Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Official Report 634KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Access to Broadband (Rural Scotland) (PE1703)

Under item 4, the committee will consider petition PE1703 from Hugh MacLellan, on behalf of Laid grazings and community committee, on access to broadband in rural Scotland. Do any members wish to comment on the petition?

I support the comments that are made in the petition. The petitioner cites the village of Laid as an example of somewhere that does not have broadband. However, the briefing paper says:

“The Scottish Government’s response indicates the new fibre cable through the village of Laid was installed as part of the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband (DSSB) programme”.

Can we ask BT whether the cable can be accessed or whether it just runs through the village and no one can use it? I would like to know more.

I think that that information is in the paper. My understanding is that the cable is there but that it is not commercially viable for others to use it.

Surely the question is, why not? A cable is like a gas main. If a gas main runs through a village, surely people can access it. If a cable runs through a village, why can they not access it? I see some members shaking their heads.

I will not even attempt to answer whether it is commercially viable, but I take that point, and perhaps we can suggest an outcome.

My starting point is that the petition should be kept open. We should not contemplate closing it at this meeting, because, although that kind of telecoms is a UK Government responsibility, in practical terms the delivery vehicle is the Scottish Government. The £600 million for the reaching 100 per cent programme to support rural areas is exactly the same amount of money that the UK Government spent on wiring up the whole of the rest of the UK. There is a commitment to do it.

The appropriate time to consider closing the petition will be when information becomes available about when people in those areas—and, I hasten to add, in premises like my own—will be able to ask for and receive delivery of the fibre-enabled service or, even better, direct fibre to their premises. Until that information is available, it would not be appropriate to close this perfectly proper and reasonable petition.

I have a few comments to make. The first is that it is entirely appropriate for this committee to consider the petition, given the committee’s remit. I agree with Mr Stevenson that the petition should be kept open, in the light of the lack of clarity about some of the timetabling. However, I believe that the cabinet secretary who is responsible for the matter will give evidence to the committee, which may provide further information that will help the petitioner.

I also think that the petition should not be closed at the point at which that information is available. It would be far more beneficial if the petition were closed when some of the real-time information was available around the accessibility of superfast broadband to households and businesses. Within the wording of the petition, there is some debate about what constitutes “superfast” and whether “before 2021” means by 2021 or by the end of 2021. There might therefore be some issues to consider around the wording of what the petition is calling for. Nonetheless, it seems quite appropriate, sensible and wise to keep it open until the committee has further information.

11:45  

I am keen to keep this petition open, as I think that there is an important principle here. Rural communities are, more often than not, the ones that are forced to play catch-up when it comes to the roll-out of broadband. Indeed, whatever the initiative is, rural communities are always left behind, and they are often the economies that face the most challenges. If we are serious about inclusive growth, the 2021 date for the roll-out of R100 should be seen as the very last date, and rural communities should not be expected to fall behind cities. Communities in rural areas deserve to be heard when they are at a competitive disadvantage compared with cities in the roll-out of broadband. I am, therefore, keen to keep the petition open as the R100 plans are developed.

Members might be surprised to learn where there is good connectivity and where there is not. Mr Stevenson touched on that, and I think that it would be appropriate to write to the relevant UK Government minister, given that it is a UK matter. The Scottish Government has built a severe rod for its own back on the issue, and I would like to hear what the UK Government minister with responsibility for this issue has to say.

We have already heard from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government has moved to the end of 2021 the date by which R100 will reach every business and household, but I notice that the petition is asking for that to happen before 2021. That is 12 months’ difference. For a lot of businesses, 12 months is an important period. I am sure that businesses throughout rural Scotland are looking forward to receiving that level of broadband coverage, but the issue of when they can expect it is crucial. That is a major issue that we need to delve into further. Can the target be brought back to what the original target was—that is, before 2021?

I am keen to keep the petition open.

There are a number of community broadband initiatives. Could some work be done to find out whether those have been explored and, if not, why not?

I thought that we heard previously that a lot of those initiatives are now not being taken up because of the commitment. Why would a community invest a huge amount of money in such projects when they know what is coming down the track, even if there is still a question about when it will arrive? That is why those initiatives have stalled.

On the cabling that goes through the village, it is clear that R100 bidders will be given access to it. That is my reading of the papers.

I will summarise what I am hearing from around the table and ask whether members agree with my proposal for taking the issue forward. The cabinet secretary will announce the preferred bidders at the end of September, which means that there will be a time, probably towards the end of October, when it will be appropriate for this committee to ask him to explain what is happening in relation to the R100 project and when it is going to be delivered. A lot of the questions have been around delivery times, which is what the petition is concerned with. My proposal is to keep the petition open and to decide what further action to take once the cabinet secretary has come before us—which will be roughly at the end of October, although that depends on when we can find a slot for him to attend a meeting. Do committee members agree to that proposal in principle?

I do not disagree, but my point at the very start was that, if there is a BT cable running through the village, we have to ask BT why it is not supplying superfast broadband to every house and business. BT is on the radio all the time, saying, “Get superfast broadband. Get extra into the room” and all that jazz. Let us ask BT why the petitioner cannot get superfast broadband.

I suggest that we ask the minister that question on access, because it is not just this community that is affected—it is lots of others.

We have to ask the company.

That is a red herring. I have said before that the cable comes past the front door of my house at Kildrummie but I cannot access it. The situation is the same. It is very simple: there is no access off the cable. It is a completely different matter, and I am afraid that it is a red herring.

I suggest that we take up those matters—along with the concerns of everyone else with cables near their house—with the minister who is responsible when he talks to the committee about the R100 programme. It will be a problem across Scotland.

With respect, we are not getting the full answer if we do not ask BT. Over the years, many companies have had hundreds of millions of pounds to invest in different types of cable such as copper and fibre—you name it—under the pavements. We should ask BT what it is doing about the situation that Mike Rumbles has highlighted.

Do other members of the committee share Mr Lyle’s point of view? I am very happy to put the matter to a vote, if Mr Lyle would like that.

Surely not, convener. I am asking that we seek information from a company that is making millions of pounds from people for their broadband. Why can those people not get access to a cable that goes through their village? Surely, you will not put that to a vote.

I have made a suggestion to the committee, and you seem to be the one member who is not happy with it. Are other committee members happy with my suggestion to keep the petition open and pursue the matter with the cabinet secretary when he comes before us?

I do not think that Mr Lyle’s request is unreasonable. It is about technical information. Mr Rumbles has given us an example, and I know someone whose property abuts the line to the Faroe Islands but they cannot get into it. It is not unreasonable to ask about the technicalities of the location, which might inform our decision.

Surely, we already know about that. We have gone over that ground in committee over many months. The reason that we cannot get access to lines that run in front of our households or whatever is that those are major cables, with no green boxes immediately around. The cable runs past properties but there are no distribution points. It is as simple as that.

The case is being laid out, and the Scottish Government’s response is quite detailed. It says that the cable was laid as part of the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme and was spread out over the community for 4km. I fear that we would probably get the same answer from BT as we have got from the Scottish Government.

I make the technical point that, although fibre cable is a quarter of the price of copper cable, putting a tap—the technical term—on to fibre cable is very expensive. It is much more expensive than putting one on to copper cable. The minimum cost when there are about 50 households is £4,000 per household. The reason that it has not been done is that funding has not yet been provided to do it—it is not about anything other than that.

If we want to know more about the technology—how to put the tap on and what the constraints are—we can ask about that, but it will not be particularly helpful in informing the committee’s decision making. At the end of the day, it is up to us to ensure that the Government provides the funding and the programme that gets it done.

I am sorry for continuing to labour the point, but, if a cable has been laid and people are saying that they cannot access it, we have to ask what the cause of that is. We cannot wait for a cable to come up in a year’s time or whatever—there is a cable already there.

I am sorry, Stewart, but I never take no for an answer. I want to know why. We should be asking why people like Mike Rumbles and others cannot get access to something that passes right by their front doors. I am not going to shake my head; I am going to ask why.

I suggest that we move forward by agreeing to my suggestion of taking the matter up with the cabinet secretary.

I will write to BT myself.

It is entirely appropriate for you to do so, Mr Lyle. Let us discuss that afterwards. I suggest that we take up the matter with the cabinet secretary. When we question the cabinet secretary on the issue, we will raise the matter of local broadband cables and how R100 will be delivered by cables that have been laid by other providers. Is the committee happy to move forward on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.