 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Could I ask all people present to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? I would say at this stage that Stuart Stevenson has submitted his apologies due to ill health. The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider taking items 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 invites the committee to consider its future work programme, and item 4 relates to the committee's approach to its inquiry into aquaculture in Scotland. Are members agreed to take these matters in private? That's agreed then. We will then move straight on to agenda item 2, which is on the Scottish Government's digital strategy. This session will take evidence on all aspects of the Scottish Government's digital strategy, and I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government focus here in the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Alan Johnson, the head of connectivity economy and data division, and Robbie McGee, the head of digital connectivity policy. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement? Thank you for the invitation to answer questions on the work that the Scottish Government is doing on digital connectivity. Our digital strategy sets out our approach to support a robust and world-class digital nation, a Scotland that is future-proofed both economically and digitally. Recent figures available show that Scotland's digital sector contributes around £4.5 billion to the Scottish economy. That's around half a billion more than the food and drinks growth sector, for example. The importance of this sector will continue to grow and grow as time goes on. Our digital strategy maps out how we will shape Scotland to become that world-class nation—vibrant, inclusive, open and outwards looking digital nation—that we should be putting digital skills and technology right at the heart of everything that we do. That is exactly what we are doing. The Scottish Government has provided fibre broadband access to more than 870,000 premises in Scotland through our digital Scotland programme. We have launched our mobile action plan to improve coverage in Scotland. We have helped to establish and support the growth of Scotland's first internet exchange. However, with Scotland having some of the most challenging locations anywhere in Europe for providing telecoms infrastructure, some in our communities still do not have access to superfast broadband. That is why we are committing £600 million to the Reaching 100, the R100 programme. That is the biggest public investment ever made in a UK broadband project, and it underpins the first universal superfast programme in the UK. The objective is that by 2021 every home and business in Scotland will have access to superfast broadband. That is the choice that we in the Scottish Government have made—superfast broadband for all. That being said, superfast broadband is only one aspect of connectivity. In conclusion, I am keen to explore the various strands of the wider digital strategy in the course of this session. The first question is from Richard Lam. Yesterday, I received a briefing from which in regard to broadband in Scotland. It says, Scotland has made significant progress in coverage of superfast speeds. According to Ofcom's 2017 Connected Nations report, the greatest progress of any area in the UK. In light of that comment, can you tell me when will the Scottish Government achieve its intended goal of extending high-speed broadband to around 95 per cent of premises in Scotland, and will that goal be achieved in all local authority areas? Thank you. I think that we have made significant progress in Scotland. The very first point to make—this is important to remember—we were starting from further behind in Scotland. We had further to go in Scotland, particularly because of the extent of which our country is based in rural areas, and other independent commentators have acknowledged that we have made significant progress. We have done so, I think, more swiftly than other parts of the UK in many respects. As far as the target goes, it is important to clarify some misinformation that was put out by Tory MP recently. Our target has been to achieve 95 per cent fibre coverage. The target has been quite deliberately misrepresented in some quite misguided press statements recently. Our target has always been for 95 per cent fibre coverage target last year. Our figures are currently being assured, but Think Broadband, which is an independent analyst, indicates that fibre coverage in Scotland, at the end of 2017, was 96.6 per cent. In that respect, the target was achieved. I do not know whether my colleagues can talk about the local authority aspect of the question before we move on. Just to say that the next 5 per cent target from the outset was a national target across Scotland across both contracts. Those contracts have a minimum coverage level within local authority areas. At the time when the contracts were signed, every local authority area would have a minimum of 75 per cent coverage, but it has far exceeded that for the vast majority of local authorities. Now, with the R100 programme being planned, that will drive coverage to 100 per cent in every local authority area by 2021. The minister referred to the Think Broadband. I do not know if he has had an opportunity to read this morning's press and journal reporting from the Think Broadband information. It says that the only constituencies in the north of Scotland to meet the 95 per cent target were Aberdeen, north and south, and all the other constituencies in the north of Scotland were below the Scottish average of 93.4 per cent. That is according to the report in the PNJ this morning. If I may, at the same time, Richard ... We all got the same briefing from which and actually I think that Richard missed out something in the quote. If I can just read the full quote, it says that Scotland has made significant progress in covering the superfast speeds from 83 per cent to 87 per cent in the last year. According to Ofcom's 2017 Connected Nations report, it is the greatest progress in any area of the UK, but from a lower base. Scotland continues to play catch-up and lags behind the rest of the UK with a 4 per cent difference in the UK average. I think that it is important to get on the record the full quote and be interested to hear the minister's reaction, but particularly to think broadband's report in the PNJ this morning, it seems to contradict what the minister has just said. With respect, I do not believe that it does, and the reason I say that is that think broadband is looking at Scotland as one entity. Obviously, the whole point is that in regional areas, there is still more work to be done. That is precisely why we have our 100. We have our 100 because we recognise that there is more work to be done in providing, as far as possible, by fibre access to superfast broadband for rural areas. There is much more work to be done, so it is no surprise whatsoever that the press and journal quite fairly will report that the areas where more work is to be done as a whole are in rural areas. I am delighted that we are seeing, particularly in my constituency and in the north-east, the focus of the resource of 600 million, to the extent that, correct me if I am wrong, 384 million of the 600 million is devoted to the north geographical lot. Therefore, the focus will be very much on the constituencies to which Mr Rumbles has referred and the northern constituencies that have so far been left out of the digital party, as it were. The reason for that is that Britain, unlike Germany and France, has neglected to make regulations to require commercial providers to provide coverage in rural areas. Had there been such regulation, we would not be having this conversation, but there has not been. That is entirely, with great respect, a matter for Mr Hancock and his colleagues in the UK Government. They have failed to provide the regulation. Had they done so, then the commercial providers would have had to implement it. That has not happened, so that is why we have stepped in and we are acting in substitute of the UK and Mr Hancock, acknowledging the responsibilities. Mike Rathbone, I think that you have misunderstood my question because I am not just concentrating on the rural areas of the north and our constituencies in particular, but both this morning's report in the PNJ quotes Think Broadband's latest report as saying that Scottish average is 93.4 per cent and also the which briefing which all the members have received talks about 87 per cent and yet you have consistently said that you have already reached a 95 per cent target. I am only just simply trying to find out which is right. Is it the which report for Scotland which says 87 per cent? Is it Think Broadband which says 93.4 per cent? Or is it the Government which says over 95 per cent? If it is not over 95 per cent, could you just perhaps explain how the Government has reached that figure so that we have some idea of what is actually going on? Broadly speaking, both are correct because our target is in respect of fibre coverage and the figures that are referred to by Mr Rumbles relate to superfast coverage and it is correct that there has been the largest increase in access to superfast coverage in Scotland, but it is also correct that there is still progress to be done. Our target has always been fibre and of course the figures to which Mr Rumbles referred to relate to the proportions of homes and businesses in Scotland that currently have access to superfast broadband. To me, that is a simple explanation of Mr Rumbles' question. I do not know if officials have anything to add to that before we move on. Cabinet Secretary, I think that I have clarified it. Can I just ask you to clarify that a bit more? I am confused that you are suggesting that 95 per cent of coverage is on fibre but only 87 per cent is on superfast broadband. Is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps if you could clarify that or Mr McGee might clarify that, it would be… That is broadly correct. I think that the other bit of clarification around that is that 87 per cent superfast fibre from Ofcom was published in December on the Air Connected Nations report. That is based around data that was extracted in the middle of last year, so it is not as up-to-date as the think broadband figures, which purport to be a lot more up-to-date in current. That is another reason why there is a slight disparity in the Ofcom and Think broadband numbers around superfast access. That is very helpful. It does help to indicate which of those figures are better and more up-to-date. Looking at it from the view of the consumer—I am speaking as a consumer as well as being here—what I am really interested in finding out is not whether something is fibre or superfast broadband or whatever it is, but what I am really interested in in my home is what speed I can get. The accepted speed is 24 megabits, I think, either 24 or 30. It would be more helpful to clarify everybody's understanding of this if you could refer to the speeds that people are getting. Have 95 per cent of the Scottish businesses and premises received the 24 megabits now, or have they not? I am genuinely trying to find out what it is that we are talking about here. And speeds, as far as I can see, is what the normal person in a household would want to know. Are we expecting 24 megabits per second as everybody is? 95 per cent has it been achieved, or is it still to be achieved? The 24 megabits per second is the superfast definition that Think Broadband others are using, and we are using it in terms of the achievement of superfast at the moment. At the moment, according to Think Broadband, which is, as Robbie says, the most recent numbers, that is the 93.4 per cent number. According to Think Broadband, we have no reason to think that those numbers are greatly out of place. That is less than 95, which was the UK superfast target at the same point, so Scotland is slightly behind the UK as a whole at the moment. The Think Broadband numbers that were published this week also showed that, if you look back to the start of 2012, Scotland was behind the UK as a whole in terms of superfast coverage. It is now 1.6 per cent behind. Think Broadband, in talking about the situation of the nations across the UK, said that the nations have closed the gap immensely, is the phrase that they used, to describe that move from about 20 behind to about 1.6 per cent for Scotland behind on superfast. That is still behind, and it is still 6.6 per cent to go in terms of superfast, and that is precisely why their 100 investment is being made. If I could make one further point, then, it is to contrast that once more with the DSSB 95 per cent fibre target, which, because that is related firmly to the contract, that has to go through certain processes of validation that are going on at the moment. At the moment, we fully expect that process to show that that contractual target has been achieved. BT Open routes have done what they agreed to do under that contract to reach 95 per cent fibre coverage in terms of the work that they do to put fibre in the ground. That has made a major contribution to the achievement of the UK. 95 per cent superfast target has been the major contributor to the Scottish superfast coverage, making the dramatic progress that it has made, and that we look to continue through further stages of DSSB gainshare through 2018, and then, of course, there are 100 programme thereafter. We are going to come back to speed slightly later. I just want to bring Jamie in and then move on to the next question, Jamie. Thank you, convener, and good morning panel. I just want to refer back to the part of the original question, which was, I believe, around when this will be achieved in all local authority areas. One of the things that reports have thrown up is what is clear as a huge digital divide between rural and urban Scotland. If you look at which parts of the country are still achieving speeds of less than 15 megatts per second in Glasgow and Dundee, for example, that is 0.5 per cent of consumers, whereas in the Orkney and Shetland it is up to nearly 30 per cent—that is one and a third—of consumers that are achieving speeds of less than 15 megatts. On the ground, the reality is that many parts of Scotland are still suffering with terribly low speeds, and I think that that is what perhaps they would like to understand is when are they getting superfast or fibre per se? First of all, because of the Digital Scotland broadband programme, which, as I mentioned in my introduction, has provided access to superfast 870,000 homes and businesses in Scotland and has been, I think, by any standards a very successful procurement, exceeding expectations with the Gainshare Clause enabling BT to plough back higher than inspected custom in order to connect or provide access for connection to superfast even more homes. The reason I mentioned that to answer Mr Greene's question before passing to Mr Johnson and Mr McGee for the technical parts of this is that, were it not for that programme, some rural parts and islands would have had zero or very little access—for example, the northern owls and the western owls—would have had zero broadband at all. That was the situation that we inherited. In Mr Greene's own part of Scotland, the local authority figures show that there was very substantial improvement as a result of the Digital Scotland programme of an investment of £400 million, but the fact is that it is not good enough. That is why the R100 programme is designed to reach out to the remaining individuals and businesses that lack superfast broadband. That is the whole point. I cover that generally, convener, and if there are technical answers, maybe Mr Johnson could extend them. I might make a couple of further points. One is that about 30 per cent of all premises in Scotland have achieved superfast or fibre through DSSB. We are talking about an intervention that has had huge play across Scotland. Nearly one in three of every single premise in Scotland has received access to fibre broadband through DSSB. That is the scale of what we are talking about. That is reflected in some of the figures that I referred to earlier about the progress that Scotland is making, some of the commentary from OFCOM and from Think Broadband about that progress. We are going to move on to the next question, which is Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener, and welcome to the panel. The next big plan and the next big push is, of course, as we have already heard, the R100 programme. The £600 million roughly has to be spent over a three-year period, as I understand it starting next year. There is nothing in this year's budget for R100, and I can understand why that is. However, I wonder how the Scottish Government intends to fund this programme. It is a substantial sum of money. Does the Scottish Government expect to receive some of that money from the UK Government? How much? How does the Scottish Government plan to fund the balance of that sum, whatever that sum might be? The £600 million that has been committed by the Scottish Government from our resources is committed to the initial R100 procurement. That is coming from the Scottish Government, all of it, with the exception of £21 million from the UK Government. The UK Government's contribution, convener, is just 3 per cent, rather at £21 million. 97 per cent is coming from the Scottish Government. Quite frankly, that is just not good enough. I put that point to Mr Hancock when I met him in Edinburgh a couple of months back. I specifically asked him then and followed it up in writing to make a more commensurate contribution. We have not got an answer to that. The reason I believe that that is fair is twofold. Firstly, telecoms is reserved to Westminster, as we know. Therefore, it is a Westminster responsibility, such as defence or foreign affairs, or public general taxation by and large. Secondly, because there was a larger contribution towards the digital Scotland broadband programme towards the £400 million. I think that that is fair, but we will continue to make the argument in the public realm such as this. People will draw their own conclusions. Above all, because it is so important now for Mr Chapman's constituents of my own and all of our constituents to be digitally enabled, whether they are running a B&B where internet access is essential, whether it is for children's education, to have access to the internet, whether it is to run a small business from home in rural Scotland, which would be an enabling empowering thing in Mrs Ross's constituency, for example. All of those uses are so important now that we determined, convener, that we could not wait for the UK Government to step in with a fairer share. We felt that we had to act, and it is a very substantial contribution that has been made. Lastly, I hope that I might come on to what we are doing in the interim, convener, but perhaps this is quite because we are not doing nothing. There are lots of things happening in the interim, but before R100 is rolled out in practice, perhaps I should just leave the answer there for the sake of brevity. You have answered some of that question, and it is a small percentage coming from the UK Government. I would hope that you can persuade them to come on forward with some more funds. However, I wonder how the Government will find that £600 million, because what are you going to cut to find the £200 million a year? We all know that money is scarce. How do you propose to find this cash? It does concern me. I have read with the finance secretary that that is the budget that we have. It has been agreed by my cabinet, by the finance secretary, and we will deliver that. That is the way that we do business. Of course, it does mean that, precisely because the UK is putting in only 3 per cent that we have less money to spend on roads and railway projects than Mr Chapman's constituency. I would urge all Tory MPs to get on board with the campaign to persuade the UK Government to pay something nearly approaching a fairer chair to date. I have in correspondence with several Tory MPs invited them to do so. It is fair to say that I have not actually heard any response from any of them as yet, but let us await and hope. It is also very important to say that the gainshare will mean that there is a lot of activity this year. There will be more homes and businesses that will be connected under the gainshare provision, whereby BT contracted that they would expect to get. I think that 20 per cent of those who had access would be customers of BT. That was exceeded, and therefore the contract was skillfully drawn so that it required to make a contribution to provide additional connections. As well as that, convener, I fully expect that in towns and cities, where, after all, we do not want to displace the duty of commercial providers to do their job. We do not want to let off the hook, as it were, commercial companies, by investing in laying access to fibre for broadband that they can then make a successful business out of that. I fully expect that we will hear announcements from major players, which will be good news for some of the towns and cities in Scotland, but that is, of course, for them to do. Peter, I am going to come back to you. There are a couple of supplementaries on this. I would like to come to Gail first and then Fulton. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. It was just to pick up that funding issue. I know in this city deal, the Inverness and region city deal, they have put some of that money aside for broadband infrastructure. I just wanted to ask how the city deal funding works in with the R100 programme. Gail Ross is absolutely correct that the Highland Council has chosen for it. It is the city and highland deal, I should say, particularly to Ms Ross. It is not only in Inverness city, so it is the city and highland deal, I think that it is correct to say it. I reread details of it the other day. They believe that digital connectivity is an important part of that, and my colleague and friend, Drew Henry MP, has been extremely active in this regard. We are looking at the possibility of incorporating funds from city deals, and we do expect substantial co-investments from suppliers. In short, we expect that the level of funding will exceed £600 million, but those talks are relatively early stages, but they are being conducted with goodwill with local authorities. Fulton MacGregor, you said earlier that we could not wait until the UK Government made some sort of offer. Did they give you any indication when they might come to the table with an offer? None whatsoever. Just to clarify, the UK Government, on a reserved matter, if the Scottish Government were not able to step in, we are quite happy to allow Scotland to suffer in terms of the lack of broadband. To be fair, I do not think that the UK Government would necessarily choose me as their spokesperson, but we have had no response. I have repeatedly pressed Mr Hancock time after time again, and I am afraid that I have drawn a blank so far. I do think that when the Scottish Parliament is united, if we spoke with a united voice, including all Opposition members, the case is really unanswerable. It is. It is reserved. It is their responsibility. Why are they not discharging it? It is very useful to have an opportunity to put those points across in the hope that all our colleagues across all parties will join with me in saying, let's get a fair deal from our UK colleagues. After all, it is their responsibility. Cabinet Secretary, can you clarify something for me just so that I understand it? The R100 budgeted figure of £600 million has been discussed. Is that all money coming from the Scottish Government, or will some of that £600 million be funded through Gainshare? I am a little bit clear. If it is not funded by Gainshare, could you explain to me, please, roughly, what sort of figure of Gainshare you think you get on top of that £600 million? The £600 million is all coming from the Scottish Government with the exception of the £21 million 3 per cent from the UK. The Scottish Government are funding, if my mathematics are correct, £579 million. There is no Gainshare in that at all. Gainshare relates to the previous contract, Digital Scotland Broadband, or DSSB, as it is known in short. The Gainshare has applied to that contract, which has already been substantially rolled out. That is the one that has provided 870,000 homes and businesses with access. When I refer to Gainshare, what I mean is that the pre-existing two contracts, one that covered the Highlands and Islands and one of the rest of Scotland, a total of more than £400 million, is continuing to operate beyond expectations in part because of its success. There will be a substantial number of additional homes and businesses that this year, 2018, will receive access to superfast broadband as a result of Gainshare in the previous contract, but that has got nothing to do with R100, which is entirely separate. I thank you for that. That helps me to understand that. I have just a question. There will be from the £600 million investment some Gainshare benefit from that in the future, the next contract. Where will that money go and will it be continued to be used on promoting additional connectivity, i.e. from where it came? The £600 million that the Scottish Government is investing in, my question is, that will result in some Gainshare. I want to know if that Gainshare money will be used in increasing connectivity across the areas that need it post R100, or whether that money will go elsewhere. It is early days because we are at relatively early stages of the procurement process, but let me try to explain it this way. Gainshare is an idea really that if a broadband provider provides access by laying fibre or having subcontractors do that and then gains lots of customers, the contract obviously should take that into account and make an assumption about what the expectation of gain from the contractor is. If two parties, the Government and the contractor, in each of the three geographical areas, reach a conclusion with the contractor about what a fair proportion, if you say, connect 100 houses would 10 be an expected customer rate. If there is 15, that extra five is to gain share and should be reflected in the contract because the company is doing better than expected. It is quite a sophisticated process but a simple idea and we therefore expect Gainshare to be incorporated in the contracts for R100 as well. However, by the very nature of the types of homes and businesses in rural Scotland that we are seeking to connect, as has been referred to by Mr Rumbles and rural Aberdeenshire, there will be fewer customers. I would expect that the gains from Gainshare will be lesser or lower but there will be some. I hope that I have explained that reasonably clearly and that, if officials have anything to add, that might help. I would probably only add the point that it is quite possible that Gainshare would have to work in a slightly different way in R100 than in DSSB because DSSB was founded on the idea that we push this out as far as we can get but there will be further to go and then Gainshare allows us to go a little bit further. R100, we hope—we cannot guarantee this—that the initial R100 procurement takes us pretty much to the full intervention area that is being provided for. Mr Johnson, while you are adjusting your media, I hope that it is not an answer being texted to you. My question is that, once the R100 contract is sorted out, it would be very helpful for the committee to understand where the money that will be generated from Gainshare or the equivalent, how much that is going to be, what the estimate is and where that is going to be used. Maybe we could just part that there rather than get laboured into that. Peter, you have a specific further question before we move on to the next batch. It is still on the R100 but it is about the process that you are going through right now to put the R100 programme in place. There are procurement exercises that I understand that are going on just now and some sort of building exercise amongst the various people that can deliver that. I just wonder how that is proceeding. Can you give us some details of how that is going forward and how successful you are and whether it is moving forward, as you would expect? The contract notice was issued in December and the response that we have had, the market interest, the responses from potential bidders, which the market and the notice in the official journal of the European Union has generated, is in line, convener, with our expectations. I should say that we are in the process now but prior to the commencement of the process I did meet with a number of companies that we identified as potential bidders to indicate that we would welcome interest if they wished to proceed and a lot of preparatory work was done. It did not just start last December, obviously. We remain confident that the level of ambition and funding will attract a range of bidders. Remember that this is not central London that we are bidding for. It is not the most attractive commercially, if you see what I mean in terms of the value and the scale of customers. This is the most rural parts of Scotland, so this is a challenging procurement in order to ensure that we attract bidders. It was for that reason, convener, that in order to increase the chances of obtaining competitive bids in each part of Scotland, that we divided Scotland into three geographical chunks, broadly north, central and south. We therefore seek to attract competitive bids and value from money for the taxpayer, of course, as a result of that process. That is where we are at the moment. We will issue an invitation to participate in dialogue next month and the procurement remains on schedule for a contract award by early 2019. There is probably a lot more that we can say, but maybe I will just park it there and see if members want more information about the latter half of the procurement process. To be honest, I would like a bit more information. If the cabinet secretary can give it, I do understand that, in a process at the moment, there might be confidentiality issues around who is bidding and how that is going. If he can give us a bit more information, I certainly would welcome that. Cabinet Secretary, rather than asking you to go through it now, you might want to reflect on what information is appropriate to give us and write to the committee. I think that the committee would be satisfied with that, rather than asking you to do that in advance. Hey, fair enough, I am in your hands. You will do that. The next question is from Gail Ross. Yes, I wanted to ask about transatlantic fibre cables. I know that, specifically, there is one that comes from the Faroe Islands and comes on shore in my constituency at Duned Beach in Caithness. Why are we not accessing those? Is there a competition rule or is there any reason at all that we cannot access them? Are you exploring any ways that we could possibly access them? I know that, certainly, the one that comes on shore at Duned is bringing a lot of benefits to Faroe and Iceland as well that passes through. Ms Ross has raised an important issue. Evidence from other countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Finland shows that entire industries involving banking, fintech, software development and creative industries will cluster where conditions exist, where there are sufficient fibre crossings. The lack of direct international connectivity through subsea fibre leaves Scotland overly dependent on England for the connections to the rest of the world, and specifically on London is the only tier 1 global internet route that Scotland has directly connected. Establishing an alternative, resilient route could increase the economic opportunities for Scotland and the overall performance of our networks as well. We are working with the digital team at the Scottish Futures Trust to explore opportunities, the scale of those projects is such that they are rare and they are driven by private sector operators on purely commercial grounds. We have no firm plans to invest in any specific projects at this point, but we are continuing to take an active interest in this matter through Scottish Futures Trust. On the specific point about the Sheffard cable that was referred to, I think that in some ways that emphasises the point that the cabinet secretary was making, because that hits the Scottish mainland and essentially goes straight down to London, the internet exchange in London, with very little benefit for Scotland. I think that what we are attempting to do is to try and change that dynamic by establishing the internet exchange that was referred to earlier, by trying to strengthen the quality and the robustness of data centres in Scotland so that more and more traffic can be retained within Scotland. It is certainly an area that we are really interested in and I think that I have made some real progress in recent months in terms of engagement with the commercial sector in that space. The next question is from Colin. Good morning to the panel. Cabinet Secretary, as you said earlier, your 95 per cent target is for fibre coverage, which is obviously not superfast broadband, and in rural areas about 20 per cent of premises will not have superfast broadband speeds of over 24 megabytes per second. Never mind the 30 that you look for in R100. Does the Scottish Government have accurate information on the location and number of rural premises that will not have access to superfast broadband when you reach that 95 per cent fibre target and the location and number of properties that will require direct Government intervention to have access to superfast broadband when you roll out R100? Broadly, yes, is the answer to that. We have undergone an extensive consultation process with the market and the public in recent months to identify and verify the intervention area for the R100 programme. That process is called an open market review. This has been an enormous exercise and it's demonstrated that there are around about 240,000 premises that won't have superfast broadband access delivered either commercially or via DSSB. In other words, we have to look at what private sector operators are going to do. We have to look at what has been done and will be done under Gainshire under the DSSB contracts. That helps us to define the specification for the R100 contract as the remainder that we are reaching out to. Parts of rural Scotland are among the most difficult areas in Europe to deploy telecoms infrastructure and deliver the services sustainably. The case for public intervention with the investment of £600 million that the Scottish Government is planning to make is a strong one. Given that, obviously, there is a digital divide in many of those rural areas that are being left behind because they do not have access to superfast broadband despite some of them being within that 95 per cent target, in terms of the roll-out of R100, what are you doing to make sure that they are prioritised first so that they have a competitive advantage instead of the current position where businesses in rural areas are being left behind? That is a very fair point. The answer is that in R100 we seek to prioritise the rural areas first, taking outside-in approaches at work. There is no point in going to those premises that are in towns or cities that do not have access to superfast broadband first because they are types of instances where we would expect commercial development to deal with that issue. Indeed, almost every day, I am involved in responding to individual requests. It is an outside-in approach that we are taking. We are aiming to tackle those areas that have a most disadvantaged digital disadvantage. That will be the initial priority approach for R100. I think that it is fair to say that the current community broadband Scotland initiative has not been a road in success. When will you be carrying out a review of the approach that you take to enable the development of community broadband projects in some of those rural areas? We did undertake a review of how best to deliver support to community broadband projects. We concluded that, despite several successes, the CPS model was not the best one. A dedicated team within HIE will help to support community projects in future. The investment being delivered through the R100 programme is a real game changer. It is right that the delivery landscape reflects that. We want to ensure that the R100 programme does not overbuild any community network that is either currently delivering superfast broadband or has firm plans to do so. Obviously, that is a corpus of work that we have been pressing ahead. There are some community projects that are definitely going ahead, so we need to ensure that the R100 programme does not duplicate that effort. Colin Siedd. The next question is from Fulton. I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary about universal service obligations. How will the Scottish Government ensure that its own universal service obligation of 30 megabits per second is enforced, and how future proof does that for the future needs of consumers and businesses in Scotland? We have no—because broadband telephony is a reserved matter—we do not have any legal powers to enforce or implement the US, so that is reserved to the UK, and it is for OFCOM to implement and enforce. We do OFCOM have an office in Princess Street in Edinburgh and several engagements meetings with their team there, but we do not have the legal powers. However, we have set as the standard USO of 30 megabits per second via the R100 programme precisely because we think that that is necessary in order to equip people and businesses in rural Scotland with access to the internet with that sort of speed capability. We do think that 10 megabits per second, which is the level of speed that the UK Government is looking at, is really not good enough, and that is why we have picked 30 megabits per second. We work very closely with OFCOM, and members may be aware of the work that OFCOM have done a couple of years ago in costing the difference between 10 megabits per second and 30 megabits per second. That is an area of inquiry that may now become even more interesting to drill down on. I do not know if officials have anything else to add on that. I think that it is worth just drawing the distinction between the universal service obligation as a regulatory tool that is taken forward by OFCOM and the R100 programme. The USO process that the UK Government has decided will be 10 megabits per second USO at UK level, which it will be taking forward now by OFCOM. The R100 programme is, obviously, separate to that, and in some degrees will negate the need for the USO to apply extensively in Scotland or at all. Obviously, from our point of view, in forcing 30 megabits per second through the R100 programme will be around contractual mechanisms and what we agree with the suppliers that come through the procurement process. Obviously, as the Cabinet Secretary said, we are still keen to engage with OFCOM on that design of the UK-wide USO, particularly because, depending on how that is funded, it could fall on consumers, by and large, to fund it, so that you could find that Scottish consumers are actually paying for a 10 megabits per second USO UK-wide. On that basis, we would expect to see Scotland see some tangible benefits from the USO process of work or start that process of engagement with OFCOM and the UK Government around that now. In picking up what you said there about, it might be that the USO does not apply at all. How confident are you that that might be the case? What sort of—if the USO is to apply, what sort of figures are we talking about or is that not data that you've got? It really depends upon the timing of when the USO is implemented at UK level. Clearly, if it's before 2021, then there may be some parts of Scotland where our R100 has not yet reached in terms of where they are in the deployment that may not have 10 megabits per second at that point, and it wouldn't be disqualified in any way from going forth and trying to benefit from it. We're not clear on the timings. I think that the regulatory process around implementing a USO is quite lengthy. It'll involve a lot of consultation on various elements of the design of that. It may well be that the timing is broadly aligned. It is 2020-21 before the USO is in place at UK level, at which point that scenario that was painted, where the USO may not apply because there's widespread availability, and 30 may come to pass. We should say that we have urged the UK Government to set up a USO working group involving the UK Government of Com and the devolved administrations. I think that that would be an effective way, convener, of ensuring that the USO is developed in a way that benefits all parts of the UK. That suggested some time ago, and committee might be interested in that, in case it feels that that would be a useful thing that might help everybody in the UK to make progress. Jamie, you want to come in on a follow-up on that. Thank you very briefly. It's just falling on from what Fulton McGregor said and the response given from the panel. My understanding of the USO is that it's a proactive process in the sense that the consumer will apply for connectivity and the universal service obligation provider will be obliged to build the infrastructure to deliver that service up to a maximum threshold, whereas the R100 process seems to be more of a passive or a reactive process. Is there any sense of confusion amongst the consumer that there are two parallel processes, albeit with different target speeds, that are taking place concurrently by two separate organisations and two separate Governments? What sort of day-to-day discussions does the team of Digital Scotland have with DCMS or OFCOM to ensure that there is a joined-up approach to those two distinct schemes? It's a real concern in our part that the public may be confused by two parallel processes, which is why we have attempted to engage extensively with DCMS to this point. To be fair, when they were going through the process of determining whether it would be a regulatory USO or a voluntary USO with BT, there was good dialogue around that. We are obviously looking to continue that now that the baton has passed to OFCOM to go ahead and implement the USO. We are in the process of setting up a detailed workshop with OFCOM around that dividend soon. Part of that will be very much around aligning some of the messaging around that. We have obviously said in response to previous USO consultations that we think that the USO could be designed slightly differently. It is not such a demand-led approach that there is an element of infrastructure investment that underpins it. The point that might impact the effectiveness of a USO is what infrastructure currently exists right across the UK. If underlying fibre is not there, the only option open to people is satellite broadband. Our view that has been expressed is that, if the USO is a mechanism of enhancing that underlying fibre infrastructure across the country, it enables a genuinely demand-led USO with various different technologies coming into play to be brought in. That is the sorts of areas that we are keen to discuss with OFCOM and the UK Government. Obviously, as part of that, the messaging for the public will feature. There is another issue that Mr Greene has highlighted. If the UK approach is that people ask for a service, what happens when they move house and then the next occupants of that house find that they are in a house that has not got access? That means that a solution has to be found and somebody has to come back and do the work again in a particular area. It does seem a little bit ad hoc instead of a universal approach where everybody has provided access and that is an investment for the future for all homes and businesses, not just those who, at the particular time, the current occupants decide to avail themselves of an opportunity. That is a practical common sense point that tends to suggest that the Scottish Government approach is to be preferred. Mike Wight I am finding the session very helpful in the much that I am understanding quite clearly what is going on. However, I am confused with one other area that I hope it can help me with. The distance from the exchange to an individual household has been put to me that I have a question really. I am willing to do this, but I know my own example best. Two years ago, a superfast broadband cable was put along the road in front of my house into the village of Kildramie. I thought that was great. I found out that I am not getting superfast broadband because I am too far from the green box even though the cable goes right past the house. That applies to lots of people in rural Aberdeensia. Is my household counted as one of the 93 per cent where the broadband has gone to the green box and therefore that is it, or am I counted as one of the 7 per cent who are still to get that facility? If you could be helpful in explaining that. Mike Wight Can I just make a general point and then ask Robbie to answer the specific point about Mr Rumble's own home? I have to say that we have not individually researched. Mike Wight No, no. I am just using it as an example. The general point is to be made. I am not a technician, but the long lines issue that relates solely to the delivery of broadband over copper and traditionally that was how broadband was accessed in the UK with BT as the company that laid the access using copper and the conductivity qualities of copper are limited so that the effectiveness and the speeds drop as you become more distant from the cabinet. Our plans will require fibre to be the main route of providing access to superfast broadband, and fibre can provide, as I understand it, a almost limitless speeds. When I mentioned future proofed earlier on, the R100 programme is intended to provide speeds at superfast now, which is sturdy, but in times to come it should be capable of most instances of being upgraded to even further speeds. I think that it is a copper fibre distinction primarily, but the second question is, are you one of the included or excluded, Mr McGee's going to answer that one? Yes, obviously without knowing the individual case, but the principle of it will be that if you cannot receive 30 megabits per second at your premise, that premise will not be included in any superfast coverage figures, so you would be part of the seven. The distinction would be that if your premise was connected to a fibre-enabled cabinet, you would count towards the DSSB programme target, which is the fibre broadband coverage, but you would not be included in any superfast coverage figures and would be included in the R100 intervention area accordingly. So there are 100, so when we say to every premise that actually means what it says on the tin, it means to every premise not just to the green box, is that right? Yes, I mean the green box, the connection via cabinets is really just, in some ways, it relates to the way that BT OpenReach delivers broadband services, which is obviously via local exchanges, cabinets, et cetera, et cetera. Depending on the outcome of the procurement process, that may well continue, albeit I think every supplier has indicated to us that the issue of long lines is well known and that in rural areas full fibre will increasingly be the technology that is preferred, so it will depend very much on the outcome of the procurement process around the extent to which cabinets and the way that the DSSB programme is what will continue. Well, I was, sorry, I was just, I was happy then and then I'm just all confused now. I mean, can I just jump to the end of the R100 programme? Are we saying that someone in a house like mine, which at the moment doesn't, I mean I get eight, I mean the best, eight megabits per second, at the best? So in four years' time would my household and others like it be getting the minimum of 24? That's basically the question that we need to know. So that's going, that is definitely going to happen. That's great. I think you mean three years' time, 2021? In four years, the end of 2021. We've got four years less than one month. Well, I mean failure of the minister, it's three years and 11 months, isn't it? Yes, Mr Rumbles is absolutely correct and I've never, I don't think I've ever said that before. Minister, there's a first time for everything. I've got one more question, which is related to the brief we've been asked to give. Ofcom expects to publish its final decision. We've got Ofcom, by the way, before us next week, so it's helpful to hear what you have to say for the question. Ofcom expects to publish its final decision in its market review in a statement early this year, with new regulatory measures taking effect from 1 April. My question is, how will Ofcom's regulatory proposals, when they arrive, help the Scottish Government's digital strategy? I don't think there would be any difficulty with that. I think there was a perceived difficulty in the UK, potentially, in the recommendations, but when the UK were pursuing their contract with BT, which of course has fallen through, but certainly the regulatory environment is essential to the success of our strategy and how Ofcom regulates the wider market can have, as I mentioned earlier, a critical impact, because they dictate what has to be done by commercial bodies. That's why, in this area, regulation assumes an importance, convener, that is not, perhaps, readily understood. There are some things that the UK Government and Ofcom could do in the coming months, which would be setting more stringent coverage obligations on mobile operators, for example, as part of the forthcoming 5G spectrum options. I mean, we want the spectrum options to require coverage in rural areas and take the German outside-in approach, rather than leave the rural areas, as Mr Greene pointed out, in a relative state of digital disadvantage or poverty. We haven't touched on mobile yet, but it's very important for rural areas where getting a signal is a bit of a challenge. We are about to move on to mobile areas. Can I just ask a question? I mean, I think that we've all been approached by people who are struggling with broadband, and it's a point that this committee has made before, is what people really want to know, is when they're going to get superfast broadband, when it's going to be delivered, because some people can't wait if they're right up to the end of 2021. On the basis that the contract, I believe the Cabinet Secretary said, will be awarded in early 2019, which means that there will be two years to complete the contract. Is part of the contract going to enable the Cabinet Secretary to tell people in areas when they can expect to get the superfast broadband that they're looking forward to getting, and they don't know about when that will be, but will you be able to tell them at that stage? I think that we're going back to Mr Rumble's point. I think that it's actually three years from the start of 2019, if you see what I mean, but the end of 2021 is three years within which to complete the task. To answer your question, we should certainly be in a much clearer position as to what is being proposed once the contracts are awarded and the coverage footprint to be delivered by the successful R100 bidders can, by definition, only be confirmed at the end of the procurement process, which we expect to be around the end of this year. The aim must stress this is to extend new fibre backhaul to all corners of the country, but we will certainly, if the convener's point is extremely fair and one is raised by people every day, we will wish to communicate the precise detail as early as possible to the public so that they can understand what infrastructure will be deployed in their area, but I would just go back to a point that I think should be made. This is an infrastructure project. It's not like buying something from a shop. The infrastructure project involves five stages, involves a survey, design, build, connect and activate. Each of these is a stage of infrastructure just like constructing a road or a new railway. It does take time, and I say that not as an apology or a mitigation, just as a reality. We have to explain that and be honest about it. It does take a bit of time, but we should be in a position early next year to provide a lot of information about who will be connected, and therefore that will be a step forward. Of course, those who are not in the plans will, at that point, I imagine, make their views known, but that's why we have the objective of connecting everybody by the end of 2021, which is ambitious, but we believe deliverable. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I don't want to labour the point. I read the programme for government, which is clearly stated that the Scottish Government said by 2021. It doesn't say by the end of 2021, but thank you for clarifying that it is by the end of 2021. We're going to move on to the mobile access plan, and the first question on that will be from Mr Lyle Richard. Mobile access plan, the Scottish Government publish its mobile connectivity action plan, and the Scottish Government is going to work with the Scottish Future Trust and the mobile industry to develop a 4G mobile infill programme. Scotland has one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world, Glens, hills, which are not suitable for mobile phone reception. There remains large areas of Scotland landmass, which is not possible to receive, a mobile voice or mobile data service. What are we doing to resolve that? What progress has been made in addressing the mobile not spots? What can the Scottish Government do to encourage mobile operators to provide better coverage for more mass in areas where it's impossible to receive a signal? This again is hugely important. First of all, we were the first country in the UK to establish a mobile action plan, where we set out a variety of methods that we wanted to deliver better mobile coverage throughout Scotland, or adequate for some mobile coverage throughout Scotland. Wales has now brought forward its own plan. I think that it started that in October, but we were a bit ahead of the game. One of the ways in which we achieved the objectives that Mr Lyle correctly sets out as being necessary was to legislate, to relax the planning rules, to extend permitted development rights, to enable mass to be put up more quickly. I have to say that this is really, as far as I know, been embraced by local authorities with vigor and enthusiasm. That's perhaps because our constituents are very keen to have that access, so they want the process of mass being put up to be undertaken as quickly as possible. I know that in the Highland Council the attitude and the work has been excellent by the Highland Council officials in dealing with the various players. That's one aspect. We're also trialling non-domestic rates relief in a number of pilot locations for new mobile masks. I think that the main substantive answer to Mr Lyle's series of questions is that this year we are implementing at a cost of £25 million our 4G mobile infill programme, in which that sum of money will be invested to deliver improved mobile coverage. We have publicly consulted on a proposed intervention area. We will commence procurement around February or March with the contract award around the summer. The tender will be launched with 16 initial sites with the ability to add additional sites to maximise the use of the £25 million funding. We estimate, convener, that that should finance the putting up of around 58 to 60 sites in total, although the final numbers will be dependent upon the outcomes of the procurement. There's a lot more, but maybe I could just pause there to see if there's other specific points that I may not have answered from Mr Lyle's question. No, I think that driving up to my sons one day and going towards a boy and I saw one of the tallest masks I've ever seen located on a hill. I take it from what you're saying, the £25 million you're looking at sites to ensure that these masks will improve the connectivity for people who want to use their mobile phones in areas that are Aberdeen child with respect to my colleague. Mr Rumbles is very iconic and beautiful, but unfortunately it's very hilly in certain areas, so I take it that we're going to improve the connectivity. I'm not quite sure I understood the question. I was kind of mesmerised by the reference to Mr Rumbles, but yes, we do want to rural areas to have their non-spots, or indeed a complete lack of access coverage dealt with, and that's why we're having this mobile infill programme. This is not intended again to supplant investment by private sector operators, it's intended to get to rural areas, and therefore that's why this programme is going ahead. It is important to make the point that our infill programme cannot deliver coverage to all mobile non-spots in Scotland, but the funding will be targeted where the most impact can be delivered. Mobile non-spots will remain, so there are other things that will need to be done to tackle the problem as well, and we appreciate it. It's a very serious one for a great many people. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I'm a very non-technical person, but I understand the term 4G. With 5G coming, I'm advised, and can I commend the outside-in approach that you alluded to? Are you able to say how much of Scotland will be 5G ready prior to the spectrum being made available? We are establishing a Scottish 5G hub to position Scotland as a testing ground, and that means that the key elements that underpin the future success of 5G can be developed and trialled. We are urging the UK to take the right regulatory approach, and we have been for some time, certainly since I became the cabinet secretary, so that rural areas are not overlooked. At this stage, we haven't committed any funding towards the development of 5G because it's a reserved issue. The UK has committed £740 million to jointly support 5G and local fibre networks. This is obviously a hugely important new wave of improved mobile enablements and connectivity, but we're not at yet at the point where I think I could answer the questions that Mr Finney has asked at this point, but I don't know if Robbie can add to that. All I would say is that in terms of the 5G landscape, a lot of that will be set by the regulatory environment, so off-com is preparing to launch auctions for the spectrum that will be quite important to 5G delivery. From our point of view, the conditions that are attached to that, and in the past, it's this perennial tension between how much revenue is generated by the auction and how much coverage, obligations or any other conditions that off-com might attach to the auction. I think that that will be really, really important. Obviously, what we are doing at local level with the Scotland Innovation Partnership that's been mentioned, we're working with industry, we're working with academia to start to think about rural locations in particular, other new ways in which 5G could be delivered and supported, and in the first instance, what we're keen to do is to develop proposals that can go and benefit from the substantial UK Government funding that's been announced in this area. That's very much the focus for us, a twin track thing, of attempting to see Scotland benefit from the UK Government investment and to attempt to influence the off-com position around auctions. John Finch-East, and forgive me here for stressing that I'm not technical. Is it often with these things, it's the case that the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, so if you have something, it can be enhanced, if you don't have something, you continue. Is there any potential that we could see a situation in the areas that, for instance, at the present time, don't have the level of 3G coverage, could somehow skip up of this outside-in approach to be adopted? We are future-proofing our approach in the current broadband and mobile programmes to ensure that our investments can support 5G in the future. In other words, there are 100, and 4G investments are being delivered in such a way as they can be improved in the future when we go to 5G. It was a bit disappointing that the UK Government, through their project, failed project called the Mobile Infrastructure Project, planned to deliver 84 sites in Scotland. I'm afraid they only actually delivered three. That was obviously a catastrophic failure on the part of the UK Government, so that makes it all the more important that we get our procurement right in our mobile infill programme this year in the ambitious targets that I've explained to the committee. I'm now going to change just around slightly. I'm going to bring Peter in because of this. It seems more sequential, so Peter and I am full of it by John Mason. You have touched on it, cabinet secretary, in an earlier answer about how the changes to the planning rules and regulations are going to impact on the ability to deliver better mobile communications. Can you just tell us how the changes to the new electronic communications code will assist the deployment of the digital infrastructure in Scotland? There are two aspects to that. One is reserved and one is devolved. I've referred to the use of devolved powers, which are our responsibility and where we have taken action. We have taken action in permitted development rights. The mood of the public has been that, whereas 15 years ago, there may have been some objection to that, there was concern about mobile mass and the potential health damages. Those of us who have not mentioned names that are longer than the tooth will quite sure remember that, but the attitude is flipped now so that people want coverage as soon as possible and therefore they understand that the mass are to be welcomed. We have therefore used our powers to try to advance that. We are working with the operators to see in a practical sense what more we can do. That is why I have spent some time in meeting them and working with Ofcom as well, who have been extremely helpful in all of this, too. The second part is relating to the electronic communications code, which Mr Chapman rightly mentions. That is a reserved matter, so it is not within our purview, unfortunately, but we have been broadly supportive of the reform of the electronic communications code. It has only been operational for about over a month, so it is a bit early to make an assessment of the effect of the new code on telecoms investment, but we expect that rental values will move downwards over time. We are keeping a close eye on that. We are aware also that landowners, including public sector landowners, have expressed concerns about lower rental values arising from the implementation of a code. SLE and the NFUS have been involved with that. Broadly speaking, we want to see the process moving forward, because, as I think Mr Chapman is probably hinting at, that is a way to tackle the problem as quickly as we can and provide the access to coverage as quickly as we can for our constituents. I agree that I am very supportive that we can drive forward these developments. What planning changes has the Scottish Government introduced or plans to introduce to assist in its infrastructure deployment, especially for new housing and new business developments? I have mentioned earlier the permitted development rights for the masks, but we have, particularly through building regulations, the more appropriate method of regulation in which to determine that, because building regulations actually say how a house must be constructed, what standards it must be applied to. Planning is kind of where the houses go, really, in that respect. However, we have taken steps to ensure, convener, and I have not got the detail in front of me, I can write to you with this, that certainly larger housing developments that are built must be provided with access to super-fast broadband. It is not, I do not think, the developer's responsibility fully to connect and activate in individual homes, but providing access to large-scale developments is now mandated by the building regulations. I recently met with a variety of players at Arching that we move to allow smaller housing developments to be in receipt of the same attention as well. This is an area that is quite correctly raised by Mr Chapman and it is an area where we are using our powers to try to ensure that new buildings, whether they are homes or business premises, are not left out or they are digitally provided. The next question is from Jamie Greene. Sticking on the topic of technology, I presume that the R100 project that I appreciate is going through a procurement process at the moment will be made up given the nature of the delivery of a mix of technologies. Could anyone in the panel give more information on what that potential mix of technology might be and if any of it will include full-fibre services or FTTP, for example, as part of that delivery? I mentioned earlier that indications are that full-fibre will be quite a prominent technology in rural areas. It will be quite expensive in some areas, so suppliers will look to potentially introduce some flexibility in that, but it is important at times that we are guilty of it as well that we talk about the R100 programme very much about 30Mbps, but it is important to recognise that that is a minimum that the vast majority of premises that are connected will get speeds in excess of that. Even within the DSSB programme of those premises that are currently receiving superfast speeds, the average speed is about 60Mbps per second through that programme, so it is by no means just that everyone will get a flat 30Mbps, and I think that full-fibre technologies support ultrafast speeds of 300Mbps+. I think that that will be quite a prominent technology in the R100 mix. At this stage, it is very much subject to the outcome of the procurement process, but we obviously know that there are a variety of other superfast technologies that are out there and could be utilised by suppliers as they see fit, but certainly the deployment of fibre will underpin the vast majority of the R100's rollout. Do you know which percentage of households at the end of the R100 process will have access to superfast or ultrafast speeds above 30Mbps? Has any modelling been done on that forecast wise? I guess that the nature of the R100 programme is such that all premises will be able to access 30Mbps by the end of 2021. We have obviously done modelling, which has informed the process to this point about the types of outcomes that the initial procurement could deliver. Obviously, at the moment with the procurement on-going, it is probably not a particularly wise decision to share that, where I am sure suppliers will be interested, but clearly we hope that with competition through that process that we will even outstrip some of those modelling assumptions that were made at the time around what we might expect for the level of investment through the procurement. The panel might be aware of a number of existing UK Government initiatives aimed at increasing full-fibre across the UK, including the digital infrastructure investment fund, the local full-fibre network programme and the challenge fund. There is around £600 million of funding in there. Is the Scottish Government aware of those schemes and participating in any of that funding or any of those initiatives? Yes, we are obviously aware of the schemes. We hosted, for example, in the local full-fibre networks partnership, a local authorities workshop with the UK Government in December. Clearly, there are a number of elements to those schemes. They appear to be a bit less targeted in nature, so they are quite demand-led. Obviously, there are some voucher elements in that for SMEs. They are trying various different things. At this point, we do not know what the widespread deployment of those funds will be. Clearly, we want Scotland to benefit from all those funding streams and we are supportive of a number of local authority bids to the UK Government, particularly around the local full-fibre networks fund. We are supporting bids for the 5G element of that fund through the Scotland innovation partnership. Given the unique challenges that have already been spoken about, Scotland has a strong case to benefit from that investment. Just to illustrate that, and for the benefit of the rest of the committee, there is, I believe, a UK Government trial in Aberdeenshire around full-fibre as part of that, as one of those initiatives. Is that an example of it? Could I ask the cabinet secretary in a letter to us responding to a question on the draft budget for this year? We wrote about the broadband voucher scheme. If I could quote your response, it says, we anticipate that our £600 million investment through our 100 procurement will deliver fantastic coverage. However, we are also planning for the possibility that that may not entirely complete the job. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what he meant by that? And also provide more detail as to any potential future phases, as you quote in your letter. It seems to perhaps confuse me slightly in terms of, I thought, the R100 was 100 per cent coverage, superfast by 2021. What are those future phases and in what way will the £600 million not finish the job? We expect the £600 million investment through our 100 to deliver a fantastic coverage outcome. That is our clear expectation. It is an enormous amount of money and it has been divided into amounts that have been set by reference to the perceived need in cost, in the three different areas. We are planning for the possibility that we will see what each of the bidders put forward. There will be a dialogue with each bidder in order to determine the preferred bidder and then move towards acceptance. That is the process. Until that process is complete—by definition, convener, it is not possible to know what the bids will be, but the whole process is designed so that the bids do as much as possible. That is the aim. We are looking for the bidders to reach as many of those who have not got access as is possible and using preference for fibre to be applicable. However, there is the possibility that this will not complete the job and we are scoping options for future phases, which may include a superfast voucher scheme. I do not think that, conceptionally, there is really any confusion whatsoever. We want to reach as many parts as possible, as many homes and businesses as possible. There is a very large amount of money set aside. There has been a rigorous process worked out. It is now being applied. A large team of professionals is working on this. It is a very complex procurement, but the aim is to reach as many as possible by fibre within the timescale. Competition between the bidders will, therefore, push coverage as far as possible, and it could remove the need for any subsequent phases. However, at the moment, it is not possible to say that for certain. We have to see what the bidders come forward with. Therefore, because of that, we are scoping a voucher scheme on how that would work. That is informed by our experience, Mr Greene, of the Better Broadband Scheme, which has been ministered on behalf of the UK. If it is needed a voucher scheme, of course, it would not, by definition, be in place until 2009 at the earliest. However, because obviously we have to wait until we see what the bids are and the bids are accepted before we can ascertain whether it is necessary to have a second scheme. In the meantime—this is the last thing I will say, convener—the Better Broadband Scheme offers an interim solution and it offers connection vouchers to people who cannot currently receive two megabits per second. The scheme, as members may know, was recently extended until the end of 2018. It is a reasonable option for people who want an interim solution, aiming to get customers up to speeds of a minimum of 10 megabits per second. Mr Johnston I would like to add one further point on that. We are preparing for the possibility that additional interventions may be required alongside the initial procurement. However, that should not be taken to mean that those are after 2021. The commitment to deliver 100 per cent by the end of 2021 is a firm one. If additional activities are required alongside the procurement, then that would also be delivered by the end of 2021. 100 per cent by 2021 is a firm commitment. It may not be entirely delivered by the main procurement. Further activity may be required, but it would happen over that same time scale. If I could just clarify then. Jamie, if I could ask you to be relatively quick on this one. Very brief. The procurement process may not deliver the 100 per cent, but the backup is that there may be some sort of voucher scheme that is in addition to the Better Broadband current voucher scheme. That is correct. In fact, the procurement does not double as the programme. The programme may contain other elements other than the initial procurement. The next question is from John Mason. My understanding is that in the rest of the UK, England and Wales, they are looking at some kind of rates relief for fibre investment. I have to say that whenever I see the word relief, I think of loot polls and I think that perhaps local government would lose revenue. Can the Government Secretary tell us a little about what the Government is thinking about whether there should or should not be rates relief at all in Scotland? The Scottish Government's new growth accelerator deal will offer one-year non-domestic rates relief for all new fibre laid from 1 April this year. We have committed to matching the UK Government's non-domestic rates relief scheme on new fibre for future years. Subject, however, to confirmation of what the detail is, we cannot confirm anything until we know what the details are, obviously. We are working with the Futures Trust and Industry with the aim of developing a scheme that is effectively targeted in incentivising new fibre build in underserved areas. The Government would be confident that that would not be abused or that there would not be room for loot polls in that. To answer that question generally, business rates are a pretty difficult tax to avoid in terms of the scale of avoidability of taxes. The thing about business rates is that you are providing a tax for the occupancy of premises and premises are fixed there. They cannot be shifted or taken to the Cayman Islands. Generally speaking, companies go bust and they do not pay rates and there are unpaid bills. That is something that no Government can entirely prevent, but in general there are tax. The rates are levied on lit fibre only—fibre being used by an operator. Fibre laid, but unused—unlit—is not rated. For those aficionados of the rating system, there might be scope to probe down into this a bit more clearly just to make sure that there are not any inadvertent and unwitting attempts to hoodwink the assessors and the rates collectors. It might be something that my aficionados could therefore look at, because I think that it is a serious point and one that we always have to bear in mind. I would like to ask about cyber security and resilience. I refer briefly to the Scottish Government's latest digital strategy on realising Scotland's full potential under the digital world. That promise that Scotland's critical national infrastructure would be secure and resilient against cyber attack. Can you outline how the Scottish Government monitors the resilience of digital infrastructures, fixed and mobile, please? I think that Mr Finlay raises an extremely important point. I think that we have memory in the many appearances that have been made before this committee. We have opined in this before, but certainly the cyber threat is very serious and nothing more serious than breaking into IT systems. There have been lots of examples recently of commercial players of public sector, the health sector, aviation companies. That is very serious indeed. It is up to all of us to observe good practice in our security passwords and so on. Do not choose your daughter's Christian name—it might be a good example. We need to kind of—which I must admit I used to do some years ago. No longer, though, I stress. All of us have a responsibility. The sophistication of the attempts at fraud is now so sophisticated that people can provide emails to us all that may look as if they come from government or public bodies and need to be very carefully scrutinised in need. The programme for Scottish Government commits us to work with the National Cyber Resilience Leaders Board to develop a suite of five—I am reading here, as you can probably determine—action plans that will drive Scotland forward to our vision of being a world-leading nation in cyber resilience by 2020. There is lots of work that is being done, as you would expect by the police in that regard and others as well. I must not come here with a full preparation about this particular aspect. Maybe I should have, but maybe we could come back to it if it is within our purview, convener, and due course. The final question on this session is from John Mason. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, you had written to the convener about the effects of Brexit and a whole range of issues in there, including digital connectivity. A couple of points that were raised were as to what the UK regulatory framework would be when we lose the European framework, if we are going to lose the European framework. A lot of people would be concerned about mobile roaming charges in Europe, if we were to leave the EU. Are those your main concerns, or are there any assurance at all around those areas, or have the other concerns about Brexit as well? We think that the telecoms industry seeks certainty and predictability on those things. Those certainty and predictability about regulation determine what costs will have to be incurred by investors. Therefore, if there is not certainty or predictability, that can and probably does impair delay, push to the right, investment decisions. Those are very important matters. I would certainly welcome clarity, because we have not had assurances from the UK Government on whether the regulatory framework for telecoms will differ from the European framework, and that sets the parameters of the way that off-com regulates at the moment. We do not know that, nor have we had assurances on whether UK consumers will continue to avoid mobile roaming charges post Brexit. I do remember that it was supposed to be independence that would involve us having roaming charges. Now it seems that it is Brexit, funnily enough. There we are. How things change. However, no doubt that this matter may be covered in some of the papers that the UK Government has not released recently. Maybe I am the wrong person to be asking, and maybe it is Mr Hancock. You can always invite him, I suppose. Unfortunately, today, we are very tired for time. We did not really get to touch much on the cyber security aspect of what is an important part of the digital strategy. Given that Scotland was particularly hard in the recent attack with the NHS, as were many other organisations across the world, could I ask or make a request that the Cabinet Secretary and his team provide more detail on the preparedness of the Scottish Government on such cyber attacks? I think that that is an error that we perhaps could have gone into in more detail or made in future sessions as a plight request. I am in the committee's hands. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable request. I do think that there are key officials who are involved in this that are not really here today, and they probably would be useful if I might respectfully suggest that this be looked at separately. I absolutely do not downplay anything that Mr Greene has said. I think that we all recognise that cyber crime, whether it is cyber-enabled crime or cyber-dependent crime, are extremely serious threats. The more we talk about it, the more people might think about protecting themselves by changing their password. It is the most basic step that everybody can take. Cabinet Secretary, I think that cyber resilience covers other portfolios as well. It would be very useful if you could consult with your colleagues and maybe write to the committee and let us know what is being done. I think that it would be extremely helpful. That brings us to the end of this session. I thank you and your officials, Alan Robbie, for coming to this meeting. I am now going to suspend the meeting as we move into private session.