New Economy
The next item is a debate on motion S1M-2133, in the name of Alex Neil, on behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, on the report on the inquiry into the impact of the new economy. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
From the small number of people leaving the chamber, I can tell that the debate will stimulate a lot of interest.
On behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I ask the Parliament to take note of our sixth report in 2001, which is on the new economy. There is a high degree of consensus on a number of new economy issues. There is probably most consensus on the critical importance of the new economy and broadband in particular to the future of the Scottish economy and to Scottish society.
Many people have rightly compared the importance of broadband in the 21st century to the importance of the railways in the 19th century and the road network in the 20th century. In many respects, broadband acts as a railway, a road, a mail service and a canal all rolled into one.
Rather than concentrate on the report, which has been in the public domain for over two months, I will comment on the Executive's response to the report and bring to the Parliament the feedback from the new economy seminar that was sponsored by the committee and Scottish Financial Enterprise in the Dome in Edinburgh two days ago.
One of the key elements of the committee's work is to ensure that we listen to the views of the business community and of the wider community. The seminar on the report, the Executive's response and its broadband strategy was well attended. The response from the business community is simple and can be paraphrased as "broadband, broadband, broadband; now, now, now". Above everything else, broadband was the key issue that people raised on Tuesday—many said that it is more important than many road links in Scotland. The front page of business a.m. fairly summed up the main comments that were made: if we do not implement a substantial, dynamic broadband strategy, Scotland will be in danger of becoming a third-world economy. We all agree on that.
Nick Kuenssberg, the new chairman of ScotlandIS, which is the main industry body driving the business community on the issue, said:
"Broadband is more important than the M8 and the M74. We are told the M8 and the M74 will be joined in 2009. If we have to wait that long for broadband, Scotland genuinely will be a third-world economy."
The committee and, I hope, the Parliament are agreed that we will not need to wait until 2009 before broadband is available.
Particularly given the fact that Annabel Goldie, the deputy convener of the committee, and I have been criticised in The Sunday Times for not taking into account some of the dissenting voices from the business community, we should listen to such people as Bill Allan, the chief executive of Thus, who do not necessarily agree with the consensus position. Such people are experienced in the industry and their voices, along with everyone else's, should be heard. We should all take heed of Bill Allan's point about monopolies. He also made a point about the T Soja & Associates report, which was commissioned by Scottish Enterprise. He highlighted the need to ensure that indigenous companies in Scotland—as either investors or consumers, or, in some cases, as both—get the benefit of the technology. That is a perfectly reasonable point.
I will now turn to the Executive's response to the committee. One of the committee's key recommendations was that the Executive should appoint an e-envoy. We avoided the word "tsar" in case it had connotations that would perhaps not be entirely acceptable in the wider community. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning tells me that she has not just one e-envoy, but five. I am sure that the minister will tell us what each of those five e-envoys does. Perhaps there is a case for one of them being the super e-envoy, so that we have a driver or champion, as we do at UK level. It should be someone who knows the business inside out. Although we respect the contribution to the development of the strategy that has to be made by officials in the enterprise and lifelong learning department and by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, there is a general, cross-party feeling that there should be someone in day-to-day charge, driving the strategy through, as ministers may be too busy to concentrate entirely on its implementation. That is what lay behind that recommendation, and I hope that the minister will clarify the position on it.
We made some recommendations about ministerial responsibility, which generated a heated response from the Minister for Finance and Local Government. The committee will not get too involved in deciding which minister is responsible for what; our substantive point was that we want to ensure that attention at ministerial level is paid to all aspects of the new economy and the broadband strategy, and in particular to the need for an e-strategy.
The one point on which the Executive did not agree with the committee was our recommendation for an overall e-strategy. I take the point that there are many strands to this policy area and it is clear from the Executive's statement that all those strands will have their own strategies, which will be published by the end of this calendar year. However, it is still very much the view of the committee that we should ensure joined-up government. To use the in phrase of the day, there needs to be an overarching strategy, bringing all the strands together. Despite what the Executive said in its document, I am still of the view that the committee was right to make that recommendation.
The other key issue is timing. One of the most interesting facts to come out of the seminar, where it was emphasised heavily, was that, given the growth in the use of e-technology, a year in effect equals 28 days. In other words, the growth in e-technology is exponential. If we do not get ahead of the game, the game will leave us behind. If we consider our situation among our international competitors, it is generally agreed that we are middle ranking in our capacity and competitiveness. However, it will not be enough to be middle ranking; we have to ensure that we get into the premier division. Our recommendations and, I am sure, the Executive's responses, are all designed to ensure that we do.
I particularly welcome the Executive's commitment to rural areas, specifically to the two pilot areas in the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. Although access to broadband is generally available in the strap from Glasgow and Edinburgh up to Aberdeen, it is in the more outlying areas where it will prove most difficult to ensure that the investment takes place. I hear of many examples of rural businesses that will be dependent on access to broadband and I am sure that many members will emphasise the point that access to broadband will be a vital element in regenerating the rural community.
That raises the question whether funding should come from the private or public sector. The Executive agreed with the committee that the power of procurement in the public sector could be used to generate and attract investment in the infrastructure from the private sector. Since the committee's report was published, the financial condition of many telecom companies has deteriorated significantly. It may be that a greater level of public investment will be required to pump-prime the investment than we may have envisaged, even at the end of June, because of the global developments in the sector. The Parliament should be prepared to face the challenge that is presented. Of course, the size of the public purse is limited, and the investment must be made where it will be most effective. We cannot write a blank cheque to be drawn from the public purse, but it may be essential to increase the level of public involvement.
There are a few other points, which my colleagues will no doubt raise; my final one is that time is of the essence. If we do not act now, the world will pass us by. As an economy, we are on the periphery of Europe and many of our own peripheral areas will depend on e-technology. The message from the Executive, the committee and the whole Parliament must be that we need action today. I hope that that will be the message that we send not just to the business community but to schools and hospitals and to the broad spectrum of society that will rely on this technology.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 6th Report, 2001 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Inquiry into the Impact of the New Economy (SP Paper 355).
I align the Scottish National Party behind the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's general recommendations. The committee's report is already a victim of its own success, to the extent that the business community and the Executive have now responded with the actions that they propose and support.
It is valuable first to go over some of the work undertaken by the committee, as it gathered some valuable evidence. As members know, the SNP was unable to sign up to the committee's final conclusions. I want to explain clearly why that was. It was not a churlish attempt to undermine the committee's work; rather it was an attempt to take the logical conclusions of the committee on to a new phase. We generally welcomed the report's broad conclusions and we do so again today.
We felt that there was a failure in the final report to put in place enough momentum and enough of the specific targets that we sought, which included a target as aspirational as having 90 per cent of homes and businesses connected at 8Mbps by 2005 and the idea of establishing a strategic interconnector from Scotland into the global network. Those are examples of things that could have been included in the report, but were not.
The response from business has meant that it is unnecessary to go back over the divisions that existed on the committee. This week, the business community told us that the report was fine as far as it went, but that immediate action was needed. It said that it was essential for the Parliament to unite behind an attempt to get action from the Executive. I am happy to sign up to that today. The business community's desire for impetus is shared by the Scottish National Party.
The committee's report makes Scotland's position very clear. Our international standing is not good enough. The Irish Government has underwritten its interconnector to the United States. The Swedish Government is committed to having every office and home connected to broadband. We should also examine what some of the states of the United States are doing. Those are shining examples of what this country could achieve if the Government and the Executive met the challenge of the new economy. There is no question but that Scotland currently lags behind in this area and that we need to get ourselves into gear.
I support what Alex Neil said about the appointment of an e-envoy. The committee recommended the appointment of an e-envoy for the specific reason that it is unacceptable for there to be any confusion about who is responsible for driving through these reforms, which should be a top priority for the enterprise and lifelong learning department. Lord Macdonald was much praised for the efforts that he made at UK level to push through the agenda for e-government, e-commerce and related issues because he was single minded, focused and committed to making things happen. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive cannot afford to have many ministers responsible for the new economy, simply because it is a cross-cutting issue, or for it to be passed on to civil servants or people without ministerial responsibility. If this issue is to be taken seriously, it must be given priority. There must a dedicated e-envoy and a minister answerable to the Parliament for progress or for the lack of progress.
The Executive must address the issues that were highlighted in the business seminar and in the committee's deliberations. What happens when the market fails to provide broadband services to the consumer? To anyone who gives the matter half a second's thought, it is obvious that it will be impossible to generate enough demand in the Highlands and Islands to convince a private company to take on the risk of providing services to the area, particularly given the global downturn. Business recognises that there is a role for the public sector. Unfortunately, so far the Executive has not addressed those issues.
I want briefly to consider the Executive's strategy. [Interruption.] Euan Robson may huff and puff all he likes, but the facts are in the strategy that the Executive published. My first point relates to the Executive's general approach. I would not have thought that alienating the industry was the best way of proceeding. It has not been helpful to see Scottish Executive ministers or civil servants briefing against private companies, or the spat that had to be resolved with the involvement of Cable & Wireless. If the Executive wants to involve companies in its strategy, taking an antagonistic approach is not the best way.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to
No, Mr Hamilton is coming to the end of his speech—I hope.
I beg Tavish Scott's pardon. I would have been delighted to give way to him. Perhaps I can do so later.
Secondly, the Executive's commitment to aggregate demand is fine, but it raises a range of questions about the Executive's ability to quantify that demand. If we intend simply to ask business to take yet another risk, without knowing what demand exists, I am not sure that business will be willing to do that. What happens to the contracts that are already in place? If there is an overlap with those contracts, that may delay the provision of service to the very areas that we need to help.
The Scottish Executive should give a further commitment to provide public sector investment—or at least to underwrite many projects. If they are left entirely to the private sector, I fear that—rightly—it will weigh up the risk and say that it is not worth taking. It is up to the Executive to meet the challenges that the committee has put before it.
Sometimes events make one doubt one's own thoughts. As a great advocate of an e-Parliament, I would this morning probably have had an e-MacAskill beamed to us from the Grand-Place, Brussels, with his contribution to this debate. Alas, that is not to be.
Unfortunately, the circumstances in which this debate is taking place are all too familiar. We have a graveyard slot, a poorly attended chamber, poorly attended galleries and far too little time to debate this subject—a subject to which much lip service is given regarding its importance to Scotland's future, but on which words are never matched by reality. Nothing justifies curtailing and marginalising a debate on the excellent report by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which contributes significantly to discussion of an issue that should be of the highest political importance in Scotland. That issue is not yet at the top of the Scottish political agenda. If it were, the Executive's response to the report might have been different or the so-called Opposition might have made a more constructive contribution to the debate in the committee, instead of picking up its ball and taking it away at the end.
Will the member give way?
I will come back to Duncan Hamilton in a moment.
In discussions on this subject and in the press, we have heard myriad statistics and jargon. Nobody denies that one of the most important things we need to do is interpret what that means, but I am convinced that by far the most important factor in creating a digital Scotland is a passion to succeed. That is not easy to measure, but putting a finger in the air in Scotland indicates that that passion is not there.
I used to taunt the former Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Mr Nicol Stephen, for his apparent lack of energy in pursuing this subject. Nobody can doubt Ms Alexander's commitment. However, from the outside hers appears to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Behind her in the Executive there is no real commitment to delivering a digital Scotland. In the corridors of power in Scotland one does not meet people who enthuse about it or set out how it will happen—people who want it to happen and believe that Scotland can be at the cutting edge of a global revolution. Until there is commitment from the highest level—from the First Minister down to the most junior civil servant—we should not kid ourselves that we can put Scotland at the top of any division, let alone the premier league.
The Conservatives broadly welcome the Executive's broadband strategy, because it is clear that the model of demand creation has worked successfully elsewhere, particularly in disadvantaged and rural communities. However, in my view it is too slow and too bureaucratic. There are serious issues to do with the current lack of inclusion of further and higher education institutions in the plan, as they are key players across Scotland and key proprietors of network capacity that is not currently being used to Scotland's advantage.
As Duncan Hamilton indicated, there is also a serious concern about the Scottish Executive's ability to engage with the business community. A dialogue with the telecommunications industry does not involve saying to people, "I am going to have a press briefing and I want you to say something positive about my strategy." There needs to be two-way communication. That involves listening and sharing genuinely in a full, frank exchange of ideas, so that everyone can be got on side.
Business, too, has a role to play. Elsewhere, business has driven forward an e-agenda in government. It has constantly knocked on the Government's door, saying, "What are you doing about this issue?" It is time that that happened in Scotland. In its report, the committee makes a clear reference to the need for a dialogue with the Office of Telecommunications, which is soon to become part of the office of communications. The importance of that dialogue cannot be understated. For too long, OFTEL has worried about individual issues, instead of taking a strategic approach to the development of information and communications technology in the United Kingdom. If it does not adopt such an approach, it will be an inhibitor rather than a facilitator of our development.
What should the Executive do? It has in its power the ability to deliver e-government. There are no excuses for failing in that enterprise. Government is all pervasive in Scotland—far too pervasive for the liking of some of us. It is present in every community—in local government, the health service, water authorities and the police force. The list goes on and on.
Government is the largest single employer in most communities outside the central belt and it is the biggest single economic actor, yet the Government has failed to deliver e-government. That is a fundamental flaw of the approach to date and it is an inexcusable arrogance in the Executive's response to the report for it to say that it will not put together a seamless strategy that would incorporate all elements of a digital Scotland. Anyone who visits a successful new economy will not find separate boxes for inclusion, for e-commerce or for government—such economies all have a seamless strategy. That is what Scotland needs if we are to develop the new economy to which we aspire.
At this week's seminar, someone told us that 28 days equates to an e-year. On that basis, the Scottish Executive has had 30 years so far to deliver a digital Scotland. It has not managed to do so, but it has 18 years left. Those years should not be wasted.
I begin by pointing out to David Mundell that Nicol Stephen is here in his present capacity.
David Mundell said that Wendy Alexander was the siren voice in the wilderness. I am sure that we are about to hear the siren voice in the heart of a Government that is acting on these issues. My only other comment on David Mundell's speech is that I am sure that we could hear Kenny MacAskill from the Grand-Place without the need for additional technology. However, that is an unfair comment, as Kenny MacAskill is not here.
I agree with the point that was made by Duncan Hamilton and Alex Neil in their introductory comments: the committee's report was timely two months ago. They were both right to say that issues in the sector move forward at such a pace that it is hardly surprising that much has changed in the 28-day e-years to which David Mundell alluded at the end of his speech and which we were told about at the seminar on Tuesday. The rate of change is swift. As John Ward, the chairman of Consignia, said at our seminar, e-commerce in the world doubles every 100 days. That puts matters into context.
Given that scale of change, if Scotland is to be part of the process it must be able to compete by having the infrastructure in place. Alex Neil was right to say in conclusion that our main finding—both in our report and from what we heard from business earlier this week—was that we need that investment in infrastructure as quickly as possible.
Connectivity—a ghastly word for the English language—was the key issue for the committee and I believe that the committee addressed it, albeit that matters have moved on. Scotland does not have comparable connectivity to that of our competitor nations. Someone said at the seminar on Tuesday that our competition is not with the USA and that we do not want to be as good as the USA—we want to be as good as some of the Scandinavian countries. That illustrates how much we have to do and how much we look to the Executive to drive forward the agenda.
The committee made an important finding, in the sphere of entrepreneurship and education, about the importance of primary and secondary school education and of further and higher education. I recall the ScotlandIS seminar that took place before the summer recess, at which the number of science and technology graduates that Scotland is short of was demonstrated to us—we need those graduates to fulfil the requirements of the companies that operate in this area. That is an important point for the wider education sector to develop.
Another striking concept that was explained to the committee earlier this week was that of the virtual office, involving a one-stop service provider, not only for all the services that come through a personal computer but for multimedia, voice recognition and a range of other services. Those services would all come from a single provider rather than from a range of providers. If I recall correctly, the view of Tim Summers of Motorola was that such provision would be a huge step forward for the concept of the virtual office. It would be available throughout Scotland—not just in Edinburgh but in the Highlands and Islands or in the Borders, as Duncan Hamilton suggested. We should pay attention to that vision.
David Mundell mentioned e-government. The e-enabling drive is advanced in the Scottish Executive paper, "Connecting Scotland: our broadband future", which Wendy Alexander released earlier this week. The principle of the pathfinder approach must be right for the Highlands and Islands and for the Borders and the south of Scotland, simply because those areas are unlikely to see the level of private sector investment that is required. I am pleased that the minister has responded to initiatives in the northern isles, where the public sector and others are considering the possibilities of a fibre optic link between Scotland and the northern isles. That would give businesses in my constituency a huge advantage. For example, a television documentary producer, Ted Harrison, now runs an animation business in Unst, in the very north of Shetland. His business would take a huge step forward if it could access that technology. That example serves as an illustration that taking that step—that big jump—forward will make a huge difference, no matter where one is in Scotland.
I welcome the report in this morning's business a.m., about which I am sure the minister will say more, that she has appointed a broadband tsar who will develop this area further. Alex Neil said that we have five e-envoys, but if we were to have five tsars, I presume that the leading tsar could not be called the A-tsar but would be called the Caesar. Sorry—I could not resist that.
Another point that was raised at our seminar on Tuesday was that we must have a debate on how to develop the broadband strategy. I guess that it is part of Opposition politics for David Mundell and others to have a crack at the minister about that. However, I also noticed in this morning's business a.m. that Bill Allan, to whom the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee referred, said:
"Having talked to the minister, we share common ground in the core of the strategy. We wish to work with the executive to make broadband provision a commercially viable proposition."
Allied to that and to the initiatives that the Executive is developing on the pathfinder areas in the Highlands and Islands and in the Borders, which are important steps forward, the committee is to be congratulated on making progress in this area.
Many people talk about the new economy, but there is no clear definition of what the new economy is. For some people, it means dotcoms and for others it means technology-based companies. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report says that a clear revolutionary change in the economy is being driven by the new technologies. That change will affect all companies in Scotland, whether they belong to the new economy—as some would describe it—or are simply new companies. It will affect traditional companies in all areas and impact on how we provide public services. It will also impact on individuals.
We must recognise the opportunities that are offered by the new economy and exploit them to Scotland's advantage. The possibilities of, and rewards from, effective use of the new technologies, the new ways of working and the cultural changes that they will allow are immense. To a large extent, they could wipe out some of the disadvantages that Scotland faces because it is located on Europe's north-western periphery. For example, they would allow Scotland to trade more effectively in the global market than has ever been possible.
Some earlier speakers said that Scotland is middle ranking, as far as existing broadband infrastructure is concerned. However, we are in the middle rank of the G7 countries plus Sweden and I suggest that our telecommunication infrastructure is already pretty far ahead. Over the past 12 months, companies in Scotland have been moving rapidly to take up the opportunities that are offered by new technologies and to get themselves connected up.
SNP members say that they place a great deal of importance on the new economy—to the extent that Kenny MacAskill published a minority report on the subject. I am surprised, therefore, that he is not here this morning, but it is obvious that he is elsewhere.
As various speakers have mentioned, we presented the committee's conclusions to Scotland's business community at a seminar earlier this week, at which we received some clear messages concerning the need to ensure that Scotland has the necessary telecoms infrastructure. Having the right kind of electronic backbone is as important for Scotland as having the right kind of physical transport links.
The clearest message that came across to me from that afternoon was the requirement for speed and action. Action must be taken quickly. As has been said, the pace of change that is being driven by the new technologies is absolutely tremendous. Increasingly, many companies are working, in effect, on a global basis. They need to work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That demands whole new ways of working, which are facilitated by the new technologies, such as virtual offices, teleworking and the development of virtual teams—team members can be based across the globe by using all sorts of things to let them work together. We need to act quickly to take advantage of that.
The committee's report suggested the appointment of an e-envoy. However, it was interesting that at Tuesday's seminar the chair of ScotlandIS was fairly relaxed about whether we had an e-envoy. He was more interested in ensuring that Wendy Alexander would remain in her current post. It was clear that he had great confidence in her dynamism and ambition to drive forward the agenda.
Pause for thought?
Yes. I was pausing for thought.
Please wind up.
The broadband strategy, which is simply the latest of many positive policies, was announced this week. I have no doubt that as we work through those policies, they will position Scotland where we want it to be in the global context.
I welcome Murdo Fraser to the chamber for his first speech.
Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech in today's important debate on the new economy. I shall make reference to that topic in a moment, but if members will permit, I will digress briefly.
It would be appropriate for me to start by paying tribute to my predecessor list MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Nick Johnston, who served for a while on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I am sure that his valuable contributions to the political debate will be sadly missed by all members. It must be a matter of regret that ill health prevented Nick Johnston from completing a full term in the Parliament and I am sure that members will join me in wishing him a full recovery and a speedy return to his business career. It is important that the Parliament has proper concern for our nation's pensioners.
My journey to the Parliament has been a rather long one. I contested the elections in 1999 for the constituency of North Tayside, where I was pipped at the post by John Swinney. Thereafter, I set my sights elsewhere and contested the same constituency for the Westminster elections. Despite achieving a swing from the SNP to my party, I was not able to emulate the success of my party colleague, Peter Duncan, in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.
I had rather resigned myself to a career in the legal profession when the news of my unexpected elevation to the Parliament came through. Members who take the Ken Clarke approach to legislation—and have therefore not read the Scotland Act 1998—may have been surprised to learn that one can become a member of the Parliament in mid term without contesting a by-election. I can assure members that any surprise that they may have felt was nothing compared to my surprise when I was telephoned on a Thursday afternoon to say that I was about to become a member of the Parliament. It says a lot about politics today that that call came not from the office of the Presiding Officer or from a party colleague but from a member of the press.
I am pleased to take my seat in the Parliament and can comfort myself that I have, in a small way, made history by becoming the first ever replacement list MSP. If anyone still plays Trivial Pursuit, that may be a question in years to come.
I now represent the region of Mid Scotland and Fife, with which I have an existing connection. As members may know, there is a great deal of concern throughout Perthshire and Angus about hospital services at Perth royal infirmary and Stracathro hospital. That issue is of particular interest to me.
As a Highlander, I also take a particular interest is the future of the rural economy, which has suffered so much in recent years. The new economy offers opportunities to those who live in rural areas, in Mid Scotland and Fife and throughout Scotland. I therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. A priority for the Executive must be to encourage the development of the infrastructure to permit access to the new economy from all areas of Scotland.
Some months ago, I had the pleasure of visiting an internet business called Cali Net, which is based in Kinloch Rannoch and provides website design for the hotel industry. The location offers low overheads and an enviable lifestyle for the workers. The business provides employment for graduates in an area in which many other jobs are low paid and seasonal. Cali Net has been set up by bright young entrepreneurs and represents exactly the sort of enterprise that we should encourage.
Cali Net's problem is that it is constantly battling against a poor standard of infrastructure. Because it is based in Perthshire, it is at a competitive disadvantage compared to similar enterprises in the Highlands and Islands, where there has been much greater investment. If businesses such as Cali Net are to succeed—and we certainly need them in Scotland—the Executive must be committed to improving the communication network.
I welcome the committee's report and I trust that the Executive will take action.
I do not know whether it is a coincidence that the Presiding Officer has given me the privilege of speaking immediately after Murdo Fraser, thus enabling me to congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome his presence in the chamber for two reasons in particular: with his elevation, I cease to be the most junior member of the Parliament; and, unlike myself, who raised the average age of the SNP group by three months, he has achieved the impossible by reducing the average age of the Tory activists in the Parliament by an amount so large that I can barely compute it. I am sure that the Tories welcome that.
I saw my first computer in 1969, which was the year that I started programming computers. In 1975, two friends and I built the first home computer in Scotland. By coincidence, that is the same year as Tim Berners-Lee—the English founder of the worldwide web—developed and built his first home computer. In 1979, I gave a keynote speech at the Microsystems conference on the then emerging technology of microcomputers. Let me tell the minister that I got some things wrong, from which we can draw parallels. I suggested at that time that people would shortly need 64 kilobytes of memory in their computers and that, within the next five years, most people would need a hard disk. Time telescoped rapidly. In a few months, my predictions were overtaken by events. In 1980, I started to use e-mail and, in 1995, I created my first website.
Despite all that background, I nonetheless say that there is no such thing as e-business. There is only business. Business needs to use the e-world to reach and offer services to customers by internet, by mobile phones, by interactive television and by other means that are yet to emerge.
Tavish Scott mentioned Caesar. It is interesting that the Romans succeeded where the Greeks had failed precisely because the Romans had a superior communications network. They could send a message by hilltop signalling from Londinium to Roma in six hours. The Greeks had to send ships, so they lost out.
In the modern world, it is no good having clusters that live on e-development. Bangalore in southern India has a modern infrastructure that supports, with hundreds of technicians, at least half a dozen companies here in Edinburgh. However, one has to walk for only 10 minutes down the road from Bangalore to return to the third world where people queue to use the community telephone.
Women have played an important part in the development of modern technology. Ada Lovelace was Charles Babbage's programmer—the first programmer—in the 19th century, and rear admiral Grace Hopper invented COBOL when she was in the United States navy. Indeed, Grace Hopper was still in harness as a consultant with a technology company when she died in her eighties. If the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning wants to go down in the history of technology and its exploitation, she will have to work a great deal harder. She sets no targets for supporting business, seeking thereby to avoid having her future failure measured. She avoids underwriting private sector provision of the infrastructures that we need. In the past few days, she offends the very private partners on whom she will depend to make a start in public provision. Aggregation of demand is her panacea. However, what our businesses really need is access to markets now. For that, they will need broadband communications. In my short period as a member of this Parliament, I have already had three separate people at my surgeries in Banff and Buchan to ask about that subject. We are not in the Highlands and Islands or the Borders.
Let us suggest an immediate audit of the existing infrastructure. Even BT Scotland cannot tell us how many telephone exchanges there are in Scotland. Until we have done such an audit, we will not be able to do anything about costing what we will need. However, we can cost a failure to respond to the new world—we will pay a very heavy price. Try something new, minister. Listen to the experts, some of whom I can see in the gallery. Otherwise we will fall behind.
We are rapidly running out of time and a number of speakers still wish to be called. I therefore ask those whom I am about to call to keep their speeches as brief as possible.
I thank all those who were involved in compiling the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report, which was a lot of hard work. Many people were involved and I thank them on behalf of the committee.
The publication of the report could not have come at a more apt time—not only for the development of our new economy but for the modernisation of our old economy. We have heard about the speed of change and about the way in which things have moved quickly since the report was published. However, I still feel that the report contains valuable policy solutions.
We heard a clear message from business at the seminar that has been referred to. Those with expertise said that the time for talking was over. The message to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the Executive and the Parliament is that we must progress with a cohesive and ambitious strategy that will ensure that Scotland has first-class connections to global communications to ensure our future prosperity. No one can doubt the role of the new economy in the future development of the Scottish economy.
The rate of technological change is breathtaking. It took 35 years from the invention of radio for it to reach 50 million users in America; it has taken the internet less than five years. At the beginning of text messaging, 20 million messages were sent in one month worldwide; the figure is now 3.5 billion. The rate of change is phenomenal.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report provides an analysis of the issues that we face and offers policy solutions. The committee feels that what we want for Scotland is an enterprising and compassionate economy and society that has no digital divide. Broadband telecommunications infrastructure across Scotland is essential to ensure our competitiveness—everybody has said that. However, I will focus on the issue of having a skilled work force. Such a work force will continue to be a major factor in helping to develop the new economy. We can put in as much broadband technology as we like, but if we do not have a skilled work force to help us to make progress, we will not be able to compete at the level that we would wish to.
The creation of a universally IT-literate population should be one of the principal aims of any strategy. I welcome the work that has already been undertaken by the knowledge economy task force and the digital task force. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is, however, concerned at the potential shortfall of suitably qualified new graduates and technicians to fuel the development of the new economy in the near future. We suggest that we could learn some lessons from competitor countries, especially those countries that can attract a much higher proportion of women into science and technology than we are able to do. Some of the current programmes—such as the girls get set programme and the women into science, engineering and technology programme—are welcome. Also welcome is the 80 per cent discount on individual learning accounts for those who want to study technology subjects.
Some of the evidence that the committee has taken during its inquiry into lifelong learning has been staggering. We are being told that we must start working with eight to 12-year-olds—so we are talking about primary and secondary education—to encourage an interest in technology subjects that will lead to a subsequent take-up of those subjects in tertiary education.
We have heard this morning about the importance of broadband and connectivity and I would never underestimate those. However, if we are to compete in the premier league, we must ensure that we have a skilled work force who are willing, who want to take the technology forward, and who want to take us on the journey of the new economy.
I would be grateful if the next two speakers could keep under four minutes.
I shall try to be as brief as possible. I would like to congratulate Mr Murdo Fraser on his maiden speech—a speech, I would suggest, that may have caused more of a stir on his party's benches than on the other benches. I would also like to congratulate Mr Stewart Stevenson on his speech. It was an interesting ramble or stroll, which might have been titled "Anoraks I have worn".
I agree with the comment that has been made by others: it is a pity that we have not given a little more time to this important topic. I thank Wendy Alexander for, in particular, the announcement about the pathfinder area for the Highlands and Islands. That is very good news for my part of the world. We said, as a partnership in Government, that we would ensure that the Highlands and Islands featured; we have delivered. When members also consider the University of the Highlands and Islands project, and all the work that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has done in the past, is doing, and will do in future, they will see that this partnership takes the Highlands and Islands very seriously indeed.
There was a wail from Duncan Hamilton. If one sits on a half-inflated set of bagpipes—and I have done so—one hears a sort of low moaning noise. Perhaps an apt description of the Scottish National Party is chanters and drones. The accusation was made that the Executive has not delivered; as Henry Ford said, that is "bunk". The Executive has delivered. The doing away with of tuition fees demonstrates that; and let me give members a few statistics. There are 2,800 additional places in higher education institutions and there is committed funding for 40,000 additional places in further education colleges. The list goes on. Members can see that, in supporting what we seek to do on the e-front, the Executive is putting the bricks and blocks in place.
I would like to major on one subject and one subject only—training. We can see what the Executive has delivered in our schools—ranks and rows of new computers. However, a problem arises—despite the best efforts of all the agencies involved—in delivering for the slightly older generations. Much is being done in higher education, but we have an unused resource because our schools shut down at 10 to 4 or 4 o'clock. As a result, the equipment and the teaching staff who could train people are not used as thoroughly as they could be. I know that Jack McConnell's door and Nicol Stephen's door will be open to her, but I suggest to Wendy Alexander that we should co-ordinate our use of our existing resources a little better.
A survey from some years ago found that the word highland is synonymous with quality and a pure, unspoilt environment. If we can back up the reputation of highland products—I will not mention any dairy products, which will come as a mercy to many members—with being at the sharp end of e-commerce, we really will be able to do something for the Highlands and Islands. It is important to remember that. The product is there, the image is there, and we can do something.
It has been pointed out that if we miss this train we will be in trouble. That is so true. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has pointed out that what we do over the next few years will be defining. If we get it right, we will get it right big time; if we do not, and if we slacken off a wee bit, we will miss the train. However, Wendy Alexander is nothing if not active and I have no doubt that she will deliver. It is up to us to get behind what she is doing, to support it and to do anything positive that we can. We must not sell short, Mr Hamilton.
I echo Marilyn Livingstone's remarks and thank the members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the clerks. I also thank our special adviser, Ian Ritchie, who is in the gallery, for his hard work.
Although the new economy is not the most politically contentious subject, it is important that we in Parliament, and the wider public, discuss it, because it is vital to Scotland's economic prosperity. Our future lies in developing a high-skills, knowledge-based economy, not just in using the new technology to speed up the way we do business. We must strike out in new directions, enable creativity to flourish and establish new industries in new markets. We have some way to go.
As part of another inquiry that is being conducted by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, some of my colleagues and I visited John Wheatley College in Easterhouse last week. In passing, a member of staff mentioned a survey of young unemployed men in the area, which asked what sort of jobs they wanted. The answers were all along the lines of steelworker, riveter and welder—jobs that we all know are in short supply these days. A great deal of work has to be done in our schools and colleges before our aspirations as a society match our capacity to deliver in this economy.
Marilyn Livingstone mentioned the significance of the skills gap. Alex Neil, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, mentioned the meeting that we held earlier this week with representatives of the financial sector and others. Several interesting points were made, but I wish to emphasise the importance of connectivity, which Tavish Scott mentioned. It is a clumsy expression but an important subject. Scotland is not a mass market. If we want to attract companies and keep them here, we have to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.
Mike Hambly of Digital Animations described his operation not as a Scottish digital company but as a digital company that happens to be based in Scotland. If we want to keep companies such as his here, we must ensure that they can access world markets. We need always-on access from the office or the home, with the ability to download huge amounts of information quickly.
I am pleased that the Government is aggregating public spending on information and communications technology to maximise the effect of that spending. The cumulative impact of Government ICT developments in the health service, in schools and through the national grid for learning, in local government, in the enterprise companies and in our libraries will help to stimulate demand and speed up the supply and delivery of services.
I will end on a note of caution. I hope that we are all aware of the danger of creating a digital divide, which is already a problem not just for our geographically isolated communities—which the Government's broadband strategy identifies and tackles—but for deprived communities. I am pleased that the Government is supporting measures to broaden access to tackle the digital divide. I am especially pleased that Allan Wilson is to launch the new people's network in my constituency tomorrow. That project will make computer technology available to all through our network of public libraries, which will give access to information and learning opportunities. I look forward to welcoming the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture. I hope that the chamber and the Executive will welcome our committee's report.
We are a little over time, so if the winder-uppers can be brief I will be grateful.
I welcome the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report. I was involved in half of the discussions in the committee, before I moved on. The committee has produced a report that highlights some of the key issues that face Scotland if, as Alex Neil says, we want to catch up and reach the premier league.
I will deal with two issues: infrastructure, which concerns the rural/urban digital divide as highlighted in the committee's report, and skills, which are important if Scotland is to benefit from and take advantage of the opportunities that e-commerce will provide.
The big challenge is how to put in place an infrastructure that will allow rural Scotland to take up the challenge of and exploit the opportunities that are afforded by the e-commerce revolution. As Murdo Fraser rightly highlighted in his excellent maiden speech, the Highlands and Islands are further ahead than the rest of Scotland, due to an initiative of the old Highlands and Islands Development Board—now Highlands and Islands Enterprise—which invested in an ISDN network throughout most of the Highlands and Islands. It is important for Murdo Fraser to remember that that was a public-sector initiative that has paid off. Indeed, the Highlands and Islands have gained huge benefits because of that initiative. It is predicted that 5,000 jobs will be created on the back of that infrastructure investment, which shows that where the market fails, the public sector can get involved and invest in the kind of infrastructure that will provide jobs in the future.
The fundamental question for rural Scotland is: what technology should we invest in to ensure that we keep up and build on the successes of the ISDN network? I will provide an example of the challenges that face us. Last Friday night, my colleague Alan Reid and I had a meeting with Jura community council in Mr Archie Fletcher's house in Ardlussa. Archie stays 20 miles from the local village, Craigend. Once we managed to move the conversation away from the Jura ferry and its constant failures, Archie said to me, "When on earth can I expect to be able to access the internet from Ardlussa?" I said, "What do you mean access it? Can't you do it down the telephone line?" He said he cannot, because it is so slow. He has to drive 20 miles to the local village and use the community computer to access the internet.
What technology will deliver for Archie Fletcher, who lives in a remote rural community? A number of his neighbours are trying to start businesses based on working from home, but the key point is that they cannot do it. We must determine which technology will deliver for people such as Archie Fletcher. I would like the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to describe the initiatives that HIE is undertaking to answer that question. I am aware that initiatives are in place to establish which is the right technology to invest in.
I am conscious of time, so the last issue that I will highlight is skills, which Jamie Stone also mentioned. We hear a great deal about what we have to do in our primary and secondary schools and in further and higher education—but there is a gap, which is mentioned in the report. The fundamental question is: what will we do to reskill the generation that is currently in work? If we expect all businesses to take up the challenge of using e-commerce, we have to equip the older generation with some of the basic skills.
I will provide an example from my constituency—
It must be a brief one.
The company in my constituency that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee highlighted is one of the fastest growing companies in the call centre business. The problem that it comes up against in employing labour is that nobody over the age of 26 who did not take a secretarial course at school has basic typing skills, so the company will not entertain employing and training them. I hope that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will say how we will address that issue. We want to include everyone in the new economy and the older generation is a huge resource.
To wind up—
You are a minute over. I am sorry, but we are tight for time.
We have had a good-humoured debate, but serious messages have been passed on—however frivolous one or two speeches have been. Due to the fiasco of the Erskine bridge, we have not had enough time to debate the report. The subject of the new economy demands a revisit. David Mundell and I are taking part in our third debate together on this topic. It has been the same story every time: not enough focus, not enough time and the Government has made the same promises.
There are three or four serious issues. The culture is not right and it must be led. Many people have said that the drive to use the technology has not been correct, but academia has successfully been involved in the e-transmission of ideas and information worldwide for years. Business does the same, but infrastructure is required. That is a major issue. Murdo Fraser and others mentioned access to modern IT. The issue is not just access; the cost of access is important, as it can prohibit development, especially in the small and medium enterprise sector.
The infrastructure is too expensive for the public purse to take on—it is high risk. Perhaps Duncan Hamilton, who will close for the SNP, will tell us how much importance the SNP attaches to the infrastructure, what it will spend on it and what it will put behind it. That would help to move the debate on.
The infrastructure is too big a risk for one deliverer to take on; we have to get together a consortium of private businesses that are prepared to invest and share the cost. The Government should be part of that process, not by investing in that way, but by bringing to the table the possible work load that could result from our getting genuinely into e-business within e-government, education, health and police.
If Government departments and public bodies got together properly, the Executive could offer a basis for business, which would give business the confidence to get involved. We do not have enough of that. We get a lot of lip service, which I am sure is genuine—and I am sure that Wendy Alexander has a lot of ambition—but we are not seeing an awful lot of leadership. Initiative is not necessarily leadership. Several members have made comments about taking the PR approach instead of getting round the table with some of the people who are involved.
Several members talked about the erratic rollout. I am aware of Mr Stevenson's contribution and I wonder whether, given his inventive past, he will be the new Al Gore of the Scottish Parliament. We have to examine the infrastructure and what attracts businesses here to spend money. We have to develop IT businesses such as the one Murdo Fraser mentioned and those on the north coast and in the Western Isles, which other members mentioned.
The introduction of heavier taxation, such as the tartan tax, will not help such businesses. That tax, like business rates, is a disincentive. Some members might think that that is separate from the debate, but it is not. It is a disincentive to industry and to investment.
I noticed that some members mentioned satellite and interactive television technology. We have to consider that.
The Conservatives support the report, but we are concerned about the speed of the Government's involvement in the debate. We have to encourage early on, and more productively, the private sector's investment and involvement in the design of what we do. Training and access will trickle down from that and the digital divide will be reduced, because the infrastructure will become cost-effective.
This has been a relatively interesting debate, with varied contributions. Jamie Stone's was slightly bizarre. He might want to discuss with his therapist why he would be sitting on half-deflated bagpipes. I welcome Murdo Fraser's first speech to the chamber, but we will have to watch his terminology closely. Apparently, he was "pipped" by John Swinney. I suppose that under that level of analysis, he is marginally to the right in the Conservative party.
David Mundell made serious and constructive points on e-government, in which he and I share an interest. The Government can stimulate the process towards e-government, not just by procurement of services, but by getting most public services online to an extent that has not happened thus far, and developing their capacity beyond the information level to the interaction level, which is the next phase in e-government. Furthermore, as parliamentarians, we must constantly consider ways of reconnecting with the people who put us in Parliament. Broadband—and, indeed, the consumer side of e-government—has the capacity, through the processes of involvement, consultation and interaction, to reconnect people with their Government. That is probably worth putting on record.
Tavish Scott made a good point about connectivity, as did Kenneth Macintosh. I ask the Executive to reflect on the connectivity figures that were announced by the European Commission and publicised over the summer. Those figures measured access to the internet from home within the US, the European Community, the United Kingdom and Scotland. The figure for the US was 54 per cent, the EU average was 30 per cent, the UK figure was 25 per cent, and the figure for Scotland was 19 per cent. The figure for the Highlands and Islands—a region that we all agree has the most to gain from connectivity—was a miserly 15 per cent. I know that we say that efforts are being made to improve that figure, but it represents a disgraceful set of circumstances that we must tackle. I acknowledge Murdo Fraser's point that many Highlands and Islands issues also affect areas outside the Highlands and Islands, and I recognise the highland Perthshire problem.
If we are being asked to trust the Executive because it has produced the goods so far, I ask members to reflect on the fact that the committee's report is crystal clear about the present position, the reason for it and the inertia that has brought us there. It is a bit rich to ask us to trust the same people who put us in that predicament and who struggle to provide even Channel 5 or radio services to major parts of the Highlands and Islands. Are we to believe that broadband is to be a priority?
We need to hear a great deal more from the Executive about what will happen, because the relevant document that it published was vague. We all agree that bringing together public procurement points can be an advantage and that aggregating demand is a way forward. The committee says so in its report. However, the industry has responded by raising serious questions that have still not been answered. I ask the minister to say something about how she can quantify the risk to the private sector. Does she recognise that, in other countries, when that risk is deemed too great, the Government can help positively by underwriting the cost or providing more public investment? The Executive will have to face up to that.
Stewart Stevenson put his finger on an important point about removing the artificial divide between e-business and business. That is right and touches on David Davidson's argument about the cultural shift that is needed. Often, the problem concerns not only infrastructure capacity but convincing people that their businesses can grow and that their communities can be viable in the way discussed.
We return to a basic question about broadband: is it happening? The report says that it is not. Are the plans that are in place adequate? Will they change the situation? The report and industry say that they are not and will not. Will the market alone provide for areas such as the Highlands and Islands and those that are sparsely populated? No. We do not condemn private industry for refusing to take on a risk that the Government will not take on, but if we believe in that partnership working, we must find a way of reducing the risk to the private sector through a greater role for the Government.
One of the people at the committee's awayday—the interface between business and the committee—said that, too often, the issues are discussed and we suffer from what he called "analysis paralysis". That is correct. Although we may disagree about the pace of change and what the Executive has done, we should agree that not pushing forward with broadband is unacceptable. If the debate is to achieve one thing, it should be our agreement on that. We should stop talking about broadband and get on and do it.
It is hard to have a siren voice in the chamber today. I welcome Murdo Fraser and warn him that the chamber is not always as warm and cuddly as it has been today. I was delighted to discover that Stewart Stevenson has expertise to bring to the debate. Another anorak is always welcome.
I feel duty bound to say that Mr Mundell and I had a private tête-à-tête last night. Mr Mundell said to me that the dominating issue of party-political conflict in the forthcoming Australian general election—in fairness, that would be before the asylum seekers issue was discovered—would be how to get broadband to the outback.
I am convinced that consensus rather than conflict is how to bring broadband capability to Scotland. I suggest to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that it might submit directly to Mr Angus MacKay that despite all the sorts of infrastructure on which we are divided—water, power, road and rail—we can all agree on broadband, so he could look on that favourably in his next round of financial choices.
More substantively, Scotland's position could be seriously disadvantaged by our geography, our beautiful countryside and the sparsity of our population. Because of that, we knew that we had to do something different, and that is what we are doing. Scotland is moving to aggregate demand ahead of any other part of the United Kingdom.
As Roman metaphors are in vogue today, let me say that, attractive as it is to see oneself as a latter-day Boadicea, the analogy is not particularly useful when trying to transform the whole of government—to build broad-based ministerial commitment to broadband. In particular, I welcome the commitment of Jack McConnell and Susan Deacon and their willingness to sign up their departments to turning their procurement processes upside down.
Those ministers know, as do members in the chamber, that if it is left exclusively to the market, Montrose and Moray will not see broadband in their schools on the same timetable as will Manchester. We have to do things differently in Scotland, and I commend those ministers for their support in making the aggregated demand strategy work.
I welcome the support of the chamber; that is key to driving up demand and private usage of the internet. I also welcome the suggestion of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for every social inclusion partnership area to have a digital champion, as they can pull together. I welcome the creation of 300 new e-learning centres; the 80 per cent discount for those wanting to take courses that are aimed at getting people online; and the enterprise network's target for 1,000 additional businesses to be put online. Those are all-important parts of the strategy.
With some trepidation, I will try to clear up the confusion over e-envoys, e-tsars, e-ministers et al. In passing, I have to say that Gus Macdonald was never an e-envoy; the e-envoy is Andrew Pinder. Gus Macdonald's equivalent in driving forward e-government is Mr Peter Peacock. In so far as there is a parallel for me at Westminster, in the past it was Patricia Hewitt, and I will not dwell on the name of the current incumbent.
The challenge is to build commitment across the civil service. John Elvidge, the senior member of the senior management group, is the Executive's e-champion. Indeed, we have brought on board not one outside expert, but five: Mr Jim Norton, our roving e-ambassador on the e-agenda; David Sibbald who—as members may have read today—is helping us on the broadband strategy; Jo Armstrong, who has been working with us on finance; Robert Craig, who has brought us his expertise in local government and libraries; and Bill Harvey, who has recently returned to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, following a part-time secondment to advise us on further and higher education—the area that has most successfully pioneered broadband in Scotland. I record my gratitude to them all. The strategy that we have before us today would not have been possible without their commitment.
We welcome having those people on board, but to which minister are they responsible? Is that minister responsible for driving the agenda across all the departments of the Scottish Executive? Which minister is responsible to the Scottish Parliament for the success or failure of the strategy?
The strategy is the responsibility of the Cabinet. The rest of the UK is behind Scotland in aggregating broadband—a situation that is not possible without the commitment of all Cabinet members. In Scotland, that has been forthcoming, and it is being driven through the ministerial committee on digital Scotland, which I chair in my capacity as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning.
I suspect that Scotland will be interested to hear that we have given a commitment that every school should have access to the rich, online world. We also want all parts of the health service, including general practitioner surgeries, to be able to send and receive information and to use telemedicine. That is not speculation, as all those public sector bodies represent reliable future revenue streams, and it is on that basis that the telcos can plan.
I am proud of the fact that, in Scotland, we have started where the problem is likely to be worst—in the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. That was mentioned by some of our coalition partners. In those two zones, for most telecommunications customers—as has been pointed out—there is simply no practical competition at the moment. The Executive proposals represent a real opportunity to bring genuine competition that is likely to be the way to drive both more widespread capability and lower prices.
On the point that was raised about the technology, we are very clear that we will not dictate what the technology should be. We cannot allow ADSL to become a proxy for broadband connectivity. In Scotland, we will need to use cable, wireless, satellite and fixed radio access. Those are choices for the market. With regard to Argyll, I particularly welcome BT's plans to trial satellite ADSL in Scotland over the coming winter.
To pick up on what Mr Mundell said, we need to talk to the telcos. We are doing so daily. Let us have the space for that dialogue without turning it into a political football. I notice that Cable and Wireless says that it welcomes the proposals as a step forward, and BT says that it is supportive of the plans. Energis's voice has not been heard. Its viewpoint on this is that we have a bold vision and that we want to pioneer bulk purchasing of telecoms. For any public body to turn buying practices upside down and drive forward a joined-up purchasing strategy to give certainty of demand to telcos is something that should be welcomed as good business practice.
It may be that Duncan Hamilton knows about other people; if so, perhaps he will elucidate for us. However, one person who has been directly mentioned in the press is Mr Bill Allan of Thus, who has said that he supports
"the Executive's aspirations with regard to broadband connectivity … having talked to the Minister I believe we share common ground in the core of the strategy which will enable us to resolve our differences."
I know of no negative comment of any kind. It would be a great shame if the Parliament were to talk down what we are trying to achieve or just how critically important that dialogue—which I, along with everyone else, welcome—is.
There is no magic solution internationally. I am surprised that Kenny MacAskill is not here to ask why we are not "doing an Ireland". With respect to international connectivity, the system in Ireland today means that 1 per cent of Irish households are able to access ADSL, compared with 38 per cent of households in Scotland. We heard about "doing a Sweden". I make it clear that in Sweden, the system involves municipal ownership of all the infrastructure. As far as I know, no one is talking about renationalising BT. We will learn from abroad, but the serious players know that this is about doing what is right for Scotland—that is what we are committed to doing.
Mr Mundell and Mr Scott said that we have to put our own house in order. I assure members that the latest returns indicate that 60 per cent of the services provided by the Executive, all its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are online. Most of them are online for information purposes rather than transaction purposes, but the fact that we have met the target of 60 per cent four years in advance of the 2005 deadline shows that there is determination to move forward.
I very much welcome the support from the chamber today. This is a process whereby we can build consensus not only throughout the Parliament but throughout Scotland. We are in a position to lead in Europe. There are examples of other strategies, but other strategies face difficulties. There has been widespread support for what we are doing. I welcome the committee's report and its recommendations and ask it to keep in touch, in the constructive way that it has done so far, as we pursue this agenda over the months and years ahead.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer—the siren voice had lulled me into torpor.
It is my pleasure to wind up on behalf of the committee. Alex Neil, who took over as convener in the course of the inquiry, has asked that I extend thanks to all committee members and to the clerking staff for some very impressive and diligent work. In particular, I thank Ian Ritchie, who is with us this morning and who was invaluable as an adviser to the committee.
Yesterday, I was perhaps somewhat strident and grudging in my comments on the legislative programme. Today, however, I have pleasure in saying that I think that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report is an exemplar of what devolution can do. It represents a good piece of work by members from all political parties, who have been looking at issues and focusing on a topic of vital significance to Scotland, and who have come up with a very constructive report.
The report is evidence-based, and I do not think that the significance of that should be overlooked. It was interesting to note that, when we summarised our recommendations, various issues fell out of the report. They included strategy, broadband, the digital divide, competitiveness with regard to an interconnector, skills issues, business support, culture and e-government. None of those things is in any way unimportant.
The real touchstone of what we were doing was ignited when we decided to have an interface with the business community. As Alex Neil said, that was achieved last week. Facts are chiels that winna ding and the business community was very quick to tell us that. Alex Neil was absolutely right, because the only thing arising from the report that the business community wanted to speak to us about, direct our attention towards, and emphasise to us the need for action upon was broadband, broadband and broadband.
I would like to indicate briefly how that message was delivered by giving quotations from the business persons present. One said, "The new economy is more than making an old economy go faster. It is about the dynamics of skill that put us at the centre of the world." Others said, "Connectivity is the key to the future," and, "There is a danger of analysis paralysis—let us execute on priorities." Nick Kuenssberg said, "Broadband is like a new transport and communications infrastructure. It means pace. Pace is vital. We are talking about a 28-day year."
Those quotations put into context exactly what the nub of the report is about and exactly what the business community's message is. If we are to make meaningful progress, rather than just sitting back and talking about it and creating more words, we must come up with something, in conjunction with the Executive, that is workable, manageable and swiftly provided and which can take us on our next quantum leap forward.
The message of my winding-up speech is very simple. The primary, principal focus of everything that the report has produced is the provision of broadband. If I may say so, the Executive strategy's reference to speed, pace and the need for swift progress, which is being articulated by the business community, makes that strategy seem worthy. In many respects, it is worthy, and it is detailed. However, the business community would argue that it is plodding.
I return to what members of the business community had to say. I crave your indulgence for the use of language, Presiding Officer, but I am going to give you a quotation. The best conclusion that I can give is a quotation from Mike Hambly, who said, "There is a precedent in Scotland for delivery of essential innovatory facilities to all. Let's bloody do it."