. I was grateful for her for highlighting that. I would also like to highlight that there is only 17 per cent geographical coverage of 4G in Scotland and only 53 per cent of premises. That is a significant disadvantage to rural areas. Given that telecoms are reserved to the UK Government, I note that yet again the Scottish Government is intervening and has funded 25 million projects to address mobile not-spots across the country. One of the initial 16 not-spot sites is the fantastic and beautiful village of Conalston in my constituency. I would also like to take this opportunity to lobby for a mythic to be included, as it is a town where you cannot get a phone signal of any kind. I would like to close by paying tribute to Fergus Ewing for driving towards this goal of 100 per cent access. It is not an easy task, it is a very difficult task. I thought that it was rather ridiculous that Matt Hancock said that we were all too interested in the constitution to roll out broadband. Too interested in the independence, he said, clearly primed by his Scottish Tories colleagues who were sniggering in the background as he trotted out his programme mantra, a mantra that served the Scottish Tories well as a deflection mechanism for any public or media scrutiny of their lack of policies or action. If only Mr Hancock's focus on addressing rural digital poverty had been anything near as much as Mr Ewing's, the Scottish Government might not have needed to intervene, so I say on behalf of Aberdeenshire East thank goodness that it has. I call James Kelly to be followed by Graham Day. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that the advances in information technology and digital technology have been probably the greatest in my lifetime and present tremendous opportunities for everyone. I can recall as a young student in the early 1980s, a computer student, when, in order to get your computer programme processed at Glasgow College of Technology, you had to feed the programme in via punch cards before it could even be run or processed. That shows the advances that have been made. I know marvel when you look at the fact that people can share photographs from locations all over the world and have instant access to news, to music and sport. Those are tremendous advances that have been made. However, I think that the reality is that for far too many people in this country they do not have access to that technology and to those advances. A lot of contributions in this debate have focused on the digital divide between rural and urban communities, but the divide that I want to focus on is on those who, because of the circumstances that they find themselves in the communities that stay or lack of access to money, do not have access to any of that technology at all. The reality is that we live in a country where there are a million people in poverty, 695,000 people in fuel poverty and over 200,000 people living in child poverty. What that means is that, if you are a single parent who is staying in castle milk or a child growing up in Easter house, the idea of access to the technology that people have spoken about across the chamber is simply something that is a dream rather than a reality. Around where I am, rather than going on campus lying, there are communities that are among the top 5 per cent deprived areas in the country. For example, if you are staying in Burnhill in the Rutherglen area, you possibly cannot afford access to a smartphone or an internet connection or something like a router that seems far fetched. There are real challenges for the Parliament and the Government in order to move the debate forward so that we can ensure that not just that there is coverage across the country but that there is greater access across the country. Some of the challenges around technology have been compounded by the UK welfare changes that have been brought in so that, in order to have access to universal credit, you also need access to an online account. A recent survey by the Citizens Advice Bureau showed that, of people who had come across 18 per cent, they did not have any access to the internet. What that means is that, if you are trying to get access to universal credit, you are perhaps using technology that you have never used in your life before, but you do not have that immediate access to it in your neighbourhood. You go along to your local library and we have seen, because of the challenges in public services recently, that sometimes those services at local libraries can be reduced or the opening hours curtailed. There are real challenges there. One of the other issues is the way that big business drives this digital divide. If you look at a lot of the contracts that are offered by the likes of Sky and BT, they are high-value long-term contracts and people who are working on short-term jobs, who might be part of the gig economy, are not able to make those long-term commitments and are therefore locked out of those digital contracts. Therefore, digital exclusion can also drive financial exclusion. I think that there are some excellent local examples of how to combat that. In Canvas, Lang, the West Whitlerburn housing co-op set up their own Whitcom communications co-operative in 2008. They offered cheaper packages as opposed to those offered by Sky and BT. There has been an 80 per cent uptake in that area. That is potentially a good practice that the Government should look at. On how the debate is moved forward, I can understand that the Government wants to come forward and talk about the progress that it has made in broadband access. However, there are fundamental challenges in this country around deprivation and poverty, which restricts people's access to technology. We need to give greater support to local projects such as West Whitlerburn and proper investment in IT facilities around libraries. I appeal to the Government on the fact that it should try to use its influence with the businesses that put on offer longer-term deals that potentially lock out people in areas of social exclusion. It has been a debate this afternoon where a lot of people have exchanged stats around megabits and megabytes. However, if we really want to open up the advantages of technology to everyone in our country, it needs a much more fundamental and much more wider debate, and that is something that the whole Parliament should engage in. I begin by congratulating my colleague Stuart Stevenson for his foresight in hosting a Digital Scotland briefing session here in Parliament earlier today. Amongst his many other talents, either he possesses psychic powers or an impeccable sense of timing. As ever, it was extremely useful to get an update on where work in my constituency to improve broadband connections has taken us to. Let me share those with the chamber. Digital Scotland's superfast broadband investment has, as of last week, led to 11,333 premises being connected to fibre broadband, with 9,409 of those by virtue of proximity being capable of receiving speeds of more than 24 megabytes. Commercial delivery has led to 69.7 per cent of the county of Angus being connected to fibre. Without the DSSB, that is all that we would have seen. Instead, the commercial and digital Scotland programmes together mean that just under 93 per cent of premises in the county are connected to fibre, with 85.7 per cent of premises able to receive speeds of more than 24 megabytes. However, the impact of the DSSB project, specifically in my constituency, has been far more pronounced than that, because the commercial programme in Angus South was to have been minimal in its contribution. In my constituency, we are where we are, largely because of the DSSB deployment and the impact of gain share. That said, there remains considerable work left to be done, but I know that the Scottish Government has committed to delivering that, and I will continue on behalf of my constituency to make sure that that happens. Alongside that, can I say that all of us MSPs have a duty to raise awareness around the issue of people not understanding the need to get a package? By way of example, currently only 37.35 per cent of premises in Angus have ordered a fibre service from a digital Scotland structure when they could benefit from that. There are a myriad of reasons for that uptake level. For some people, the broadband speed that they already have is enough for their needs, but there is a lack of awareness out there. We need to help people to better understand that just because the infrastructure is in place, it does not mean that you are automatically linked into it. Broadband issues are a significant contributor to my surgery case load, which will be the same for many colleagues. I understand entirely why constituents are so keen to have a reliable, efficient connection. We should be clear that, in terms of the upgrade work that is taking place across Scotland, that is a reserved area—no efs, no butts, no maybes. However much political rivals want to muddy the waters, that is the fact. It is to the credit of Fergus Ewing and the Government that it stepped up to the plate, committing 97 per cent of the funding for the R100 and setting the bar far higher than the UK Government's 10 megawatt universal service obligation. However, I do hope that the R100 tendering process sees that the open reach monopoly ended. It is good to see others coming forward to bid for those lots. More than that, I think that we would benefit from having new kids on the block, as it will. A trawl through the case files of my constituency, I suspect that other constituency offices would show time and time again open reach failing in its approach to meet the reasonable expectations of the people that I represent. I suspect that many colleagues represent. Sitting alongside that, we need to see everyone who is a part to play working together to avoid duplication and to ensure that resources are going where they need to be utilised. That is why, last year, I brought together representatives from Digital Scotland, the R100 programme and Angus Council in my constituency. The contracts that deliver the R100 programme must not only allow for innovation and flexibility, they must encourage it so that the successful bidders are, for example, able to tie in with local authorities where those councils are taking a lead. In April, an initiative being led by Angus Council went live at Curtin Industrial State in Arbro, as well as at Orchard Business Park in Forfa. Radio broadband is now available to businesses in both those locations. In addition, the council will also be able to provide a business-grade broadband connection to business premises outwith the sites where they have line-of-site links to those key locations. Furthermore, Angus Council has submitted an expression of interest in the Wi-Fi for EU programme. If it is successful, the council would receive €15,000 to support the provision of Wi-Fi in the county's town centre. The council is also working, belatedly, to deliver Wi-Fi at four primary schools in my constituency, the current lack of which is a cause of some concern to parents and pupils. The council is involved in the wider Tay cities deal. It is also developing a proposal that would see the procurement of a suitable supplier to deliver full fibre upgrades to identify public sector buildings. That infrastructure could then be used to deliver scalable bandwidth to the public sector while also reducing the cost of subsequent deployment of full fibre networks to home and businesses. Credit Angus Council and Kirsty MacCarrie, the lead officer for all of this, are imperative that they are regarded as partners in the national R100 programme, because we need common sense collaboration. In advance of R100, it should be noted that we are still seeing progress made in rural parts of my constituency. Over the past few months, locations to benefit have included Piper Dam, Tealing, Inverarty and Causton. There are also, I know, individuals who are set to benefit from fibre direct to property. The information provided earlier this week and reiterated today by the Cabinet Secretary will be very welcomed by my constituency in Gwanaeewa, Gwanae clover and Gwanae prosan. Those are among the areas that have been mandated and waited in the R100 intervention area to incentivise the delivery of fibre infrastructure to some of our more challenging areas. To conclude, good progress has been made, continuing progress has been made, but more to be done and credit this Scottish Government for stepping into the breach and ensuring that we reach the stage that access to fast, reliable broadband is something that all our citizens can enjoy. I want to start by reminding the chamber that I remain as council of the Aberdeen City. Aberdeen City, of course, recognises that fast broadband is vital to its future development, but it is all made even more important that everybody else has it, too. Therefore, I commend the decision to push for 100 per cent forward of superfast connections. I will be very interested to see a breakdown of how the Government plans to spend £600 million that has committed to its budget for this event. I would like to use my time today to discuss the link between digital connections and the issue that is very relevant to the developing world and which seems to reflect Scotland in particular. I am, of course, talking about our low productivity growth. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Scotland's productivity growth stood at a little as 0.2 per cent last year and it is scheduled to be just half a per cent for this year. The commission believes that Scotland might have reached its maximum economic output as evidenced by its low unemployment rate. That means that we cannot experience strong growth until we pursue expansionary supply side policies. If we want to grow the economy, the productivity is a line for the first place to start. In our history, the largest spikes in productivity growth have come about at the discovery and use of new technology. From our smoke rings to tweeting of modern-day, our media is a communication that has improved vastly and we have heard a great history from Mr Stevenson. Going forward, technology can bring benefits to the efficient automation of maintained tasks and the simplifying of processes. The 21st century has largely been defined by our delve into the digital world. The benefit to productivity has been plenty, ranging from time and cost saving to transformative practices. These transformations have often set new standards that we will have brought about the mass move to simple transport apps. JustEat enhanced the fast food industry. Quickboot simplified small business accounts. Even good old Microsoft has standard programmes, most of which nobody can understand. New algorithms are developed every day. I look forward to the day when most aspects of our routine life are transformed and enhanced, leaving more time for creativity, entrepreneurship and leisure. To get to the point, though, we need to invest in technology into infrastructure. It strikes me as an odd then that the Scottish Government has only begun phase 2 of the broadband procurement recently, given that it received funding from the UK Government four years ago. Although I do acknowledge that the new target of 100 per cent superfast broadband exceeds others in speed, I do understand why Fergus Ewing gave himself an extra year to complete this roll-out. I am grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. The reason why the R100 programme is proceeding now and not earlier is that it was simply not possible to proceed with it earlier. The reason that it was not possible to proceed with it earlier is that it would have been impossible to design the specification until the DSSB programme was completed. Had we done so, the only potential bidder for any of the three segments would have been BT, because only they would have been accessed to the knowledge of what the specification would have been. For that technical but very important reason, which is accepted by the industry, it would not have been possible to have had a different timetable for the R100 procurement. I thank you for those additional information. What actually matters is that we are now online to getting it done. Although I do acknowledge that our new target of 100 per cent superfast broadband exceeds others in speed, I understand why you are—sorry. One area where Lloro has failed so far has been in rural access, which I know has been mentioned in committee quite often in this chamber. Some rural constituencies in Scotland have the lowest access of any in UK. This prevents businesses from engaging with the rest of Scotland in the wider market. Indeed, in parts of Aberdinshire, we have some of the worst connections levels in the United Kingdom, putting a ceiling on the north-east's increase in productivity. I therefore welcome Matt Hancock's local full fibre networks challenge fund, which allows areas in the north-east and across Scotland to enjoy the share of £200 million to stimulate commercial investment in full fibre networks. Rural connections are also heavily influenced by mobile coverage. While 4G coverage has risen well recently, it still lags behind UK levels, with BT saying that mobile networks need better access to public assets at affordable rates. I know that the Government plans to roll out 5G in a rural first approach, and I welcome that decision. Providing access to providing providing offers is only half the battle. BT has said that, while access is nearing 100 per cent, actual take-up is only a third of that. There can be many reasons why people don't use the available access. Some may hold fears of over-cyber and cyber safety, others may be elderly and do not associate their life access with the internet. Why would they change their minds with now? Also, Mr Kelly has outlined some problems with disadvantaged families. Without some technology needs to be made simpler for this to happen, for which it is wrong to assume that being able to use the social media translates to running the digital side of a business. I believe that it is our responsibility in this Parliament to do what we can to alleviate those concerns. We can have all the access in the world, but unless people are using it, we won't make a difference. That is why we need to encourage take-up. What is not acceptable is the creation of barriers to take-up. For instance, the current system measures access as having an exchange box near your house. That does not take into account the limited spaces in that box in terms of exchanges to the house. Similarly, even where the exchange is superfast, if the cable is to the house, it is made of copper, it won't be nearly fast enough. Therefore, in both these circumstances, both the Scottish Government ticks the box at home and provides access, and moves on leaving many without the benefits. I want today to highlight the importance of the digital connections in making a real change to the worrying trend in Scotland. Pogtiffidy Coff will only come about through a careful plan campaigning of increasing both access and take-up. I hope and desire that tick boxes and tried to run up the UK Government won't get in the way of this, because in the end it would only be holding Scotland back. So, take-up is what we require. Thank you very much. Kate Forbes, to be followed by Peter Chapman. Broadband connectivity has certainly dominated my caseload since I was elected. I imagine that it is the same for any MSP who represents a rural or remote part of Scotland. Although the technicalities of connectivity can make for dull reading, it is all about what broadband can unlock. In rural and remote Scotland, it has historically and still does make the difference between communities thriving or communities splintering and people moving elsewhere. Infrastructure has always played that role. It has been in the past the roads, electricity, telephone lines and now it is broadband and the vital nature of broadband to not only ensuring that the Highlands and Islands economy stays strong but people who have been brought up in the Highlands and Islands choose to stay cannot be overstated. I would say that all of those forms of infrastructure, whether it was the roads 50 years ago, electricity, telephone lines or broadband today, is a test of Government's concern for those on the periphery and those in remote and rural Scotland how much attention they pay to ensuring that where the market will fail, Government stumps up the cash and does not leave it to the market. If broadband had been left to the market in the Highlands and Islands, it is estimated that only 25.3 per cent of premises would be connected to fibre broadband through commercial deployment. However, with the Government's intervention and on that, I pay tribute to the sum of money from the UK Government as well as the money from the Scottish Government. With Government investment, 87.7 per cent of the Highlands is connected. It is not yet 100 per cent and I hear the frustrations of businesses, of young people, of families who want access to superfast broadband and nothing short of 100 per cent will satisfy them. That is why I come back to that point about testing Government's resolve and Government's attention to remote and rural parts of Scotland. That is why this Government's target of 100 per cent is so vital to the Highlands and Islands, with pleasure. Finlay Carson is taking the intervention now. The R100 procurement makes it clear that it is aiming to find suppliers who will connect as many premises as possible for their available subsidy. It is still unclear whether the £600 million will actually ensure the 100 per cent. Does the member not welcome that by 2020 we will have a guarantee that everyone will have a minimum of 10 megabits per second using a range of different technologies? Kate Forbes, on that point, I welcome any commitment from any Government and from any member who wants to connect the Highlands and Islands and remote places in the Highlands and Islands using different technologies, because, of course, that is quite clear, but we need to look to the future. That is what I do not understand about the universal service obligation. Yes, it is welcome that the UK Government wants to connect every premises to 10 megabits per second, but that is not the future. We need to be ambitious when it comes to broadband, and that is why the Scottish Government's commitment to 30 megabits per second is far more ambitious and has far more concern to the potential of broadband to unlock opportunities in the Highlands and Islands than a measly 10 megabits per second. I come back to the point about reaching 100 per cent. That is the equivalent of electricity and the equivalent of the road structure. We know that, across Scotland, there are single track roads that cannot cope with the volume of people because they were not built as single carriageways. We have an opportunity with the greatest investment that has ever been made in broadband on these islands—public investment, £600 million—not just to meet demand as it is today, but to look five years down the line, ten years down the line and ensure that there is an infrastructure there that can unlock potential. Nobody is unaffected by the lack of access to superfast broadband. Whether it is children who have homework to do, whether it is people who are working, people who are keeping in touch, and particularly businesses—this is where I want to focus as I close—small and medium-sized businesses constitute 98 per cent of all enterprises in Scotland. They are the backbone of the economy. We often hear accusations of lack of growth in this Parliament. Growth is key, but what will drive growth is allowing those small and medium-sized enterprises to access markets, audiences across the world. You can do that on the most remote peninsula in Scotland, with access to superfast broadband. You see it in tourism at the moment. The world is coming to Scotland—it is coming to the highlands, actually—via Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway, but they are coming to see the beauty of this country. Bookings are made online. Last year, I had a constituent come to me with a B&B saying that, in the peak of the summer season, he had had no bookings because he did not have access to broadband. Considering the difficulties with accessing broadband, lastly, mobile connectivity has got to be part of that. Again, the Scottish Government is doing something about it with our 4G infill programme. I am so delighted that the first 60 not-spots have been identified. It is all about ambition—30 megabits per second, not a measly 10 or 600 million or not a measly 3 per cent of investment. For that, we thank the Scottish Government. I would like to open by stating that I have a registered interest as a partner in a farming business. From many of the prior speeches today, it is clear that, although we support the Government's aims, it has been too slow to deliver fast and reliable broadband to Scotland. I will, like many of my colleagues across the chamber today, highlight the off-configures for my region, and they are not encouraging. 26,000 Aberdeenshire properties still have broadband speeds below 30 megabits. 15,500 properties do not have 10 megabits, and 4,776 have an abysmal 2 megabits or less. Megan Aberdeenshire, one of the least-connected local authorities in the UK, is considerably worse than the Scotland wide figure of 9 per cent. Does the member accept that, if there was not this intervention, two megabits would have been a dream to some of those premises, which would have had no connection whatsoever if we had made an intervention? Peter Chapman Two megabits is absolutely unacceptable, and that is at the end of the DSSB programme, which was mostly funded by the UK Government. We cannot accept the statement in the Government's motion today that the gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK has been bridged. We are still behind, and that is a fact. I ask the cabinet secretary, rather than boasting of Scotland's remarkable progress, to apologise to Aberdeenshire constituents for sitting on £21 million in funding handed to it in 2014 by the Westminster Government and still not spent. That could have given many more homes access to decent broadband, and it still sets on spend. I have a keen interest in today's debate and the improvement of Scotland's digital connectivity, as I cannot access broadband in my rural Strachan home. Despite the nearest cabinet being enabled for superfast broadband, I am too far away to benefit from it, and I can achieve something less than one megabit down the phone line. I wonder if I am actually counted in the 95 per cent, because in theory I am connected, but if you have three miles of copper wire between you and the cabinet, it is absolutely no use to you. I understand the frustration of many rural folks who feel let down by this Government, promising access to everyone with failing to deliver. Nearly 20 per cent of my constituent cases since my election in 2016 have related to either poor broadband speeds or no access at all. Those statistics show what a major issue it is for those living in rural areas and for those trying to run a business in the countryside with poor connectivity, it is nigh on impossible. For instance, I have recently been contacted by Jane Craigie, a Jane Craigie mark of Jane Craigie marketing. Jane gave a fantastic speech at the NFUS AGM, highlighting the opportunities for rural and foreign businesses to develop and grow through better communications, but her business has been hampered by lack of broadband access, and Ms Craigie stated, I am passionate about the Scottish Government's aim to develop rural business, and I am practising that through my own company. The greatest impediment by far to the further development of my business and therefore my recruitment plans is the extremely poor state of broadband connectivity in my area of Aberdeenshire, which quite frankly is not fit for domestic, let alone business purposes. That is completely unacceptable in this web-centric era. Not my words, Jane Craigie's words. Could I say that it is precisely because we want Ms Craigie and indeed everyone else in Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland to have access to superfast broadband at 30 megs that we have made this commitment, and we are investing £600 million precisely to ensure that Ms Craigie and everybody else gets the access that she needs? Surely that should be something that we all welcome. Peter Chapman I accept that, but why did he cut the funding this year, a huge cut in the budget this year? I think that 2018 has proven to be a wasted year. So this sums up the problems faced by many. Jane employs two people and would love to employ another two. Lack of connectivity means that this is virtually impossible. How can a business manage staff without adequate access to online tax forms, payroll systems and internet banking? How can the grower business, if they are unable to communicate with their customers by email or through a website? The Scottish Government makes much of the achievements of the DSSB programme, and to be fair, we have moved forward. The Cabinet Secretary tells us that he has spent £400 million reaching 95 per cent of the population. What he never tells us, unless specifically asked in this chamber today, is that if the £403 million spent the UK Government put in £101 million, local authorities contributed £91 million, BT put in £126 million, HIE and the EU put in £23 million and the Scottish Government put in only £63 million. So far, so far from putting in the lion's share as a funding, the truth is that the Scottish Government only contributed some 15 per cent of that total. So far from short change in Scotland, as the Cabinet Secretary would argue, Scotland has already received nearly two and a half times the level of funding per head of population compared to England. Those are the hard facts that the SNP does not like to hear. Are we going to hear the same smoke and mirror figures from this Government on R100 funding? We are 10 months on from the announcement of R100 in July 2017, but we still have no further information on successful procurement, contracts being signed or the roll-out process. We also know that the completion date has slipped from delivery by 2021 to the end of 2021, and, Cabinet Secretary, those are not the same thing. We need more clarity on R100, how it will be funded and whether it will deliver. We actually, in Scotland, deserve better. Willie Coffey, followed by Clare Adamson. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. The wonderful astronomer and scientist, Carl Sagan, once said, somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known. It's a lovely quote from a man who was as much a visionary as an astronomer, and it has relevance to the debate today. Technology and raw computing power are increasing at such a rate that it's making things previously thought to be impossible to be routine in today's world. The challenge for us isn't just to try our best to keep up, but to try and put in place systems that allow society to exploit the power of technology for the greater good of us all. The computers that took us to the moon in 1969 were only about twice as powerful as Nintendo games consoles, and our current modern smartphones are way more powerful than the supercomputers from earlier decades. Experts tell us that there has been a trillion fold increase in computing performance over the past 50 years. If a Nintendo games machine can get us to the moon and back, who knows what lies ahead as computing power accelerates onwards and upwards? While our debate today focuses on infrastructure, coverage and data speeds, we should never take our eyes off the prize that all of this delivers, the emergence of new ideas and possibilities that we could only dream about, made possible by the technology that we are creating. We are on this journey, and this debate gives us a chance to glimpse that future a little. Can I acknowledge the points that James Kelly made on closing the poverty gap, not just to digital divide if we are to succeed in this regard? Are we doing everything that we can, and are we doing it quick enough? Inevitably, that is where much of the debate has been focusing in so far. The key differences in what the Scottish Government is doing for Scotland, compared to anywhere else in the UK, is that we are providing total 100 per cent coverage to all our homes and businesses over the next three years, and we are providing a much higher data speed of 30 megabits per second for everyone in Scotland compared to the 10 megabits per second as the UK's standard for rural Britain. In my view, that is wrong. I think that if you can do more and you can do it sooner than you should, because other nations are and the risks are that you will get left behind. Take a look at Estonia, for example, not so long ago, a fairly unknown corner of the Soviet Union, now a confident technology-driven nation intending to deliver full coverage at 30 megabits per second a year earlier, even than us, and promoting take-up of ultra-fast 100 megabits per second data services, which are expected to account for 60 per cent of all their internet subscriptions by 2020. Is it really a surprise then that small Estonia leads the way in many aspects of digital business and computing services? Another example is Singapore. It had a similar income per capita to Ghana around 50 years ago, but now, thanks to this digital revolution, it is on a par with the USA. Our R100 programme investment of £600 million by the Scottish Government to get us our blanket coverage and that high data rate over the next few years is crucial for us if we are serious about exploiting the opportunities that the digital revolution offers. We should be getting a far higher contribution shared towards our programme from our UK colleagues if it was in a comparable split to the existing funding arrangements for DSSB. However, we also need the communication networks to be the best they can be to give all our citizens no matter where they are the chance to get in on the digital act. There is no point in having fantastic computing power if you cannot share data fast enough through the communications networks. It is a bit like having a Ferrari but only having a dirt track farm to drive it on. Of course, the R100 is not the only development that is taking place in Scotland. I am pleased to see that our Government is also investing in fixed wireless 4G mobile, superfast satellite and taking a look at the TV white space technology, which is the TV channels between the VHF and UHF spectrum, to see how best to exploit and deploy those technologies for Scotland so that our digital eggs are not all in the one virtual digital basket. One area that we have not touched on today and that I would like to highlight is the implications for Scotland with the European Union and the digital single market. We have yet to hear from those who want Scotland out of Europe and out of the single market whether we should also walk away from the digital single market, worth €400 billion per year in data services, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of jobs that it supports. The European aim is for 100 megabits per second across all of Europe by 2025 for every household and also means common access to all data and content and end to what we know as geoblocking, with equal access to online services no matter where you are in Europe. We cannot have all that unless we stay in the digital single market. It is ridiculous if the UK thinks that it can walk out of the single market but stay in the digital version of the same thing. The relentless pace of change in technology and computing power is there for us to embrace. If we can, we must and if we can do more, we should. Somewhere or something incredible is waiting to be known and discovered, so let's do all we can to make that happen in Scotland by supporting the Scottish Government's digital investment programme. Thank you. Just before I call Claire Adamson, I'm going to call Finlay Carson for a very brief point of clarification. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that you let me back in. In the heat of the debate and the emotion, I failed to refer members to my register of interest as a director of an IT company, and I would like to do so now. Thank you, Mr Carson. Claire Adamson is the last of the open debate speaker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On that note, I should declare that I am a member of the British Computing Society. I was really interested in the debate this afternoon, and Mr Carson has just mentioned passion. He said that she said better at who said what and which tweet. I really do not think that that will be of interest to her constituents. I remind my Conservative colleagues that it was the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Twitter account, that put out a branded-up Union flag design as Great Britain tweet on top of a photograph of the Queensbury crossing. £2.3 billion of investment from this Government is that the UK Government had not paid up any towards, so if you do not mind, I will take your indignation about claiming credit for things with just a little bit of pinch of salt. Thank Willie Coffey and Mr Kelly for their thoughtful contributions and a history of where we are. It reminds me that in my days of first-studying computing, indeed, we had punched card entries for our programming at what was then Glasgow College of Technology and, of course, Glasgow Caledonian University. It demonstrates just how far we have come in this area, but both Mr Kelly and Willie Coffey also talked about the digital poverty gap. That is something that very greatly concerns me, especially with some of the evidence that we have been hearing on the Social Security Committee regarding the roll-out of universal credit and the reliance on access to a computer and access to the internet to be able to work with that system. I will be very interested, because I probably will write the estimate way with the transcript of all the concerns raised by the Conservative colleagues today, just to highlight their recognition that people in the Highlands have those problems, people in rural areas have those problems, and that might be what is contributing to the sanctions that they are suffering under their Government. I would like to touch a little bit about women in the digital economy and how transformational what we have been talking about this afternoon could be for women. In 2017, the OECD produced a paper called Going Digital, The Future of Work for Women, highlighting how the digital economy was changing in so many areas. It was strengthened in the position of women in the labour market, because it offers more flexible ways of working. It can combine paid work with caring work, and it gives, it is likely, to replace less skilled jobs in the labour market. Flexibility of choice offers women in particular an opportunity to boost their employment rates. Evidence from the United States shows that where flexible working is available, gender pay gaps are less. It is creating jobs in all sorts of new areas. We have talked about some of that today, but even in our own behaviours, we are seeing people taking up things like Etsy, something that women have a bigger representation on, Airbnb, again, very many women taking up that opportunity. Uber has a greater proportion of women drivers working with it than in traditional taxi firms, and that has to do with the flexibility. It is changing our behaviour even now and changing the labour market for women. What we have to make sure is that, while gender gaps and general IT skills and the use of software at work tend to be quite small in most countries, the very skilled jobs in IT still women have a great underrepresentation. I think that, as we are going forward in this area, we have to make sure that, for all the reasons that we have talked about, that women have access to the digital economy to encourage entrepreneurism and ensure that they have the best possible ways of working. When I was last elected as a regional MSP, I sat on the infrastructure and capital investment committee, and we took evidence from Ofcom chief executive Sharon White at that time. I raised an issue with her because, when we look at targets and look at what is happening, even in an urban area, such as my own, where there are not many problems, it is still the low-lying fruit that is picked up first. We still have gaps and issues in this area. Thanks to the deindustrialisation from the Thatcher Tory years, I have the biggest green brownfield site in Europe, still in my constituency on the Ravens Craig site. Although we will be getting some great infrastructure from the Glasgow region city deal in terms of new roads being put in there, the new houses that have been built there and the centre of excellence for building the BRE site have really, really poor broadband. Given that this is a national priority for the Scottish Government, I just wonder if there is something that can be done looking at that particular issue in my constituency, and I would welcome further talks with the minister regarding those possibilities. The Government has done so much to improve and increase the digital capability in Scotland. Every home and business will have access to broadband by 2021 as a result of that £600 million investment. We can make Scotland a digital beacon, and we can improve the digital economy for all of Scotland, but especially for women. We should seize those opportunities going forward. We now move to the closing speeches. I call Mike Rumbles up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will not take up to six minutes. I just want to briefly say that I thought that it has been a very good debate. I think that at times it has been a little bit partisan, but I think that, if I may comment, I thought that one of the best speeches of the whole afternoon was Kate Forbes, who was very positive and gave credit to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government for doing what it can to improve the situation. It has just been from a said during comment that it is a kiss of death, I apologise to Kate for saying that. In all seriousness, it is those sorts of contributions that we could do with a lot more. There are things that divide us genuinely, and there are things that unite us. This is one of the most important issues for the future development of the economy in Scotland that we get right. I want to make one plea, which I mentioned at the very beginning. I hope that it is a non-partisan point. I recognise that the cabinet secretary said that he would do what he could to inform people about the roll-out, but I think that it would be very helpful if it was put into the contracts that go out, that people need to know over the next three and a half years—and it is three and a half years, we are talking about—over the next three and a half years that people want to know. I define anybody who has not had complaints about not knowing when they are going to get access to the superfast broadband. That is the biggest single thing that the cabinet secretary could do. It is a non-partisan point. It is a genuine point that I am trying to make that our constituents would really benefit if the cabinet secretary was able in the contract process with the companies that are delivering it. I do not mean to tell everybody every premise, house or business when they are going to be connected, but just by an area base. So they have some idea of how they can cope over the next three and a half years. So in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that it has been a good debate. It is something that we could move forward. I would like everybody to support the amendment in my name. I am always an optimist, but at the end of the day there are things in them that I have been very critical of the Scottish Government and I have been doing so, but the Liberal Democrats will support the motion that the Government has brought forward, because, in fact, there is nothing in the motion as written that we could sincerely object to. However, I do think that it could have been improved. Thank you. The Deputy Presiding Officer Now called to grant. I can allow a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There was times that this debate was totally unedifying, and in a way that does nothing for people who are desperate to get broadband and are sitting watching the debate, probably with their heads in their hands. I was quite pleased that my colleague Colin Smyth managed to pull the debate back on to the subject, and I think that the contribution has improved to look very practically at what we need to do, because this is not a place for constitutional wrangling or inter-government wrangling. We really need to build a partnership between both our Governments, between local authorities and, indeed, other providers, so that we work together to maximise the roll-out of broadband, which is so important to our communities. It is right that the gap has been narrowed between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but a gap still exists, and we need to work on that. Asked us a gap between urban Scotland and rural Scotland, the digital Scotland superfast broadband target was 95 per cent of Scotland, but rural Scotland is much lower than that, and sometimes taking those numbers over a broad base hides some of the places that are really losing out. I want to start by flagging up a contradiction that I heard from the Cabinet Secretary. In his own speech, he stated that R100 would not reach everybody, some would be left behind and therefore there would be the need for something like a voucher scheme for those who could not be reached, but I am a bit puzzled as to what a voucher can buy somebody if you have no connectivity. I had always understood that satellite broadband was never part of R100, but then, further on, he said that 100 per cent will have 30 megabytes plus of connectivity. I am a bit confused, so maybe when he is summing up, he can clarify what the position is and where people will be, because I think that the better way to do this would be to encourage all the contractors to the three areas. I think that the member is raising a very important point, and that is not simply about the technical access but to affordable access. One of the dangers at the moment appears to be that, in certain rural areas, very few suppliers will actually take on customers. My exchange will only have three, but there are 300 in Edinburgh. It is not being part of the debate up until now whether that should be part of the debate going forward and probably is a UK debate, not simply a Scottish debate. I can allow you additional time, Ms Crabb. Some areas have no choice at all and there are no suppliers. We need to make sure that, if there is a voucher system, there is someone or somewhere to use that voucher. However, as I was saying, it is surely better to ask the contractors to work with the community companies that are already in place, the social enterprises, to work to underpin them and help them to roll out further into their communities. I think that it would be really worthwhile if R100 was a partnership between all providers and that those big companies were forced to work with the smaller ones. That would be a huge benefit. I use one example. People may know that SSE and the MOD are laying additional fibre up across on the west coast. It is a fact that there is an additional cable being laid to provide broadband to the community. That is going to be sold off to a large provider who will supply superfast broadband to a very small number of the homes in that community. What that will do is take them out of the community broadband system and totally undermine that community broadband system, which means that it will fall. It will fail to be able to continue with that number of houses taken out. What is going to happen is that a small number of houses are going to get superfast broadband and a large amount of rural houses are going to end up having them. They are sometimes inadequate, but at least they are broadband, but they will stop and they will not get anything at all. We need to stop those things happening in those areas. We need to get communities on board. We need to treat them with respect, put them on equal footing with some of those larger companies and make, as part of the contract, force those larger companies to work with them and give them access to backhaul at a reasonable cost, because they cannot compete with the larger companies. Colin Smyth and James Kelly talked about access. It is not just about access in rural areas, it is access in urban areas, where people live in deprived communities and that is totally unaffordable. It is interesting to see how the roll-out of broadband matches that of traditionally disadvantaged areas, rural areas and areas of deprivation. If you look at the map of broadband, even in the big cities, you will find areas that are missing in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness, where the big providers have not enabled broadband in some areas because they know that people cannot afford to buy it and they are being left behind too. Those people are also the biggest service users, so they are losing out in using services for things such as benefits for accessing local government services as well. The people who are arguably needed more are getting leased. It is also interesting that the difference between an urban area and a rural area is that, if you put broadband into a rural area, the take-up is much more phenomenal than expected in a normal urban area. If you put it into a deprived urban area, the take-up is not at all, and that is to do with cost. In a rural area, it saves you a fortune if you have broadband because you can shop and you can do a number of things without using your car and travelling about. In an urban area, it is actually a cost rather than a saving. We need to look at all those things because it allows access to services and the like. I think that that is really important in rural areas. For example, e-health saving people travelling. One of the biggest complaints that I get from my constituents is that they are having to travel miles and miles from home some with overnight stays just to have a healthcare appointment, something that could be covered by videoconferencing or the like if that was in place. Technology is there, it can happen, but people need to use it to save people those journeys. Again, the same with e-care, the same with benefits, all public services, cap applications and education, with things like e-scall in the western aisles, which has been used beyond the western aisles to get education out into smaller schools and to make their curriculum more varied. I will make one point that has not come up in debate, and that is about fibre and access to it. The public purse has paid for fibre over and over and over again. If this was a road, we would be laying motorways on top of motorways. What we need to do is own that fibre to make sure that anybody else rolling out a public contract using fibre uses what we have already paid for rather than laying more, and what is worse is that they own what they are laying. That is being paid from the public purse. The same goes for mobile connectivity. We have the emergency service coverage, which has to be made available to others so that the price to the consumer is kept down. The gain to the public purse has to be maintained and kept in public ownership, so we need to look at that. I am not sure how much more time I have. Sorry, I was having a private conversation with Rhoda, to hear my apologies. I think that she will be wrapping up now. Okay, thank you. I think that just to touch on the economic impact, digital connectivity is not there for its own purpose, but actually it has a huge economic impact. While this debate is really important, it is important that the contributions are not just about a constitutional wrangle. It has to be about how we all work together to make sure that people have digital access, because our constituents require it. I think that if we get our heads together, we can go much further than we can if we are fighting amongst ourselves. Thank you, Ms Grant. I call Jamie Greene for a generous eight minutes, please. Thank you for your generosity, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start with pointing members to my register of interests, where I also detail a voluntary entry around ownership of web domains? Can I also start my comments this afternoon with a point of unusual consensus, perhaps in the debate, and perhaps a slight shift in tone? I welcome the Scottish Government's connectivity ambitions for Scotland. Equally as I welcome the UK Government's ambitions in reflecting on Kate Forbes's points, I welcome any ambitions, whether they be state, public, private or civic, to improve Scotland's connectivity to itself and the wider world. I wonder if, in this afternoon's tit for tat, we have perhaps missed a trick, because I come to the end of a two-in-a-bit-hour debate, and there are still a few issues that I am no further forward in understanding in terms of the reaching 100 ambition from the Government. I wonder if I could touch on some of those issues now, in the hope that we can have a sensible informed last few minutes of debate on those issues. For example, it is still quite unclear from the comments that have been made what the economic model will be in reaching some of the hardest to reach part of our aisles. We all have an acceptance, and I sit on the rural economy and connectivity committee. When we looked at the issue, there was a wide and general understanding that reaching Scotland's remote and rural areas and island communities will be difficult, will be expensive and will require quite an open mind as to how to do that. Therefore, what are the financial models required to reach those areas? What are the technological mixes that we need? It may not always be and cannot always be fibre to reach to some of those communities, businesses and households. Someone on a croft in a very remote part of Scotland may rely on a very different technology from somebody in North Ayrshire who seems to be close to a suburban area but is still too far from the Cabinet to get superfast, as is currently the case for many. We also have not really had a discussion about how value for money will be at the centre of the entire process. By that, I mean the contract and tender process and how quite substantial some of public money will be spent. Very little detail has come out of today's debate on that as well. How will those contracts be tendered? How will they be administered? How will we ensure that there is a plurality of opportunity for quite a wide range of providers, not just the big, well-known providers but smaller, local tech providers? When and how those three lots, as the cabinet secretary described, will translate into timescales for delivery, there is still a lack of detail on that. More important, and this is something that I want to comment on today, is that once people are connected to superfast and we all hope that they are and that they will be, what are we doing to address the real issues around digital skills, affordability, around take-up rates and around public awareness of the digital divide that we agree exists, and what, thereafter, are the plans for ultrafast, for full fibre and how new and emerging technologies will replace speeds of 10 or even 30 with 300 or the thousands that are happy to? Stewart Stevenson Can I immediately say that I find myself in agreement that we need to help people to become digitally aware and enabled? I wonder if he would agree with me that an important role exists for public spaces, libraries being perhaps parament among there, where people can get the education and early introduction to accessing the internet and other services and therefore that councils should be very wary of reducing the number of public spaces because it touches on this policy area, as well as many others. Jamie Greene I am happy to align myself with Mr Stevenson's comments. I frequently hold surgeries in libraries. It is a good location to do them. Every library that I have been into has a space where people are coming to access computers and high-speed internet. There is also free public wi-fi in many of those spaces. The real difference that makes to them is the ability to do things like CV creation or apply for jobs, connect with people businesses, pay bills etc. It offers them an opportunity that they may not have at home, and I will touch on that later. In the ping-pong of today's debate, we may have missed an opportunity to demonstrate that, as a Parliament, we are willing to work together to progress the agenda of how Scotland can be a leading digital nation. I point to the FSB's digital disruption and small business in Scotland report. It said that whilst there is a growing recognition of the need for businesses to transform digitally, the report highlights a gap between the current use of technology by Scottish firms and the pace of change. The majority of businesses in Scotland still remain quite unprepared for the coming digital onslaught—their words are not mine. I say yes to digital connectivity, but I also say yes to digital ambition. There are valid questions that have been asked today about why the procurement process for phase 2 took so long and why won't suppliers be signed up until 2019, as we have learned today. There are valid questions to be asked of how the £600 million that has been promised by the cabinet secretary for phase 2, when and how will it be introduced into the Scottish budget when it was notably absent from this year's budget. Those are valid questions. There are questions to be asked around the total cost of what it will take to deliver 200 per cent of premises and how much of that cost will be met through a mix of state intervention from regrouped revenue from commercial take-up as people access commercial services or indeed how much of it is direct investment from the commercial sector themselves. We haven't said much about that. Amongst some of the times 4 outrage, there are valid points that have been raised by members. Edward Mountain was right to raise the question of timescales around the Government's ambitions and any ambiguity that there may lie over those. James Kelly was right to talk about the fact that, although we see telecoms almost as a utility these days, it is one that many cannot afford. Willie Coffey was right to talk about the importance of Scotland's participation in a worldwide global digital market. Those are important points, but what strikes me as notable is the lack of detail from the front benches in today's debate. Before taking on my current role as a transport spokesman, I was also the party's digital spokesman. One of the most challenging aspects of that was being a shadow spokesman with nobody to shadow. What I mean by that is that when you try to dig below the surface of who is leading Scotland's digital future, there is a very confused picture of governance. We have a finance secretary who is responsible for the overall digital strategy. We have a deputy First Minister who is responsible for cyber security and skills. The rural economy secretary here today is tasked with improving connectivity, no easy task. An external affairs secretary who is detailed is apparently being charged of digital participation. An economy secretary who is in charge of promoting Scotland's digital businesses. I give no disrespect to the cabinet secretary representing the Government here today, but clearly there is an issue around digital leadership, responsibility and accountability at the heart of the Scottish Government. The conversation that is focused solely on connectivity is one that is not focusing on what we do with that connectivity. What are we doing as a Parliament to ensure that society is equipped with the skills that it needs to take advantage of its new-found connectivity when it arrives? What are we doing as a Parliament to ensure that every fibre of Government's being—part on the pun—is focused on supporting the digital potential of every business in Scotland? Nowhere in today's debate did I hear a glimpse of the Government's strategy on how it plans to plug the inadequate levels of STEM teachers in our schools, what can or should be done about affordability or take up for many households the cost of connectivity is simply disproportionate and too high. Where is the vision on how connectivity will be used to help us to access public services? Like everyone, I too want 100 per cent of Scotland to be connected to super or ultra-fast broadband speeds with full 5G connectivity all over. I want to see investors come to Scotland and see it as an international hub of connectivity. Bring their businesses here where there is a skilled workforce waiting for them, ready to help them to expand, and a Government with a clear strategy and a clear vision to help them to grow their businesses. Today's debate simply reinforces a view that I have long held that if we focus solely on the how much, how fast and when, then we are collectively failing our constituents to help Scotland to be the digital country that it could and should be. I will endeavour so to do. I have enjoyed most of this debate this afternoon, and as Mike Rumble says, there has been some excellent contributions from across the parties. I am pleased that, in the latter half of the debate, there seems to be more of a shift towards recognising that the need to have proper digital connectivity in Scotland in the modern world is now absolute, as Kate Forbes eloquently argued. That is not a disagreement between the political parties. I thought that Mr Kelly made a telling speech. I was grateful that he did so to point out that, for many people who have lower incomes, who are from deprived communities, they have a lesser rate of access to the internet and, in addition to making the point, that for accessing things like certain benefits and also most types of transactions in this day and age, access to the internet is becoming, if not essential, nearly essential in many cases. I want to stress that that is something that we take very seriously indeed. For example, 99 per cent of Scottish libraries offer free public wi-fi and that was following a level of Scottish investment, but there is much more to do. The other point that I wanted to make about that is that, in designing Scotland's new social security agency, we have been clear that we will offer support through a variety of different channels and we will offer assistance to those who want to apply digitally but lack the skills or technology so to do. I want to place that in record because I think that Mr Kelly was really the person who devoted his speech to that topic and a very important one it is to. I think that there was perhaps too much time spent over percentages. My late father reflected somewhat mischievously or even cheekily that he was an accountant and he opined that 50 per cent of the people do not understand percentages. I do not imagine that that is true in this place, but certainly we have got a big bog down with percentages. Let me try to deal with the basic points that I think this debate emerged. Everybody agrees that access to high-speed broadband is important. We in the Scottish Government think that 30 megabits per second, and that is now the definition of superfast. It was 24, it has gone up to 30. That is the standard that we should aspire to and that 10 megabits is too low. There is another point that I believe is the case from speaking to people in commerce, and that is that where the USO in Scotland 10 megabits, that would lead almost entirely to wireless solutions. It would not lead to fibre, because those providers would not be able to do so. Were it not for the fact that we are coming forward with R100, I do not believe that we would be able to complete the task. There is a difference here of principle, because Kate Forbes made the point that we believe that in order to equip Scotland digitally, there needs to be public and private sector working in partnership. One alone will not work. The private companies are investing in our towns and cities, and indeed there has been a plethora of recent announcements, all of which I welcome. We do not prefer an individual company, but we have welcomed all of the major announcements over recent weeks by commercial companies. It is also true that they will not cover our remote parts, and that is why the public investment is so necessary. The public investment of £600 million is the largest investment in any single project that has ever been in the UK. It will focus on an outside-in approach, and I think that Rhoda Grant made that point. I am bound to reflect on other countries, such as Estonia and Germany. A long time ago, I decided that the outside-in approach was necessary if their rural communities were not to be left behind for precisely the same reasons that the market would not be able to do anything other than fail those communities for very simple reasons. There is an intellectual divide between the Conservative party and the rest, and it would not surprise me if that is how matters rest tonight at the vote, although I very much hope that it will support our motion. I also think that, as I argued before the select committee, that the case for having a UK body, which presumably would be chaired by Mr Hancock, a committee on a standing basis involving the DAs, is absolutely essential, because in order to equip to complete the task with the least difficulty in the most friction-free pathway, we need to align the 10-meg USO with that part of the R100 project, which involves those to whom we will not be able to connect by means of fibre. In the statement to Parliament in December, I clearly stated that £600 million is an initial investment, explaining that it would deliver a superfast access to a significant proportion of unserved premises. I also clearly stated that I did not expect it to deliver 100 per cent coverage on its own. There will be further phases through which we will ensure that superfast broadband reaches each and every premise. However, the initial phase is the key one, and extending a future-proofed accessible fibre network into remote rural areas will provide the essential platform for delivering superfast broadband for all. We expect that our record investment will deliver a fantastic coverage outcome for pushing new fibre into rural areas. However, we are planning for the possibility that that may not complete the job, and we are scoping options for future phases that may include a superfast voucher scheme. However, we will only know, and it will only be possible for us to know whether that is necessary after the procurement process outcome. After all, until that tender process is completed, it will not be possible for us to know what the commercial companies in the various three segments will deliver. Incidentally, I wanted to reply to Mr Greene. I am in charge of the project. The buck stops with me. I have clear responsibility. There are clear lines of responsibility set out. I do not think that there is any confusion whatsoever. That is why I am so determined to work with everyone to discharge those responsibilities. I will certainly give way. Rhoda Grant, just based on the comments that he made about being unsure if R100 would reach everyone, what does he assume it will reach, and how long will the others wait? R100 is designed and our aim and our plan and our determination is to reach every home and business in Scotland by 2021. The question is how many homes and businesses will we be able to deliver through the first phase of £600 million, and how many homes and businesses will receive their connection by means of fibre. The benefits of fibre are clear in terms of future proofing the speeds at which access can be obtained, but it is not possible that members may be interested to know under state aid rules to mandate, to require, to prescribe that fibre is used as opposed to various other alternative technologies. It is undoubtedly clear that a voucher scheme of some sort will have to be considered, and only early next year will it be clear whether that is necessary. The point that I want to make is that, if it proves to be necessary—and it may be that that is the more likely scenario—a fair amount of funding from the UK Government would, obviously, assist us in achieving that end. Mike Rumbles I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. What would he say to putting into the tendering process a request from the people that are tendering that, when they actually do the work, they would be, by an area basis, able to tell people when their work would be completed? Happy to confirm to Mr Rumbles that, just as soon as the tender process is completed, the tender process is under way. It was announced to Parliament before that it is under way at the moment, and it is set by a process of competitive dialogue. As soon as that process is completed, there will obviously be an announcement as to the plans that will take place. I very much hope that we can reset the relationship with the UK Government. I very much hope that Mr Hancock will acknowledge that the UK Government, as he admits, has the responsibility for the internet and for mobile telephony. I very much hope that he will accept that that responsibility brings with it a financial duty. I very much hope that he will accept a message from this Parliament that the contribution of just 3 per cent of around £21 million, of a total initial estimate of £600 million, is simply insufficient and unfair. I very much hope that that argument can be advanced over the coming weeks and months. However, the Scottish Government is absolutely determined that Scotland will see our citizens and our businesses having access to superfast broadband at 30 megs, not 10 megs, and everybody should do so by the end of 2021. That is our pledge, that is what I am determined to deliver. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on Scotland's digital connectivity. We turn to decision time. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Peter Chapman is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles falls. The first question is that amendment 12010.2, in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 12010, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on Scotland's digital connectivity, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12010.2, in the name of Peter Chapman, is yes, 28, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Colin Smyth is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles falls. The next question is that amendment 12010.3, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12010.3, in the name of Colin Smyth, is yes, 104, no, 2. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles falls. The amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles is preempted. The final question is that motion 12010, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, on Scotland's digital connectivity, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.