Telegraph Poles: Birmingham

10 Dec 2024

Westminster Hall

ANALYSIS

Main Structure and Content of the Debate

The Westminster Hall debate focused on the issues surrounding the installation of telegraph poles in Birmingham, highlighting concerns over communication, infrastructure planning, and community engagement. Key arguments emphasized the need for adherence to regulations and the requirements of the Electronic Communications Code, while simultaneously recognizing the importance of broadband infrastructure expansion for technological and economic development.

Policy Terms, Legislation, and Technical Terminology

Electronic Communications Code Regulations 2003: Requires operators to share apparatus and use existing infrastructure.
Equality Act 2010: Ensures pathways remain accessible for those with disabilities.
Gigabit Broadband Rollout: A government initiative to enhance digital connectivity.

Named Entities (People, Organizations, Locations)

Preet Kaur Gill: Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston leading the debate.
Brsk: Telecommunications provider critiqued for not consulting locals and erecting unnecessary poles.
Lizzy Jordan: An activist resident in Birmingham Edgbaston.

Numerical Data and Statistics

3.8% Constituency Struggles: Birmingham Edgbaston has limited broadband speeds with some areas below 10 Mbps.
Top 10% Worst in the UK: Parts of Edgbaston ranked poorly in terms of superfast broadband coverage.

References to Acts, Amendments, and Procedures

Use of Permitted Development Rights: Discussed by various speakers as a mechanism used by telecom companies, often resulting in conflicts with community preferences.

Related Parliamentary Business

Consultations with Ofcom: Refer to ongoing engagements with the regulator to ensure checks on compliance.

Political Positions and Policy Stances

Balanced Regulation: Both regulatory enforcement and commercial flexibility were stressed. The governmental stance is not to put undue burden on commercial rollout unless essential for community interests.

Department Names and Governmental Bodies

Ofcom: Regulator playing a role in monitoring compliance.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS): Charged with overseeing digital infrastructure policy and engagement.

Key Dates and Timeframes

2016: Initial code of practice by the industry for pole and cabinet siting.

SPEAKER POINTS

Preet Kaur Gill (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston)

Main Arguments: Criticized lack of resident engagement by Brsk; stressed safety concerns regarding poles and the need for alternate broadband solutions.
Key Statements: "It should not take a well-organized community campaign and an active local MP to get a provider to meet its statutory duties."
Terminology & Keywords: "Digital Dark Spots," "Heritage Preservation," "Telecommunications Infrastructure."

Mark Garnier (Conservative, Wyre Forest)

Main Arguments: Raised concerns about potential misuse of permitted development rights.
Key Statements: "It is a cynical attempt by providers to build an infrastructure that provides capital value."

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda and Ogmore)

Main Arguments: Acknowledged the need for competitive rollout alongside sensitive placement of infrastructure.
Government Update: Provided feedback on industry efforts to revise guidance on pole siting.

Tahir Ali (Labour, Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley)

Main Arguments: Called for enforced compliance with existing infrastructure.
Key Contributions: Highlighted a conservation area where Brsk erected poles without adequate notification.

Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrats, Henley and Thame)

Main Arguments: Emphasized landscape considerations in infrastructure placement.
Propositions: Suggested community-funded underground solutions for aesthetic preservation.

Other Contributors

General Contributions: Highlighted how telecommunication advancements need tighter regulations to prevent community discontent and environmental impacts.

Conclusion:

While the debate centered on the specific issues within Birmingham, broader themes of regulation, community engagement, and infrastructure priorities were evident, indicating a concerted effort to balance technological advancement with community needs and regulatory enforcement.

Key Contributions

Original Transcript

Valerie Vaz

in the Chair

16:27

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

Valerie Vaz

in the Chair

16:40

Order. The debate may now continue until 5.08 pm.

Mark Garnier

Wyre Forest

Con

16:42

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

16:41

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.

Tahir Ali

Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley

Lab

16:44

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. We had similar issues with Brsk when it went on to an unadopted road in a conservation area and started erecting poles.

My constituents, Dr Carole McKeown —the secretary for Reddings and Amesbury Road residents association—and her neighbour came to see me.

Following the intervention of the Minister, Brsk has agreed to remove the poles, but the point remains that the consultation with and notification of the residents did not happen. These are not isolated incidents. Does my hon.

Friend agree that there needs to be tougher action against companies that go about their business without any adherence to the code of conduct?

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.

Tahir Ali

16:56

I thank the Minister for his intervention with Brsk and for getting the officers in for a chat with MPs last week, and I welcome what has happened since in my constituency.

Does he agree that where existing underground infrastructure is already available, companies should be forced to use that rather than erecting poles that no one really wants or likes?

Freddie van Mierlo

Henley and Thame

Does the Minister agree that the siting of poles is particularly important when we consider national landscapes? It needs to take into account the broader context.

Does he also agree that, where local communities are willing to engage with operators and local authorities to fund undergrounding, that would be a good approach?

← Lobular Breast Cancer Rural Cycling Infrastructure →

Terms Privacy Data Source

All content derived from official parliamentary records