Telegraph Poles: Birmingham

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The crux of the issue is that these companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. I will give some of many examples. Freedom of information requests to our local council revealed that Brsk did not need to put up poles on Clarendon Road in my constituency, because it could have utilised existing ducts—but it did so anyway, ignoring that fact. Vernon Road is another example; BT installed full-fibre to St Paul’s school for girls at that location without any requirement for poles, yet a constituent came to my surgery on Friday to tell me that another pole had gone up, with a notice on the council’s planning portal appearing only after the pole had been erected. That is even after the Minister’s meeting with Brsk.

I have met Brsk and exchanged exhaustive correspondence on these issues. What has struck me in my dealings with the firm is the lack of policy or strategy for work in my constituency. Poles are supposed to be a last resort, but even where they are not needed, like on Vernon Road, several go up anyway. There are now four on that road. Frequently, when issues are raised, they are not listened to. I asked Brsk for a map of where it is planning to roll out poles in my constituency, and it could not give me one. There is either a plan that it will not share or there really is no strategic focus on where the infrastructure is needed.

My constituents have had similar experiences. An elderly constituent wrote to me earlier this year, deeply worried that a Brsk telegraph pole on an adjoining road, installed less than a metre from her back garden fence, was so close that it could easily provide burglars with access to her property. She told me she lives in perpetual fear that her house could be broken into. More importantly, that was avoidable. Had Brsk simply made an effort to engage first with residents about changes in their community, she would not have been left in that situation.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. She makes a powerful point on behalf of her constituents. In my constituency, we have a similar situation in Stourport-on-Severn, where firms are using permitted development rights in areas where residents are not even allowed to put up a garden fence because of planning approvals. Does she agree that it is a cynical attempt by many of these providers to build an infrastructure that provides capital value that can be sold on? That is less to do with delivering full-fibre broadband than with making money in the short term for those operators.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank the hon. Member for that important point about the business model. There are alternative ways to implement the infrastructure. In areas like his, this activity does not respect the environment, heritage or planning laws, and we end up with poles erected. Some of them do not even have any lines going through them, which just goes to show that the existing infrastructure meant there was no need for that, but, as he says, it is clearly quite a lucrative business model to sell on the new infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

It is a great delight to sit under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this debate. I think she knows that she is one of my favourite MPs; we have canvassed together often in variety of places, so it is a great delight to hear from her.

My hon. Friend speaks of being an active constituency MP, and that is precisely what she has evidenced. She is not alone on this issue. The list of MPs who want to talk to me about ducts and poles is quite long, because a lot of people are concerned. They fully understand, as she has laid out, that we want to roll out better infrastructure. If we are going to have the digital economy that we want for the future and if we are to compete with other countries around the world, we certainly have to get digital infrastructure rolled out. Obviously, the Government are not going to pay for all of that—that would be a very big ticket item—so we want as much of this as possible to happen on a commercial basis, and I will refer in a moment to the comments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the business model that people may be adopting.

We also do not want to have a single operator delivering for the whole country, which is why it is important to have a degree of competition. When I was in opposition, I was very opposed to the idea of monopoly in provision through Openreach or, for that matter, any other player simply because monopoly does not tend to be good for consumers. It tends also to make an incumbent lazy, and it can lead to anti-competitive practices.

For all those reasons, we have ended up with the system that we have, and we want to roll out gigabit-capable broadband to as much of the country as possible. The Government will intervene in the areas where that will not happen commercially, but I say to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston that we have to be a bit careful about saying, “It’s disgraceful that these people are making money”, because if they did not make money, they would not be rolling it out on a commercial basis and then we might have to intervene a great deal more in the market. But there is a countervailing argument: if operators behave in a way that lacks compassion or sensitivity to the local situation, it is extremely unlikely that anybody in that local community is going to buy their products, so it could destroy their commercial agendas and business strategies if they are so high-handed in their approaches to local communities when it comes to the siting of poles and so on.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister for his letter, which was incredibly helpful; I am grateful to him for engaging on this. The point I was making was not that the business model is about a cash flow revenue coming from the delivery of broadband, but that some of these businesses are cynically creating a capital asset that they then want to sell off. It is the infrastructure asset, not the cash flow, that they are after. That is where we get this competition of people building out the poles to create a capital value asset, not a cash flow value asset.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know whether that is right or not, so I will reserve judgment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. It is certainly true that there may be some consolidation in the market in the next 18 months to two years. Some people have been expecting that before now. Whether that would apply to Brsk or not, I have not the faintest idea, but the point remains that, if these organisations are to have a successful business model, in the end they do need to be able to sell take-up.

One thing that is missing from this whole conversation is an explanation to the public of why on earth anybody might need fibre. Notwithstanding the areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston where they do not even have 10 megabits per second, which I hope we might be able to do something about in the near future, lots of people say, “Well, I’ve already got 100 megabits per second, so why on earth would I need a gigabit per second? Incidentally, I don’t know what a megabit per second is anyway.” In that world, we have to do a great deal more education about what the future is going to look like. It is certainly true that all the apps and the IT that the country and the Government are increasingly relying on are increasingly hungry for bandwidth; there is no way of avoiding that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we need to develop this infrastructure.

This Government have been very clear, and the previous Government were relatively clear, that we wanted this infrastructure to progress in a way that was sensitive to local communities. That meant that we had to have proper consultation and to be careful about the siting of poles. We wanted to encourage co-operation and collaboration between different players in the market, so that roads were not dug up two years in a row or three months after the last company dug it up, for example. All that was laid out in the original guidance in 2016. Incidentally, that guidance was provided not by the Government but by the industry. This is an important point: the industry is currently looking at revising that code. It is very close to a revised version. I do not think that that is quite ready yet, but I anticipate that it might come in the new year.

The simple point that I have made repeatedly to all the operators in this field is that if they want people to take up their service and buy their product, they have to take people with them. At our meeting with Brsk last week, Brsk made it clear that if all the members of a community, especially one cut off from everywhere else and not on the way to another place, said, “Look, we don’t want this,” it would work out that there was no point putting in poles, digging up the road or whatever, because there would not be any take-up of its services from that community in future. It would simply say, “All right, fine. We’re not going there.”

As I say, the difficulty lies where one road leads—as is often the case—to another, and the people on the next bit of road still want the roll-out even if the people on the first bit do not.