“Superfast broadband for Scotland: A progress report”
Agenda item 4 is consideration of a response from the Scottish Government to a letter from the committee regarding the AGS report on broadband. Do members have any comments? [Interruption.] Can I have some order, colleagues? We are on agenda item 4, and I have invited comments on the letter that we have received from the Government. If colleagues want to hold conversations, can they do so outside, please?
I have had a look through the response. Superfast broadband is obviously a very important issue that is not going to go away, but we have probably achieved as much as we can at this point. The committee has done some good work on the subject. I think that we should note the Government’s response and come to an understanding of when the best time would be to return to the issue. The broadband programme will go on for several more years and we need to be sure that the implementation is going well and that we are getting good value for the considerable amount of money that the Government is putting in. I suggest that we talk to Audit Scotland about it at some point.
First, I apologise for interrupting; I had not realised that the meeting had resumed. I was continuing a discussion about agriculture.
Mary Scanlon and I found out that the role of community broadband Scotland is very limited, because BT will not provide clarity on which areas will be invested in and which will not. Therefore, Colin Beattie is absolutely right. It would be helpful if Audit Scotland were to continue to look closely at the issue. We will do what we can as individual representatives, but we could do with Audit Scotland keeping up the pressure.
I agree with colleagues, but it struck me when I read the clerk’s paper that there is probably a planning aspect to the issue, which Audit Scotland might want to consider. When new facilities are built, through regeneration projects or whatever, consideration needs to be given to linking them to the broadband network. A constituent has contacted me about a new facility that does not have a superfast broadband connection, so there is probably a planning locus here, too.
I read the Government’s response, which was as expected. It responded to all the questions, but it remains the case that there is uncertainty about the future. On Mull, Tavish Scott and I heard that people’s businesses are being affected; broadband is not just for friends to keep in touch by email. The islands are a huge tourism area, and it is difficult for tourism to be promoted there in the way that it can be promoted elsewhere.
The most disappointing thing is that, although a great deal of work has been done in a group of islands, which has taken a huge amount of time, BT cannot give a date for when it will introduce better superfast broadband. When I asked one chap about it, he wanted to know why, after three years of going to meetings and taking ferries around the islands, BT could not just say, “We’ll bring it in tomorrow.”
I think that the Government has answered as best it can; the response is fine. The Government has taken some time to address the issues, but I agree with Colin Beattie that we need to keep a very watchful eye on the issue, because we are hampered by BT’s lack of certainty about the future. I still cannot believe that it cannot come up with a better way of working with communities and provide some certainty, so that better planning—which Stuart McMillan referred to—can be done for the future. That would seem to be the best way forward.
The consumer is losing out in this debate. I receive feedback that constituents are frustrated. Stuart McMillan makes a good point about new-build developments, in which people are advised in the sales cabin not to worry, because they will get superfast broadband up to whatever speed they need. People are promised the earth in those sales cabins, and the providers have to pick up on that, but I am not convinced by them. Where I live, every week we get literature through the door that says Virgin or BT can do something. However, when we contact Virgin, it says that it does not provide a service in that area and, in fact, it is not interested in coming into the area because it would not be economically feasible to do that.
BT has gaps in various areas and people are advised that they are too far away from the exchange. They are told that things are in the pipeline, but they have been told that for the past three or four years.
Those companies receive significant public subsidy for the work that they do, but I am not convinced that we get the payback that we should for that investment. The market dictates the pace—the providers are doing that. The Government needs to be willing to take the issue forward.
Significant sums of money are being invested across the UK. If we were investing that money in supermarkets and gave Tesco £100 million to give people free food, Tesco would do very well out of it. This is a similar case. We are giving the providers money to provide infrastructure, and I am not convinced that we get back what we should.
We are moving away from discussing the report; I am, too. The AGS had quite a specific remit for her report. We have commented on it, but I say with a heavy heart that we can take the report only so far.
I want to clarify that my comments were on the planning system, not planning per se. They were mostly about the planning system and any potential planning gain for developments.
I am absolutely with you, convener. There are two sides to the issue. We need to keep an eye on this, because large sums of public money are being spent. We need to encourage the Auditor General to look at that regularly; I suspect that that should happen annually, but someone may come up with another number.
We need to ensure that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee—or whatever it is called in the next parliamentary session—looks at the policy behind the issue. It is not within our remit, but it is very firmly in that committee’s remit.
The convener mentioned getting things through the door that say that this, that or the other supplier will do things. Tens of thousands of my constituents would not get such leaflets, because they are too far away. Nobody would ever pretend that they will ever get fast broadband.
I will take Colin Beattie, then Richard Simpson.
I am Colin Keir, convener.
I am sorry.
Thank you.
I totally agree with a lot that has been said. Stuart McMillan talked about planning. A lot of the regional plans do not take in the infrastructure—they just tell us where building is taking place. If business is still to be considered in areas of high development, that is the sort of thing that we need to know, along with who is paying for it and all the rest of it.
A perfect example can be seen outside Edinburgh. As soon as you pass Edinburgh airport you fall off a cliff, in terms of broadband provision. People in Kirkliston have been screaming out for broadband. Lack of broadband is killing business there and Kirkliston is only a matter of minutes from Edinburgh. The problem does not just affect places like the islands or wherever.
I must watch my language, but we need to ensure that there are no more mess-ups like there were in Edinburgh or Aberdeenshire—I think that it was somewhere like that. There was going to be broadband provision there but it fell foul of state-aid rules.
What the UK Government and Scottish Government are doing, BT’s plans and the planning system all need to be considered together.
I agree with much of what has been said. It seems that the promises that are made are not being fulfilled. Broadband speeds often fluctuate with the volume of users who are on. There can be very good speeds at one point of the day, while at another point there can be almost no service. There is a capacity issue.
When people in Japan talk about superfast broadband, they are talking about 1GB, not 100MB or, as we are talking about, up to 84MB—that is not superfast. That is moderately decent. Given the amount of streaming that is coming online, such levels will not meet the next generation’s demand.
We should not only tell the Infrastructure and Capital Investment committee that we will keep a close eye on what is happening, but ask it whether our investment will future proof our infrastructure and keep us competitive. If we do not have gigabyte speed, particularly for our businesses, we will not be a successful country.
Do we agree to note the submission and to refer the report and evidence to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. As agreed, the committee will move into private for the remaining items.
11:25 Meeting continued in private until 12:59.Previous
Section 22 Report