 Mwgrifonwyr ydych yn dweud i'u ddefnyddio'r 14 mwgu'r 2017 fel y mynyddion rai gyflogol i'r cimwythau ac i'r dweud. Gweithio'r dweud i'r dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'u dweud i'r dweud. A pwyllte y pryd o'r agendaeth o'r teisio i ddysgu busnes ym hal. Y cadw meddwl to consider the stage 1 report on the seatbelts on school transport bill at agenda item 4 and at future meetings. It is asked that we could do this in private. Are all members agreed? That is agreed. The second item on the agenda is the digital strategy and we will be hearing evidence on the digital infrastructure elements of the Scottish Government's digital strategy, which was published in March. I would like to welcome the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing. I would also like to welcome Robbie McGee from the broadband policy team leader and Alan Johnson, head of the connectivity economy and data division at the Scottish Government. Before I ask Mr Ewing if he would like to make an opening statement, I would just say to all members and those giving it evidence that we have a lot of questions. If we are to get through all the questions with answers, I would ask people to ask short questions and prompt short answers. On the basis of that, cabinet secretary, I would invite you to make a two-minute opening address to the committee. The digital strategy that we published in March is one for Scotland. It sets out our vision of Scotland as a vibrant, inclusive, open and outward-looking digital nation. It sets out the actions that we will take to put digital at the heart of everything that we do. It is not just about digital connectivity, it is about the provision of high-quality, world-class digital infrastructure, and that clearly underpins what is in our strategy. We will talk in the course of this session about Scottish Government-led activity in this area, the success of the digital Scotland programme and our emerging-reaching 100 per cent and mobile infill initiatives. It is worthwhile just recapping three elements of the success. First of all, thanks to the work that the Scottish Government commissioned, around 715,000 homes and businesses that would not otherwise have been connected can now access fibre broadband as a result of the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme. Second, around 3,700 cabinets have been stood across the country with live cabinets in every local authority area. I understand that the term have been stood is not a grammatical infillicity, but the correct technical term about what you do with a cabinet. Third, over 7,000 kilometres of access cabling has been laid, enough to stretch, convener, from Edinburgh to Florida, and 400 kilometres of subsea cabling laid to enable connectivity. Quite a lot has been achieved. It would not have been achieved if we hadn't led the way. It is important to acknowledge that telecoms is in fact a reserved area. I checked this myself. Schedule 5, Scotland Act 1998, reserved to the UK. The UK Government, convener, were responsible for doing all this, but we decided that we were not prepared to wait. We do not have the powers to regulate or legislate, and that makes it more challenging to deliver our objectives. In the past week, we have seen the UK Parliament approve a bill that will introduce a universal service obligation for broadband. That was a unique opportunity to ensure that every part of the UK was able to access high-speed broadband. Ofcom's view was that the cost of introducing a super-fast USO at 38Mbps was broadly similar to a 10Mbps USO. I wrote to Matt Hancock, the lead UK minister, on three occasions since last October, and I have urged the UK Government to take the logical decision to commit to a super-fast USO. That could have enabled the Scottish Government investment to raise the bar further in Scotland and focus on delivering ultra-fast broadband. Unfortunately, the UK Government has chosen the short-sighted option and set the USO at just 10Mbps. That is a missed opportunity, convener, and it demonstrates how the reserve nature of telecoms can often undermine our policy ambitions here in Scotland. What I do not want to do, if I may, is miss the opportunity of allowing the committee members to ask questions. Can I ask you to draw it to a close at that stage so that we can move on to the questions? There is a lot of work that we are doing, but if I am not permitted to describe it, I will just say that, in Scotland, we have very high ambitions. We have achieved a lot already. That has been remarked on favourably by both Audit Scotland and by Ofcom as doing better faster than down south, but we are constrained by the lack of engagement with the UK Government, and I am very happy to give details about that lack of engagement, if so asked. The first question is from Rhaedda. You talked in your opening statement about the regulatory framework and discussions with the UK Government on Ofcom about changes to that. What changes are you seeking to the regulatory framework to address Scotland's needs? Well, the regulatory framework is really critical for both internet and for mobile, because, if you think about it, commercial companies will do what is profitable. They will provide services where there are customers. That means that cities and towns are not. Therefore, only by regulation can mobile operators and internet installers and providers be required to cover the parts that commercial operators would otherwise not reach. That is a simple statement of fact. The problem about regulation thus far in the UK is that the UK, because it makes money out of, for example, auctioning spectrum, has decided to have an ultralight regulation. That is why there is such a severe lack of coverage in mobile and broadband in the UK. It is not, incidentally, the approach that other European countries have taken. They have said that they have taken an outside-in approach to regulating and requiring the operators, requiring the broadband provider to reach out for people in rural areas who, without access to broadband and mobile, are in many cases prevented, convener, for running a business at all, or their personal life. That is one aspect, but I do not know if Mr Johnson or Mr McGee would like to deal with the question in any other way. Certainly, in our response to Ofcom's recent strategic review of digital communications, we suggested that, as a starting point, they should look to undertake more extensive regional market analysis. That would be to determine levels of provision and, I guess, most importantly, to determine if there are specific factors that are contributing to poorer quality services in certain parts of the country. That would go beyond what is included in Ofcom's Connected Nations report, and we would focus more on qualitative elements. What we proposed was that, from that base position, Ofcom could then determine whether there are new national remedies or more focused regional ones that might help to address the problem. We would still very much like to see Ofcom take that position more clearly. We continue to engage with them, and it is important to recognise that we have really good engagement with Ofcom, and that has been further strengthened by the memorandum of understanding that has been signed recently. We understand that regional approaches can be more complex for Ofcom to manage, in some respects, but that complexity might well be a price worth paying if it leads to improve communications in parts of Scotland. My concerns are that we have no map of fibre in Scotland, and, given that an awful lot of that fibre has been paid for by the public purse one way or another, we sometimes are not using it and do not have access to it. Is there something that we can do here to regulate access and indeed force operators to use fibre that has already been laid by the public purse and indeed to recoup the ownership of that fibre because we have paid for it? It seems a bit much that we are paying for it again and again and again. Yes, the constraint here is the fact that has already been discussed. We do not have the powers to regulate, so we do not have the powers to compel suppliers to do anything in that area. We recognise that having a good quality extensive knowledge of what fibre is out there is really important. We initiated a project within Scottish Government a couple of years ago that we are working with the Scottish Futures Trust on to extensively map fibre networks across Scotland. Unfortunately, a lot of that information was provided under NDAs, and it has been deemed commercially sensitive by operators, so it has become a really useful internal tool for Scottish Government, but it is one that we are constrained in putting out in the public domain. It probably does reiterate some of the limitations that are linked to the reserve nature of telecoms. Stewart, you had a brief follow-up. Yes, that is a complex area, but I will try to make it very simple. I understand that the fibre itself is actually a quarter of the price of copper. The price that I got this morning was £96 a metre, whereas copper is £3.50 a metre. However, conduits are the real issue, I suspect, and the kit that is at the end of the lines. I just wonder to what extent you have explored how we can best make sure that the conduits or poles—for that matter, overhead poles—are capable of being used by multiple operators. If it is appropriate that there is competition or that people want dark fibre, they can get it slung up there and so on, so forth, and access to the equipment at the end of the fibre. It strikes me that the fibre is being a little simple in just talking about the fibre, which is actually quite cheap. It is a fair point to make that the laying of the conduits is often over very long distances for rural and island connections, which brings in curse the huge cost. It is not a new problem. It is one that OFCOM has wrestled with. OpenReach has been offering a similar physical infrastructure access product for some years, for example, as a matter of fact, and has developed and enhanced PIA physical infrastructure access style solution has been trialled by some providers and has informed some recent proposals. In rural Scotland, the need for co-operation is particularly pronounced. The convener was something that I raised with the new or recently appointed chair of OpenReach, who visited here at my request just last week, and discussed the further co-operation between all the companies that are involved. Not just operating in twin sets, but more pronounced co-operation and collaboration, with a view to cutting costs. The second point that I make—this is one that may pervade the conversation—is that, when we think of inserting conduits and laying fibre for access to broadband, we should not think of it as a roads project or a schools project because it is a public-private project. Traditional procurement for roads and public buildings is paid for by the taxpayer, but here, in order to get the best price, we need to work in tandem with the commercial operators. That means getting the best price from them, and that may, later, I am afraid, place some limits on what I can say about cost estimates and so on. However, it is a different model of laying infrastructure, it is public-private, and we must bear that in mind. For example, it is not the taxpayer's job to fund the provision of mobile or internet services in cities, where, frankly, commercial operators already do that and make a good return. Where our money in Scotland and the UK comes in and is required is to get the other parts that commercial operators would not otherwise reach, the rural parts and the island parts, and, sadly, that is where we have really been badly let down by the UK Government. Mr Hancock is the current minister, although, despite having written to him on numerous occasions and sought a meeting with him last October, he has not thus far been amenable to arranging one. I remind everyone again that I will do my utmost to keep this moving. So far, that is the first question, and it has taken eight minutes to answer. We have in excess of 27 questions. We could well stray into beyond lunch if we do not keep the answer short. I would like to move on to the next question. Richard, I think that you are next. I have got quite a long one, but I will try and keep it short. The Scottish Government states that it will develop, test and make decisions based on robust models of investment, drawing on the very latest international data on economic and social digital value connectivity. What data will the Scottish Government be using? Well, the data that we are using to inform the decisions about the procurement of the broadband facilities or the economic benefits that flow therefrom. The economic benefits. It is the case that the Scottish Futures Trust commissioned a report from memory, I think that it was Deloitte's report from a major firm, and I believe from something that I read earlier. My memory is correct. The estimated benefit of digitalisation, Scotland becoming properly connected, switched on country, would be in the order of £13,000 million per annum. That is an enormous figure. I have not got the breakdown of that figure here, but if one applies the knowledge that we have as representatives, we know that businesses that are not able to access the internet, for example in tourism. How can you advertise vacancies other than through the internet if you are running a B&B event or a self-catering establishment? All of us, particularly those who represent rural constituencies, are extremely aware of the constraints in this modern business era that lack of such access has. Correspondingly, the ability to attract businesses, some very large businesses, is, of course, enhanced considerably by the presence and the active, successful, efficient operation of both broadband and mobile. In other words, companies will come to a country that is connected. Increasingly, I think that, convener, companies may not be so inclined to do business to locate investment in countries that are not connected. That is one of the reasons why our 100 programme is so important. Cabinet Secretary, I brought up the factor of mobile phone. I asked a question last week of Ofcom. How much will the UK Government make off the new cell of the 5G of any idea? That is asking me to predict what is going to be bid at an option, the parameters for which are not yet set. If the laissez-faire, open market, hard right approach is taken, then they will get a hell of a lot of money. However, if the approach that I hope members would agree here in Scotland is taken, we protect and think of the provision for our rural and island areas that will get a lot less. That is the principle. I have raised that with Matt Hancock, convener, but sadly he will not meet me to discuss it, which is extremely disappointing. The next question is from Stuart. I think that we have partially covered the first part of my question, which is simply how competitive are we internationally in terms of what is available, particularly in urban areas, to people. Equally, I will ask the second bit, which is related, but it is slightly different. That is about making sure that new buildings wherever they are in Scotland are digitally ready. Are we exploring ways in which that can be achieved using the planning system, the business rates system or other ways of promoting that as something that we actually achieve? Of course, that complements the idea that we have become more competitive. Yes, we are ensuring that new buildings are digitally ready. For example, as a matter of technical information, convener, from 1 January this year, adjustments to the building regulations set a standard for in-building physical infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications. That enables easier installation of fibre at any time and applies to all new homes and other buildings in Scotland. We have raised that with major suppliers. They are being proactive. For example, OpenReach now offers to provide fibre to premises connectivity to developments of 30 properties or more and have a tariff proposal for smaller housing developments. Those are all measures that I have encouraged working with the commercial operators involved and we work very closely with them. We have also seen companies such as CityFibre commit to delivering new gigabit fibre networks in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Stirling and Virgin Media, whom I met fairly recently, have announced significant new investment to expand its coverage footprint in the city's. Hyperoptic has also delivered investment in full fibre networks in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I think that in June last year, convener, we published our mobile action plan first in the UK. That is designed to encourage mobile operators to come to Scotland to erect more masts to enable wider mobile coverage to deal with other aspects such as infill. The mobile action plan deals with speeding up planning permission, extending permitted development rights and I am discussing further with mobile operators and others how to build on that plan to extend it so that Scotland is the most attractive place for these operators to build new masts. I think that there are a great number in planning at the moment. I think that it is several thousand, but we will get back to that once we have found the figure. Did you want to come in on a specific part of that question? Thank you, convener. Just a very brief follow-up is an extension of Stewart's question. In the digital strategy, it says that the Scottish Government will use Scotland's business rate system to incentivise the commercial delivery of new fibre and mast infrastructure. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could expand a bit more on that proposition. Obviously, we want to make sure that we are in an attractive location for further digital connectivity. Therefore, we are looking to work with the commercial operators involved to consider how the business rates system deals with that. The Barclay review is nearing completion, convener. I would imagine that Ken Barclay will have looked at and be reporting on, but we want to use the business rate system so that, at the very least, we are not, if you like, uncompetitive with other parts of the UK. In principle, that is a sensible approach to adopt. There are other aspects that are equally important. For example, cells being affixed to public buildings as a tariff that is applied to those. I am aware that some of the tariffs that are being proposed down south appear to be pretty substantial, if possibly regarded by exorbitant to some of the providers involved. That is another area in which we are looking to work with business. The principle being that, if you work with companies, you avoid the problem that the UK Government ran into when it intended to create, I think, 84 mobile mass in the UK and ended up with three, because they failed to speak to business. They did not meet industry. They did not engage with industry. They got it all wrong. I have just got a very small specific point about whether we, at a commercial level, are competitive internationally. I find it very confusing, but I have got numbers. The installation of fibre up to two kilometres—£3,500—understand that Sweden is more like £1,000. For rental, for dark fibre, those are just isolated bits that are picked out of a morass of information. The annual rental for that looks like £2,500, whereas I understand that in many other European countries it is about a fifth of that. Are our infrastructure providers really up to the mark internationally? Government can only do so much. Are the suppliers doing enough? That is a whole series of absolutely appasite questions that get to the root of things. I have met companies that are involved in the nitty gritty of laying the conduits, installing the apparatus, including erecting the masts. Obviously, the higher the costs, the lower the likelihood of achieving the coverage that we wish. That is crucial. Those are areas that we work closely with all the operators. It is also important that we train up people to be able to do the work, because if we want to install provision in the western isles, if we do not have people in the western isles who are trained sufficiently, they need to be ferried in and live in temporary accommodation. Those are practical issues, too, that we need to think of very carefully indeed, and we have, working with companies. Significant commercial investment in mobile is currently taking place by the four operators. Broadly, I can share with you, convener, that around 8,000 existing mast locations are being or will be upgraded for 4G, and of those 70 per cent are shared between operators. EE is building 330 new masts in Scotland as part of its 4G roll-out and to serve the new emergency services network requirements. I have discussed this meeting with EE and other mobile operators. A lot is being done. I get the impression that there is an open door approach with most local authorities that are very keen to accommodate this work and to have the work done without protracted delays for planning permission where that is required. There is good team-working in Scotland to achieve the extension of mobile coverage, which is such a bugbear for some communities such as Gail Ross represents that are challenged digitally in that regard. The next question is from Fulton. I think that you have more or less answered the question that I was going on in terms of new build areas that were not digital already. I have actually got specifically, in my constituency, a co-bridge in Creson. The Creson end of that constituency has seen a lot of new developments over the last couple of years. Since becoming an MSP, I have had quite a lot of queries about the connectivity and the broadband in those areas. I wonder what more the Scottish Government can do, if anything, to help communities such as that. I appreciate your answers to Stuart Stevenson. I have mentioned that the building regulations have been changed to be a driver of good practice and installation. That is sensible. There is provision for developments with under 30, which probably would affect rural areas. Of course, we are in receipt of complaints regarding some new developments, and I take them up directly with Brendan Dick of BT. He is extremely helpful in having those dealt with. In a small country, we can give people a prod. It is the role of province of governments to do that, where Mr MacGregor raises a very salient issue. If a development goes up and there is no access to broadband, people get pretty hacked off, don't they? There is that element. In the committee's hands, I would be very keen to hear committee's views about what else we could usefully do within the range of our powers, convener. However, the setting of a properly ambitious USO is something that we rely on the UK Government to do. Although it has not been willing to meet with me, it does not appear to be too keen on setting an ambitious target, which is sad. Just a quick question on one of the comments in the digital strategy that is on page 22, and I can quote directly from it. The Scottish Government would like to extend international fibre links, reducing our reliance on London and building greater resilience and diversity into our networks. Sounds like quite an intriguing prospect. I just wondered if any of the witnesses had any more detail on what those fibre links might look like, where they might be, how much it might cost. I am acutely aware that there is very limited scope for international fibre links outside of London and Dublin, for example, in this part of the world. It sounds like quite an ambitious thing to tackle, but it might be quite a big piece to bite off. I just wondered if you could share more detail on that. I think that the reason we mentioned that is because we should set high ambitions. Mr Greedon, convener, mentioned Ireland, and I understand that Ireland has developed a direct fibre-length USA, and data can therefore be transferred instantly. I am told that a data round-trip from Port Rush in Ireland to the financial districts in Manhattan takes 66 milliseconds. I am also advised that one of the reasons that HBO took the decision to film Game of Thrones in Ireland was that the direct fibre connectivity enabled them to carry out pre-production work in real time with US producers, allowing scenes to be reshot before the scenery was broken down and removed. Those are interesting examples, are they not? I think that they give a flavour of the opportunity, the real opportunities, that they are, if Scotland is able to develop links of this nature and not simply connect ourselves in Scotland to the net. I do not disagree with anything that the cabinet secretary said, but my question was around the detail of the proposal. What sites have been looked at, how much do you think that might cost, when might it be implemented? It is far too early to say what costs would be of any project that you have not scoped out and got to a certain stage, but the plainly costs would be substantial. We do not, at the moment, have definitive plans to intervene because our first duty in R100 is to connect our own homes and businesses to the internet and people would perhaps look at scans if we spent taxpayers' money before we have achieved that connectivity. I think that our R100 is correct, but we have, however, recently announced a £500,000 support to bolster IX Scotland, the first internet exchange in Scotland, and a key piece of infrastructure to support future growth. As you know, convener, I do not like to go on, so I am very happy to provide you with more information if you wish on that. Peter, I think that you are next. I will just push a wee bit more, cabinet secretary. Which countries are you looking to connect fibre 2? You mentioned Ireland and USA, but what are the plans from Scotland and to where? As I said a moment ago, convener, we have no definitive plans at the moment, and I thought I set that out pretty clearly because I think that the first duty is to connect homes and businesses in Scotland and the aim of R100 and our headline, our main policy objective, is to connect all homes and businesses to Scotland. I think that that is the right one, and you cannot do everything at one time, but I think that the example that I gave of the game of thrones really illustrates the nature and excitement of the opportunity that being an independent country like Ireland, where they are able to do those things legislate, regulate themselves. Open up. Mike, I think that you are the next question. Last week, OFCOM told us in committee that 100 per cent superfast broadband coverage by 2021 would cost up to £250 million. Does the minister agree with this figure and how much will the Scottish Government be putting in? Well, that is an extremely important question, and I want to take some care in answering it, and I have given some thought to that. First of all, the connection here is not, as I said, like a public sector project. When one gives an estimate of the cost of a public sector project, it is because the taxpayer pays it all. Here the objective is actually to have private sector operators contribute as much as possible. I mean, for example, convener, the contracts that I alluded to earlier, and they are a good case study because we are just about completing them, aim to provide 95 per cent access to broadband by the end of this year, and we are on track to doing so and off-com and have acknowledged our success in doing that. However, the cost of that project, around about £400 million, I think around £280 million, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but £280 million was the taxpayer's contribution. I think around £120 million, £126 million was BT's contribution. Now, what I'm making is that this is not a conventional procurement, this is a public private procurement, and obviously we have done cost modelling to answer Mr Rumble's question directly about what we believe the cost of the total provision would be, but then that provision will need to be subdivided between public and private. Obviously, I want to make sure, as the minister, that the taxpayer gets the best deal. I'm not proposing to go into the outcome of the cost modelling exercise that we've done, but I'm perfectly happy to describe, because I don't want to impair commercial negotiations that will be commenced later this year or early next year and brought to conclusion in the course of next year. I don't want to impair those negotiations because I don't want to give, if you like, everybody involved the heads up as to the figures that we have in mind from the cost modelling. Our open market review work is not quite completed yet, but it is a very important question, and I appreciate Mr Rumble's quite entitled to ask it, of course, but we need to be very careful in answering it. What I would like to do, if there is time, convener, is for one of my officials to describe the cost modelling that we've done, which is designed to lay the ground and compute so far as we can what the likely range of provision should be expected to be. I think that we can differentiate in some respects the work that we've done and the work that OFCOM has done, because OFCOM's analysis was done as part of the preparatory work that they did to lay the ground for the UK Government's universal service obligation, and I think that what they did was envisage the lowest cost solution possible. That's obviously been a factor in terms of the number that's come out of that. As the cabinet secretary says, we had a different type of cost model that was built up, so we looked very much informed by the costs that have come out of current programmes. We built up a detailed cost model for different parts of the country, and then extrapolated that across Scotland based on the rurality. One of the key factors within that was looking to get a certain type of technology solution, looking to get the most future-proofed solution that we possibly can. That, again, has been a factor that differentiates the work that we've undertaken with the work that OFCOM did. Can I just pursue this? Thanks for those responses, but the first part of my question was, did you agree with the OFCOM? That's in the public domain. The OFCOM idea that it will cost up to £250 million to deliver in Scotland. I don't think that we've got an answer to that. I would like to press you further on that, because I don't think that that is commercially in confidence at all. We've received that evidence already. I would just like the Scottish Government's response. Is that in your view, cabinet secretary, an accurate? To be fair, Mr McGee did say, as I heard him say, that the OFCOM's figure was based on the lowest-cost solution possible. I think that I did, to be fair, to Mr McGee, hear him say that. We don't think that the cost model that OFCOM has produced is necessarily the best one, but a little more information from Mr McGee could be of help to the committee. In broad terms, I think that we felt that it was on the conservative side. I know that the UK Government potentially felt that as well, but in broad terms, the fact that it's looking at a different type of technology solution, I think, by and large, what OFCOM's analysis was based on was technologies like long-range VDSL delivering a lot of the USO component over existing copper networks. Our presumption is that the R100 programme will not be as reliant on copper networks as that. I don't think that we necessarily have any fundamental issues with the analysis that OFCOM did, but it was just undertaken on a different basis from the analysis that we did. So far, the minister mentioned that of the £400 million spent, £280 million was from public funds and £126 million from BTs. We don't have the resources of commercial organisations, so they are well aware of all of those figures, and we don't have the nitty-gritty of them. I'm just trying to dabble a little bit more, because of that £280 million of public money, how much of that was from the Scottish Government's resources? We paid the lion's share of—there was a commitment, to be fair, from the UK Government, the Scottish Government and from local authorities. Therefore, there was a United Team Scotland approach in respect of the provision, but your question, Mr Rumbles, is about R100, the estimated cost of the future project. I mentioned the cost of the past project to illustrate that this is not conventional public procurement, this is a public-private partnership. Our aim is to get the maximum from the private sector and the minimum from the public sector, and Mr Johnson can give you the figures in respect of the existing contract if that is of use to the committee. Okay, so a couple of things to add there. In terms of the £400 million that was due to the DSSB, between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Local Authority, there was £153 million, the UK Government was £101 million, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise was £11 million, the European Union was £12 million, the BT between capital and operation cost was £126 million. The Scottish Government was already split within that, with the Scottish Government £63 million, the local authorities £91 million. If I could make one other point on the approach to R100, there are two dimensions that come in on future cost and budget projections. One is that the precise nature of the solutions to the R100 commitment is not yet determined, we are in discussion with contractors, we are looking, potential contractors, we are looking to see some technological innovation coming in there. There are different ways that it could be done that are not yet entirely determined, so there is no surprise that there are a range of different cost estimates for that in the frame. They will vary depending on the solution that is ultimately chosen that is not yet determined. As the cabinet secretary has said, the second dimension is the nature of the procurement, the nature of the extent to which that is competitive, the extent to which that brings in private sector investment. Sorry, but if I can just for a point of clarity, we talked about the figures that have been produced by OFCOM. My understanding that the figure that was quoted of £250 million was Scenario 3, which was the most, well, it was all bells and whistles as it was, it was the most improved Scenario, you're suggesting that it wasn't. Could you just clarify that for me, Mr McGee? What ofcom did, they obviously looked at three different scenarios, which ranged from a 10 megabits USO, which was Scenario 1 to, in effect, a more robust 10 megabits, which was Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, which was the £250 million one, which was about 30 megabits per second USO. If I can characterise that, and this is a very broad brush, but if I can characterise that as they costed up what it would take to just achieve that 30 megabits per second, so as I said earlier, potentially looking at how they could ring every last bit out of the copper network, so it's in some cases it would be 30 megabits just, whereas I think what we've looked to do is to try and look across the piece and see, well, could we look at a more future proof solution, which would obviously enable far, far higher speeds than 30 megabits per second. Okay, just for clarity on the record, the figures they gave were 200 million, not 250 million, according to the notes that we've got, so I think you may have upgraded their figures as well, so sorry. Mike. Can I just ask another question on this, because what I'm trying to get at in the role of our committee is to hold a Government to account in other words, the Government has made a political commitment for this 100 per cent coverage by 2021, and we're all in favour of that, and our job really is to just try and tease out whether the Government has put aside enough resources to achieve that objective realistically by 2021, and while I'm not trying to put at risk anything in commercial confidence, because of course the negotiations with commercial companies, they know what the Scottish Government has made a commitment to, so they know that you've made a commitment to 100 per cent coverage. What I'm trying to get at is, particularly for the minister really, are you confident within the Cabinet, within the Scottish Government, that whatever the outcome of that arrangement is, there will be enough Scottish Government resources to meet the Government's political commitment by 2021, even though those are commercial contracts? Absolutely, fair question. The first tranche of the cost of our 100 is included within the budgetary provision for digital infrastructure projects of £112 million in 2017-18. I mention that because that figure is divided between completing the existing contracts and preparing and starting to fund the new contract, so I'm not really giving very much away. I mention that because £112 million is a fairly sizable chunk of money. It's not as if it's £10 million or £20 million. Obviously, the work will be done in stages, and we will no doubt report back to the committee, but the Scottish Government recognises that the R100 project is challenging, it's ambitious, we believe that it's achievable, and we have set aside in our thinking a year-marking provision for future years, which we expect to be sufficient to meet the not inconsiderable costs involved. We also, incidentally, envisage that were we to remain within the European Union that there would be a possibility of obtaining funding from it, so that's something that's available potentially at the moment. I think that there is an SRDP application for backhaul in the Highlands and Islands pending. Officials may give more details about that if it's of interest to the committee in respect of the costs of Brexit, but, obviously, we'll be looking for the UK Government to match any EU money as they promised they would in the event of Brexit. I've been to various meetings, as I'm sure committee members have heard, regarding the costs of delivering the last 5 per cent in the Highlands. I mean, we've got a figure here from Ofcom. We've also heard a figure from HIE of £200 to £300 million for delivering in the Highlands. I've actually heard figures in excess of £500 million. Now, I understand totally that part of that will be funded by whoever is delivering it. It won't all come from Government funds, and I also understand the way the contract works, that, with more connections, the actual cost borne by the provider will be greater. What slightly concerns me, Cabinet Secretary, is that we all have an obligation to ensure that, by 2021, everyone has access to this, and we all, as parliamentarians, will be held to account if they don't. It concerns me that, if it is as high as £600 million, which, by what you're suggesting on previous contracts, may be reduced to £400 million with the provider funding the rest, will the Government be in a position to come up with that money? Can the Government confidently say at this stage that they believe that there will be more than one person or one company tendering for the contract in the most difficult areas? I mean, I think that there's lots of points. First of all, we are fairly early on in the process. I think that that's a reasonable point for us to make. We are proceeding with the open market review. We've said that we're going to tender. Secondly, as you rightly say, convener, the way to get the best value is by tendering and by getting attracting competitive bits. The contract R100 is not, obviously, as immediately commercially attractive as supplying the city of London. I mean, it's just a matter of common sense. Attracting competitive bits is a task that's extremely important, and it's one that we've been working hard on, as you would expect, in seeking to identify those who may have an interest in putting forward bits. Competition is key to securing the best possible deal. Thirdly, your main point about whether we're putting aside enough money—I mean, 112 million is a fairly substantial chunk of money to set aside for digital infrastructure, particularly since, as I said earlier, the Scotland Act says that the UK should really be picking up the tab for all of this anyway if you have a strict interpretation of the law, which is a lawyer I'm not averse to doing, in principle. I think that we've really gone some way, and that's for 2017-18. We've got 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, so we've got 112 million this year, not all of which will go to the new, and we've got three further years in which to make provision for this. Obviously, in the course of those three years, I expect of the pleasure of further grillings on this topic. Can I just clarify Mr Johnson's comments on the 412 million DSSB that £101 million of that came from the UK Government and £62.8 million from the Scottish Government? Can you just clarify that for the right people? That's correct. Can I ask a technical question on getting to this 100 per cent? Given that there will be a UK-wide USO in which to have reformed that manifest itself, 30 meg, 10 or whatever the final outcome of the bill is, assuming that there will be contracts taken with telecoms providers to provide that UK-wide level, is there any detail on how those contracts will work in terms of the contracts that the Scottish Government will take to meet its R100 programme versus any UK-wide contracts that DCMS may take out with perhaps even some of the same providers or indeed a completely different provider? It's a genuine question and I just want to ensure that we're not spending public money twice in some sort of way. It's a bit lack of clarity on how the two programmes may work simultaneously. That's a fair question. I have thought to have a collaborative approach with the UK Government and partly for the reasons that Mr Greene mentioned, to have an aligned approach would make sense. I don't want to labour the points before about not being able to meet with the UK minister and I've written to him since October but it's really pretty dire. I have in the letters, convener, this is important because this gets to the root of how we should be working. I've suggested that there be a working group set up involving the devolved Administrations and the UK Government to oversee the development and implementation of the USO. My officials, I think, were in touch with their counterparts yesterday but officials can only do what they're bid by ministers and so far there hasn't really been a willingness even to enter into a workshop which is really disappointing. I hope that, whatever happens after 8 June, a more pragmatic, constructive approach can be adopted by the UK Government because, of course, that's how I seek to be. John, yours is the next question. Jamie Greene covered some of the question that I was going to ask. Given that the act that was passed last week has gone for 10 megabits and the House of Lords and Opposition in the House of Commons, it wanted 30 and called the 10 a baby step and not ambitious enough, how does that affect the Scottish Government's plans to go for 30 megabits? Mr Johnson wants to answer that. I suppose that it's really to reiterate the point that the cabinet secretary made a moment ago. There's a lot to be discussed there, a lot to be explored about precisely how the UK Government intends now to take forward that power that ministers possess as a result of that act, what that will mean. I understand the minister in the UK Government indicated in the committee sessions around that bill that one of the possible virtues of having that kind of power would be to encourage private sector providers, primarily open reach, to come forward and reach a voluntary agreement to provide that level of broadband speed. We understand to be determined about how the UK Government even intends to take forward how the USO would operate in practice. We're just very keen to have those discussions, because clearly, as Mr Ewing says, some ways that they could do that would be more consistent with and more helpful from the point of view of a 30 meg commitment in Scotland than others, and we're looking to get the right approach to that. We proposed again yesterday at an official level to take forward a workshop in June to take that forward, and we're hoping for a positive response to that after the election. So, would the worst-case scenario be that, if the UK Government is not forthcoming, we would not be able to achieve the 30 by 2021? No, I wouldn't say that. The commitment would remain. I don't see that as being threatening to deliver the commitment, but it would clearly make for better use of resources all around if that could be done in a co-ordinated way. It's a technical question, but it's a relevant one. Is the 10 megabit that the UK Government is envisaging essentially just migrating from ADSL to VDSL, continuing to use copper with no fibre involved in the upgrade to 10 megabit whatsoever? I think that that would probably be a fair assessment. I mean again, in the absence of detail, it's difficult to say definitively, but I think that's probably a fair characterization. Can I just ask a question in relation to broadband and the delivery of it? One of the problems that we all face as MSPs is when this is going to be delivered, and to ask when the Cabinet Secretary will be in a position to give indications of people when they can expect the delivery of broadband to their area, so that we can therefore allow and tell constituents that they might not be getting it for two years and to come up with alternative plans? First of all, I refer back to the fact that over 715,000 homes and businesses have been connected precisely because we did act in Scotland and have access to DSSB. That's a reasonable achievement, but it's of no comfort, convener, to those who don't have broadband. I've quite fairly been quizzed on this here and in the chamber. There are, looking forward to the R100 programme, a number of steps that we need to complete before finalising our delivery plan. First of all, we need to complete our open market review that will confirm commercial investment plans, then consult in a new intervention area, and we expect to do that over the summer. Commercial investment is key. Extensive supply engagement and other preparations are being undertaken to make sure that we get this right. We've also set up an expert group to act as a sounding board and advise as our emerging approach to make sure that we're attuned with industry advice in the way that we're taking the procurement forward. Once that work has been finalised, we'll set out the basis for our procurement approach before they launch. Plainly, the target and the manifesto commitment that we have is to complete the provision of access under the R100 programme by the end of this parliamentary session. It's not, I'm afraid, possible at the moment to say, you know, if you live in X and Y or Z, when you will get connected, I'm afraid. That's something that we would have to look at later along the line. I mean, obviously, I think what the public wants is that we get this right, we get the spec right, and this is not straightforward, and that's why we're proceeding with care. I don't know if the officials can add anything, because I do appreciate a very pertinent question about the timescales. I mean, obviously, much of the detail around deployment will be linked to the completion of procurements and the agreement of the detail of the contracts. I guess what I would say is that we're absolutely committed to being as open and transparent as we possibly can be about R100 deployment. I think that we've done a lot of work with the teams within the Scottish Government and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise who are managing the Digital Scotland contracts. Lots of work on lessons learned, and part of that is looking at how we convey information to the public, how we convey it in the most user-friendly way, how we get the most up-to-date information. I think that Great Strides has been made in the course of the DSSB project in doing that, so we now have a situation where the most up-to-date information is available via the website, but we recognise that there are still clearly improvements that can be made, and that's going to influence the approach around R100 delivery. I've found that very helpful. On the question of mapping, I know that onscotlandsuperfast.com, which has seen great improvements since I joined the committee. I think that the real problem around the information available to people is that a lot of it is coming up as these maps are highlighted green, in other words, that says that they are accepting orders. However, when you drill down to on a premise by premise basis, I am getting a lot of people complaining that they are unable to access superfast even though they are connected to the cabinet, primarily due to distance to the cabinet. When they call up their ISP, they are having problems in getting any sorts of speeds, but my worry is that those premises are being counted as having access to superfast. I think that a lot of people are falling through the net, and I think that the information available to them does not really reflect the reality on the ground, so I wonder what could be done to address that issue. To be clear, we obviously know that there are issues just in the nature of the way in which the contracts have been deployed. It was very much designed to maximise coverage. We know that, as a result of that, there are issues—I would stress it as a real minority, but there are obviously some issues with long lines and drop-offs and speeds. However, to be absolutely clear, the OMR that has been undertaken is being undertaken at a premise level. It looks at speeds delivered at a premise level, and if individual premises are unable to get 30 megabits per second, they will be in the intervention area for R100. There is absolutely no sense that they will fall between the cracks in that way. That is a really important point to stress. I think that our approach going forward has been to look at technology solutions that deliver a more consistent performance across areas, and that will be reflected in the technology solutions that are offered by suppliers. We would certainly hope that, and that is the indication that we are getting through supply engagement that has been under way. Just as a point of clarification, any premise, residential or commercial, that currently does not have access to superfast, even if it is in an urban environment, or is currently in the mapped area of having access to a superfast cabinet but is not achieving the speeds, will be able to take advantage of intervention under R100, therefore will have access to superfast by the end of 2021? Yes, so it will be classified as a white premise and eligible for intervention. The next question is on a slightly different subject, but John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Before I ask this question, I want to pick up a comment that the cabinet secretary made about lack of engagement. In recent weeks, if not successive weeks, we have heard from the cabinet secretary on the issues of agriculture, fisheries and today's events. Our ability as a committee to scrutinise is impeded by the unwillingness of the relevant UK ministers to engage with the cabinet secretary. I think that on one level is a discurtsy to the Scottish Government, but I also think that it is a discurtsy to this committee. We need to have meaningful scrutiny and I hope that at some point we will pick up on that and make representations, because it is not acceptable. It simply is not acceptable. If I can make a comment that it is important that the committee gets access to the information that it needs to be able to do its job properly. We are mindful, as I told you before, John, trying to get people up. It is a difficult time at the moment, but we will renew our efforts as a committee post the election to make sure that the right people come up to speak to the committee. Thank you for that assurance, convener. Very well made, and we would expect at least a Hancock half hour. Count with a Hancock half hour just at the moment, cabinet secretary. Mr Finnie, you will get a talk about something else. Yes, it was about mobile access. Some of this has been touched on, cabinet secretary. You have mentioned the mobile connectivity action plan. Can I commend the outside in-approach rural areas before urban areas, particularly with regard to 5G? Can I ask how the Government's mobile connectivity action plan will help with the R100 project? Increasingly, access to the internet is, particularly those happily in the younger, first half of life, using mobile phones increasingly to access the internet. I mean, I think that's kind of a lifestyle practice and is in a trending that direction, and therefore, you know, more mobile coverage is, I think, an abler, I think, in general terms. And that's why I'm really so keen to build on the good work that we've set out in the mobile action plan. It is the only one in the UK. I'm not quite sure why, because it does seem quite an easy thing to do. There's nothing magic about it or particularly complicated about it. But, you know, I think that it is the case that, you know, rather than fixed broadband connections that, increasingly, people are using a mobile phone, not just access to the internet convener, but to complete virtually all their transactions. And that, if that process continues, I think that it accentuates the importance that we attach to mobile coverage. I don't know if officials want to give a more technical answer than that. Yeah, I mean, I think that we do see a real interplay between the two, activity around mobile and the R100 project. I think that there's probably two things that would pinpoint. I mean, I think that, as the cabinet secretary has said, I think that people are increasingly using mobile devices and mobile networks to access superfast broadband. So, I think that when we design a mobile infill initiative, which we're obviously working on with the operators, I think that there is real potential there that we can use that flexibly to target areas that don't have broadband or won't have broadband delivered by the main R100 procurements. I think that the other point that is crucial that demonstrates the interplay between the two is where kind of designing the R100 procurements to look at real delivery of new back call, which is obviously the kind of trunk fibre that underpins, you know, domestic broadband and 4G, 5G services. I guess what we're aiming to do is ensure that new back call that's delivered through that programme is easily accessible as possible to mobile network operators, and in doing that, it should make it far easier to deploy 4G and in future 5G services utilising that back call. Okay, thank you. I have another question, and this may have been covered. I might be getting my meetings mixed up here. February this year, Mr Ewing approached off-com to see if they'd be willing to facilitate a session specifically on mobile coverage. Are you able to give an update on that? Has that taken place at all? It hasn't taken place. I did, with officials, have a very fruitful meeting at off-com at their premises in the centre of Edinburgh. It was agreed at that meeting, which I think was around about February, that we should have a further session with some of the commercial operators present. I've discussed that since with other operators, all of whom have agreed, so I'm hoping that that can take place before the summer recess, perhaps after the 8th of June, but before the summer recess. The purpose really is to have a collaborative relationship with the key commercial players. To convey the sense that we want them to do more business in Scotland, that's welcome, and we want to work with them. Where we can do something that doesn't involve disproportionate costs, we will try to do it. The experience that I have in dealing with companies is that this approach is exactly the one that most companies want. They don't necessarily expect more than that in terms of massive amounts of money being thrown at them, but they do appreciate a proactive Government that's ready to reach out. This is one of several ways in which we do that. Just to clarify, the two digital approaches that are running in parallel, the Scottish Government, that meeting, you would hope to have representatives of the UK Government along with that as well. I did suggest that that would be helpful, whether it's the Scotland office or Mr Hancock, I don't know, but they'll be very welcome. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Can I just clarify as well on that? Mr Wiggy, you said that I was interested in the Cabinet Secretary said that it was only those people in the first half of their life that used mobile phones to do a lot of business. I think that I do as well, but can I just say that I'm interested, no, certainly in the Highlands. There's a lot of places which have no G, let alone any other sort of G, you know, three, four or five G. The question is how much are you going to rely on the provision of superfast broadband via mobile phones to deliver to the last 5 per cent? Do you think that that's a reasonable way forward? It could potentially be a factor that's not at the forefront of our planning. I think that it's one of, as we get into the really difficult areas where there will be a variety of technology that need to be employed, I think that mobile 4G at the moment and 5G in the future will have a part to play. That's certainly not the focus of the initial R100 procurements, but I think that, as one of many technologies, it's one that could be deployed in the future. I wonder probably, Mr McGee, given that 5G is really two different things. It's actually an urban high-speed high-frequency implementation, but for rural areas on the 700 MHz band, it's about area coverage at much higher than previous speeds and it's technically much simpler to implement. Is there the opportunity to get that bit of 5G done quicker, perhaps, than the high frequency in London, Birmingham and Glasgow, where there are lots of technical issues and potential interference in the radio frequency with adjacent states, which simply doesn't apply to much of rural Scotland that currently has no mobile signal worth talking about? Yes. I think that the 700 MHz, the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, will be really crucial. We're obviously engaging with OFCOM in terms of what that will look like, how it will be designed and coverage obligations are obviously just one element of that. I think that in terms of the wider issue of how 5G will evolve and how it will be deployed in Scotland, we are really keen for Scotland to be the forefront of 5G deployment. We've recently set up a partnership with industry, with academia and Scotland innovation partnership, which we're hoping will morph into an effect of 5G hub for Scotland. We'll really be looking to use Scotland as a testbed to look at how 5G could be deployed in rural locations because we're not short on those. I think that we've made some really, really good progress. We'd like to be BT, Facebook, Cisco. A whole host of companies are involved in that, along with universities, and I think that we would be really, really keen to—we've clearly well developed that over the coming months—and I think that we've crucially seen it as a real potential way in to access some of the UK Government funding that's been set aside for 5G development. So it's an area that we're really, really interested in. Thank you. Richard, you've got the next question. Yes, cabinet secretary, when you came along with regard to the draft budget on 21 December, we spoke about community networks across the country. Digital strategy promises to support community broadband Scotland to deliver a pipeline of 16 community networks across the country with the potential to connect up to 8,000 premises. Could you provide more detail on exactly what the pipeline will deliver and which communities will possibly get that support? Yes, well, I think that it might be helpful if I wrote the committee with full details because there are 16 projects and I don't have time to go through them all. I don't have all the details in front of me, but I do know that locations range from North Sky and Faroile down to Berwickshire and Ettrick in the Borders and they're all at different stages of development to convene about significant progress that's been made in community broadband Scotland. Anticipate that the majority of those will go to procurement in the course of this year. That's quite acceptable to me and I'm sure to the committee. Will the promise complete to the role of community broadband in the R100 project? Does the strategy promise mean that the CPS will not be funded to support any additional community project? We did provide an additional £1 million of funding from memory this year for the community broadband Scotland, but we don't think that it will play the central role in the procurement. I think that it has a role to play, but not as the primary provider, but it will have an on-going role to play in supporting community-led initiatives and we're working with them to establish their future funding needs. The 16 projects that are referred to can be funded from existing resources. That includes, incidentally, convener, European Money, the SRDP, the Scottish Rural Development Programme. It shows that the European Union has been quite a good friend to rural communities in Scotland and a friend whose loss would be of some potential damage to future projects. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Just to continue on the CPS line, if communities know that they're going to be part of the R100 programme, why would they consider taking forward a community scheme with CPS? Would you still say that that would be a good option for them? You did say in answer to another question that it was difficult to know where the R100 programme was going to roll out, but certainly in the current contract, and I know that we've discussed this at committee before, it's been very difficult for communities to know whether or not to go forward with a community scheme because they haven't known when the roll-out is going to come to them. I think that that's something that we need to be reassuring our communities about. Do you comment on those, please? Yes. As I've said, R100 will be the primary means of ensuring that rural and island communities have access to superfast broadband. That is the fundamental point that I've made. Plainly, CPS is on hand to provide advice, and it's focused primarily on delivering the 16 projects to which I have alluded and details of which I will furnish the committee with. I do appreciate that this is frustrating, and I well understand that some communities would want to press ahead now. However, we have to proceed in the most efficacious way, and we think that R100 is the way to do that. It's difficult to envisage communities being given the choice in that question because we have a clear plan to proceed to provide R100. The other point that I make is that, and it's important—I think that people will appreciate that—installing access to fibre broadband is not just a straightforward matter. It involves in any infrastructure project a load of work, including the survey to design, to build, to connect and to activate. Under each one of those stages, practical problems can arise. It's like any other infrastructure project. It's important to think of it as a process that takes a lot of work, effort and planning to get right. It's not like switching electricity suppliers or something like that. It's of a different order. I agree that the R100 programme is the way forward, and that's the commitment that we've made to the whole of Scotland. It's just communities that may not be connected to 2021. Is there a solution for bridging that connectivity between now and then? R100 really is the way that we can do this. If we didn't do it this way, there would be a myriad of hundreds of different projects. From a cost-point-of-view, it would be unlikely to be affordable or deliverable in terms of the sheer administration. I know that each of the 16 community projects involves a huge amount of work. We have to consider the practicalities, convener, even though I appreciate that we are asking some communities to be patient, but I think that that is the best approach. The one element that I would mention is that there is a scheme at the moment, the Better Broadband scheme, which is a UK Government scheme that we administer that provides that kind of interim support. If you have premises that receive less than two megabits per second, there is funding available to support a solution, which is often a satellite solution or a non-superfast solution, but it could be that bridge between something that is clearly sub-basic broadband and superfast that we would hope to deliver further down the line. It is probably worth just recognising that. What about there is a non-profit community benefit society in North England called Barne? Have you looked into doing anything similar in Scotland or supporting anything similar in Scotland? The Barne project is very prominent. It is highly successful, but quite difficult to replicate. There are a number of factors that have led to its success. It is a very close to a core backhaul route. It has also funded it through community shares, so there has been no public funding put into the project at all, which makes it far easier to get through in stated terms. We have talked to Barne and we know that the project inside out, Community Broadband Scotland, has worked quite extensively with it to understand the three elements of it that can be replicated. As we talked earlier about some of the international comparisons, it is striking that you can look at other examples elsewhere. Rarely do you find the model that can be transplanted wholesale into a context outwith that particular place, but it is certainly a very interesting model. I know that Barne has been active in establishing a backhaul presence in Scotland, which might mean that it can support other community projects in future. I am a little concerned about the statement about Community Broadband Scotland. I correct that the projects that they are funding now will be the last projects that they fund, and what hope is there, if that is the case, for communities who cannot wait for another four years? I do not think that we would not characterise it as the last projects that Community Broadband Scotland will fund. I do not think that it would be helpful to have a plethora of community projects springing up in development at a point when we are about to go for large-scale procurements, but we still see that CBS is having a long-term contribution to making a really important one. We anticipate that the initial R100 procurements will go so far in terms of delivering superfast access. Community Broadband Scotland has a key role in future phases in terms of pushing coverage further in various ways and linking communities into the new backhaul that we are going to create. That is a really important element of the way that we are going to structure procurements. It is setting up accessible points of presence that communities are then able to access. Community Broadband Scotland can play a really important role in providing support, advice and funding to communities further down the line, but it makes sense that there is an element of CBS consolidating around its current project pipeline, rather than going out at the moment. It is very much distressed at the moment, rather than going out and trying to add to that pipeline while there is obviously a large-scale procurement activity planned. Communities who are looking to do something now need not apply or should they apply? It seems a bit vague as to where communities are already working on things. If that has been withdrawn and they have to stop, I can imagine a huge amount of frustration. It is not a case that the door is by no means closed. We would stress that communities in that position continue to engage with Community Broadband Scotland and continue to get advice and support from them. It would then be much a discussion around where that community is and what the circumstances of it are. If there looks to be a real opportunity to fund something there, then it is absolutely something that CBS still could look at. The default position from our point of view is that it would start to complicate things a little bit if we were to fragment the intervention area that we put to the market through R100. The message is for communities in those situations to continue to engage with CBS. They are more than willing to continue that dialogue, but we need to be mindful that there is large-scale investment coming down the track through the R100 programme. That has to be a factor in terms of CBS's investment profile over the next couple of years. Just one final question on that. Given that CBS has funded and that there are community-owned and run broadband projects there, will there be taken into the R100 so that there is going forward, there are upgrades, there is management of the system, is there the opportunity for those communities to make that part of the larger network rather than continue to run it into the future? It depends. We do not, for example, see that community networks will come through the R100 process. The initial procurement will be targeted far more at larger operators, suppliers that can operate at scale. I think that CBS has done a lot of work with community broadband projects across the country just to look at sustainability issues and to determine procedures that ensure that, if circumstances within a community move on, there is a sustainability that the lights can be kept on in terms of services, etc. There has been a lot of work done by community broadband Scotland in conjunction with the universities in Edinburgh and Stirland, just looking at the sustainability of community networks, things that can be done just to enhance that. I think that it is an area where CBS has been quite active, but in terms of the R100 procurements, I think that they are going to be of a scale that will be beyond community broadband networks initially. Just carry on the CBS stuff. We have heard that there is a scheme going on in Glen Lyon, and the folks there are concerned that the supplier that CBS is working with to actually deliver the service are quite a small company, and they are concerned that there may not be financially robust. What happens if, in the event of the supplier going bankrupt, is the Government going to underwrite that, and are they going to help to ensure that, going forward, there is still a service to some of those areas? We work with community broadband Scotland to ensure sustainability and to determine an effective procedure in respect of procurement, and to enable service to continuity where there are financial difficulties. The CBS model has tended to support community-owned networks, convener, which makes it easier to cover such an eventuality, whether by re-tendering for an alternative supplier or taking on the running of the network in the short term. Generally speaking, Governments do not underwrite an open-ended guarantee of companies going bankrupt, nor should they. That is not something that I have ever heard anyone suggesting as a policy formulation rather. We will certainly be taking this approach in the R100 programme. The process of due diligence in assessing the robust financial standing of any bidder is a sine qua non of proper procurement practice. At a community level, Mr Chapman is quite fair to make the point that this is perhaps a real risk, but it is something that the CBS model has taken into account in the way that the two ways that I have described. I am concerned about this. Can CBS, when they go into partnership with a supplier, surely it is important that CBS ensures that these companies are financially robust? We are talking about long-term commitments here from people on the ground to get involved with this whole thing. It would be very difficult if, within a short period, they went bust. I will certainly start talking about individual companies. If Mr Chapman wants to write to me about individual cases, that is fine. The point here is that the better way to proceed is through the way that we are proceeding, which is to provide the universal access through a nationwide procurement effort through R100. Utility providers tend to be substantial companies, and there are indeed quite a lot of provision made there on end. For example, electricity suppliers need to have certain financial security in order to be able to offer electricity supplies to consumers, precisely for the point that Mr Chapman raises. I have covered two ways that the re-tending and alternative supplier are taking on the running of the network in the short term. I do not know whether there is any else that we can add to this. I think that one point that I would say is that I do not know the specifics of that particular case, but the one thing that I would say with complete confidence is that, if there is a supplier that has been selected as a result of a community broadband Scotland project, it would have been as a result of a procurement process that would have looked at financial viability and a whole range of other things about the company in question. It is not a case of CBS alighting upon a particular supplier and doing a deal with them—all those projects, even if they are fairly small-scale, go through a procurement process. There is no magic formula. Even the biggest banks got into financial difficulty. It was not bankruptcy but, frankly, it may not have been too far off from practical insolvency. There is no means on earth that Governments can provide some sort of magic cure for these eventualities. I think that what is sensible is that the procurement process, as I have described, as Mr McGee has supplemented, takes account of that. Of course, it vets and asks each company entering into the procurement process to fill in a certain documentation that is designed to ensure that the risk that Mr Chapman has fairly highlighted is one that is minimised and mitigated. The question might be longer than the answer needs to be. I better just signal that. The R100 project is almost certainly going to mean that a proportion of the existing copper just is not good enough to deliver to the last premises. Open reach is now separated from BT in a way that it was not before because of off-comes intervention. There are clearly a number of ways of getting wires to replace existing copper or augment it. The list that I have come up with is sewers, canals, both of which are in public domain, railway conduits in public domain, and, in private hands, power lines, where fibre can be put along the top of power lines, and Government has the planning authority over power lines that are over 20 kV. With the whole of that set of options, how is the Government working with both the publicly-owned potential sources of putting cables through but also the privately controlled ones to make sure that we get the widest possible opportunity to put the right wires, fibre, copper or whatever on existing infrastructure and get the best bang for a buck? I think that the short answer is going to be provided by Mr McGeean. I think that what we are looking to do is to kind of anything that can facilitate deployment, we are looking to try and support. We alluded earlier to some of the work that we are doing around public sector assets and how they could be used to assist operators in deploying, and that is certainly something that we are looking to do. I guess that what we won't be doing through the procurement is specifying how things should be done, because that clearly is something that industry will need to respond to. I am sure that they will come up with a lot of innovative proposals for how they might deliver and deploy fibre, but I think that the point that you raise about copper is increasingly going to struggle in parts of the country to deliver what we want it to. I think that that was a message that was recognised in the recent discussions that we have been having with Openreach. Can I just follow up on that? Across rural Scotland, a lot of railway lines have got fibre laid to them, and I know that they are for signalling and telecommunications. However, there is only a very small proportion of those lines that are used for that purpose, and they have much bigger capacity. A lot of people that I have spoken to find it frustrating that they can see the fibre line next door to their house, but what connection have you made with the railways in relation to that? Yes, we have had on-going discussions over a number of years about that, and it was certainly triggered in part by the mapping exercise and the other fibre and mapping what network rails are set. Along rail rail lines was a key component on that. Again, that plays back into some of the limitations and constraints around the reserved nature of that, because it is very much Cabinet Office's call on the extent to which network rails infrastructure can be opened up for telecommunications purposes. There are a lot of complications around that, because you are looking at a publicly funded asset. There are stated implications about opening that up commercially, which from the UK Government's perspective until recently it was deemed almost too difficult to look at, but it is certainly something that, once we get a new UK administration in place, we will obviously look to follow up with it and reopen, because it certainly could be an asset that could be used to deliver telecoms. One of the other issues that I personally have heard mention is the fact that BT in a lot of cases has the ability to—please, this is not a technical term and I am not technical enough to know the answer—to turn up the gain or the power on the copper, which would give them a better reach to the far end and that they cannot do that because of European legislation. What work has been done in relation to that to see whether it is possible to allow BT to do that, to make sure that some communities who do not have broadband do get broadband? Can I supplement that, convener? I suspect that the community is talking about long reach, which, of course, can all be implemented if you change everybody on that whole bit of the network, and there are issues around that. Yes, but that is one of the things that— Thank you for your assistance and technicality. I do not always know the depth of your knowledge, but thank you. It was discussed with OpenReach last week and, interestingly, they did make the point that they did not worry about the technology, that it was a technology that worked. From their point of view, the issue was the complexity in terms of migrating. There could be a range of communications providers that deliver in services over that infrastructure, and migrating all those on to a VDSL solution is the challenging part. I know that it will be a dialogue primarily between OpenReach and Ofcom in terms of the technical limitations or opportunities that that allows. Again, my final question was that we have had the construction of the Bully to Denny power line. Can I just ask if consideration was given to streaming fibre on that power line, because it was obviously a major reach across Scotland, because I know that it has been used on other power lines? Yes, I know that we certainly facilitate discussions between BT through the contract and Transport Scotland around a number of different transport projects that we are ongoing. I know that we can provide some details to the committee after the fact that we are in weather. That particular project was one that BT utilised the opportunity, but I know that there was dialogue through it in terms of ensuring that we did join-up projects. Will that make sense? Are there any other questions? I thank the cabinet secretary and his team for giving evidence to the community this morning, and I'd briefly like to suspend the meeting to allow the panel to change. Thank you.