Chamber and committees

I will see whether an official wants to comment on the updated timescales, but I understand that work is progressing as expected. Robbie McGhee might want to provide an update on the progress on the subsea cables.

Twenty-eight masts are live. The most recently installed mast is in Aberdeenshire. The Scottish 4G infill programme is investing £28.75 million in up to 55 mobile not-spots. We publish regular programme updates, and we are committed to being on track to connect as many mobile masts as possible. It has not always been plain sailing. There are two challenges with mobile phone masts. The first is that, because mobile connectivity is a reserved area, we have to work quite collaboratively with the commercial providers. We do not have the regulation powers to enforce or compel. We can build the masts, but we still have to work closely with the commercial providers to ensure that those masts are used. The second challenge is that, because it is a reserved area, the past few years have been quite difficult.

However, it is one of our most successful programmes. Those 28 masts are now live, and the money is still there for us to connect up to 55 mobile not-spots, which we will do as quickly as possible.

The short answer is yes. Over the past three years in particular, we have seen a massive effort from commercial mobile providers to work with us on the infill programme. It is to their credit that, even though we do not necessarily have the powers of compulsion or regulation, they have chosen to work with us collaboratively to make these masts a success. Many mobile operators are looking at how they can deliver their coverage obligations through the infill masts programme.

Yes, I can. Obviously, the 5G networks are working alongside the Scotland 5G Centre. We are working in those areas, particularly on the 5G networks. I will see whether any officials want to come in on the two specific examples, because I am not as well versed in the two local examples that Colin Beattie mentioned; I am probably more familiar with the more general points around the Scotland 5G Centre.

We have the 5G strategy, and we established the Scotland 5G Centre to facilitate investment in the deployment, development and commercialisation of 5G in Scotland. Last September, the Scottish Government announced an additional £4 million of funding to deliver the S5GConnect programme, which involves a network of 5G innovation hubs. There is public investment in that area already, but the aim is to accelerate the adoption of 5G and to realise the technology’s potential economic contribution.

The difficulty is that all the issues that we are discussing are reserved. Our role must complement the work that is already being done, whether that is commercially led or UK Government led. We deemed that we could add value by creating the 5G hubs in Forth Valley, Dundee, Dumfries, Kilmarnock and Aberdeen, all of which will have a different focus. We can add value and contribute some funding but, ultimately, the work in that area must be commercially led or UK Government-led.

That is a great question. Our economic and our social objectives rely on our having adequate—in fact, huge—broadband infrastructure.

From an economic perspective, tech is forecast to be the second-fastest growing sector over the next few years, so the economic opportunities for Scotland are enormous. In the past few years, a number of global businesses have chosen to relocate, or to establish, their tech hubs in Scotland. An example is the Barclays campus; other banks have established tech hubs in Scotland, too. They have done so because they recognise that we have the talent, the pipeline of labour and a growing reputation in technology. However, that relies on the basics of broadband connectivity.

On the social side, the committee will be aware of the work that was done during the pandemic to connect Scotland. We have tried to reduce digital exclusion by providing devices, internet connections, training and support for digitally excluded low-income households. When we got that right by providing skills alongside the hardware that was required, that transformed lives, because people who had felt isolated, excluded or lonely during the pandemic could reach other people.

Both those examples are probably in the Government’s DNA. Both our economic aspirations for prosperity and our wellbeing aspirations for inclusion and so on rely on broadband connectivity. We can wait and wait for the UK Government to deliver the infrastructure that we need or we can get on with that ourselves. We have chosen to get on with it ourselves.

At the end of the day, we have to work closely with the commercial providers on that. You mentioned maintenance. Obviously, we have a real interest in supporting local broadband providers and ensuring that it is not only some of the bigger businesses that benefit from the big roll-out of R100. Ultimately, when it comes to resilience, maintenance and so on, we need to work closely with those organisations.

There is a massive skills question, too. Let us take the Connecting Scotland programme. If an individual who had previously been digitally excluded and who is now accessing broadband has issues, we need to be on hand and ready to respond quickly to that need. We have a number of partners in that regard, including organisations such as housing associations. I suppose that my point is that we need localised resilience and the response has to be at the point of need. That includes the providers, whether they are small, medium or large, as well as partners that are perhaps more trusted, such as housing associations or, indeed, banks. The Barclays digital eagles programme tries to equip customers who are perhaps more excluded with the skills that they need. There is a huge programme of work in all that, and Ofcom has a role, too, when it comes to ensuring that all providers meet a certain standard of resilience and embed that.

We will need to be in a position of universal provision. I do not think that that is optional, and it has the potential to be transformational if we get it right. If universal provision is a great equaliser across geographies, income levels and communities, it has the potential to be transformational.

My concern is that although we have a vision, telecoms is ultimately a reserved area. Telecoms is fascinating, because the entirety of it—all the powers of regulation and so on—is reserved, so our spend has got to go hand in hand with regulation. For example, banks expect their customers to increasingly rely on broadband connectivity, so we have to put in place support for those customers, and there has to be alternative provision. That is an example of where the pace is so fast in some cases that some people are being left behind. If we are to realise the sort of transformational objective where broadband is another utility that you expect without question, we need to be conscious of how we take everybody with us.

It will inevitably have an impact on the roll-out of our programmes. An obvious example that comes back to me through various different providers and so on is labour. At a time when there is an extreme shortage of, for example, engineers, you ultimately need boots on the ground to roll out any major infrastructure project. If the labour market has been reduced through a hostile visa system, providers, contractors and subcontractors end up recycling the same workers to deliver that project.

Secondly, it is inevitable that there will be an inflationary impact on some of the costs of major infrastructure builds. This major infrastructure initiative, which is huge, will not be immune to the challenges that our economy faces. I will pause and see if Robert McGhee wants to come in on any other technical impact.

I think that he is muted.

I do not think that I have an answer as to the scheme’s attractiveness. The correspondence that I receive, the communication that I have had with individuals and the positive examples that there have been show that those who wanted to use the scheme, applied for it and secured it were happy with the process of working with local broadband suppliers and accessing the funding. No significant reasons are being given anecdotally or in our feedback from those who were unable to secure the voucher. It was a demand-led scheme. You may have other ideas, but my approach was to be as flexible as possible and to be willing to adapt and extend the scheme.

Take-up of the voucher scheme compared well with other demand-led interventions that are available in Scotland. Ofcom’s “Connected Nations 2021” report showed that just 288 connections across Scotland have been delivered through the UK Government’s universal service obligation, which is less than 1 per cent of all the universal service obligation-eligible properties in Scotland. The UK Government’s gigabit broadband voucher scheme has delivered just 604 connections to date.

We tried to make the scheme as flexible as possible; the terms and conditions were designed to ensure that those who chose to utilise the voucher could also afford to take a service, but there is a very similar picture of voucher scheme uptake across the board.