Select committee inquiry
Improving Broadband
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“In 2010, the government announced its aim for the UK to have the “best superfast broadband network in Europe”, and set up the Superfast Programme to subsidise broadband roll out to areas where it is not commercially viable for providers to reach. In a report published in mid-October, the NAO finds that despite wide coverage , many people in the UK still experience poor broadband. Suppliers to the Superfast Programme were encouraged to prioritise roll out to the easiest to reach premises, which means there is a risk that those in the most rural and remote locations will be left further behind. Rural coverage of superfast broadband is now at 80%, compared to 97% in urban areas, and is the lowest in rural Northern Ireland, at just 66%. The existing broadband infrastructure has been put to the test by COVID-19, with concern that the pandemic has exacerbated the rural-urban divide. So far, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) has prioritised increasing broadband coverage over speed. While superfast broadband is fast enough for most household use today, internet use is rising by 40% each year driven largely by video streaming and the focus is now on ensuring that the UK has a broadband network that will meet future demand. In 2018, to meet future demands of consumers and businesses, the government announced a new policy for the UK’s telecoms industry to provide infrastructure capable of faster gigabit speeds to 50% of premises by 2025, and nationwide by 2033. At present only 27% of UK premises are covered by gigabit-capable infrastructure. Only 14% can access full-fibre - one of the lowest rates in Europe. The government later committed to accelerating this target and achieving nationwide coverage by 2025. It is still finalising plans for its £5 billion Future Programme, supporting delivery to the hardest to reach 20% of premises, and has much work still to do and little time to do it by its own deadlines. The NAO says Government should set out whether the Future Programme will prioritise the hardest to reach premises first. Delivering these targets will require the telecommunications industry to reach approximately 31 million premises and lay around half a million kilometres of cable. This would require an estimated four-fold increase in building rates, which will be difficult to achieve in the hardest to reach areas. The final 1% of premises could be too expensive to include in the Future Programme at all – for these premises, alternative solutions to gigabit broadband will have to be found. The Committee will question senior officials at DCMS on how Government intends to reach its targets for the UK’s digital connectivity and ensure the UK has a “future proof” digital infrastructure. If you have evidence on the questions and issues raised in this inquiry please submit it here by 6.00pm Wednesday 4 November.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Thirty-fifth Report - Improving Broadband ↗
More than ever, people rely on fast and reliable broadband for work, entertainment and accessing goods and services. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport’s (the Department) Superfast Broadband Programme has helped to extend superfast broadband coverage to harder-to-reach areas over the past decade. More than 95% of UK premises can now access broadband speeds of at least 30 Mbps and, according to Ofcom, the country’s infrastructure has held up well to unprecedented internet demand during the covid-19 pandemic. But 1.6 million UK premises, mainly in rural areas, cannot yet access superfast speeds and, as the Department turns its attention to upgrading the UK’s broadband connectivity again, there is a risk that rural areas will be left even further behind.
After we took oral evidence from the Department on 9th November 2020, we felt it was clear that Government’s 2019 election pledge to deliver nationwide gigabit (1000Mbps)
broadband connectivity by 2025 was unachievable. Since then the government has accepted that. On 25 November it published, alongside the November 2020 Spending Review, a revised target of at least 85% by 2025 but will seek to accelerate rollout to get as close to 100% as possible and has committed less than a quarter of the £5 billion funding needed for the Department’s programme to support roll-out to the hardest to reach 20% of premises. This is still a challenging target and increases the risk that the very hardest to reach premises will be struggling with slow broadband for many years to come. We are concerned that the Department has yet to make any meaningful progress in delivering the policy and legislative changes deemed essential by industry if it is to achieve rapid roll-out. It is still developing its £5 billion programme to subsidise roll-out to the hardest to reach 20% of the UK’s 31 million premises and could not tell us when it intends to deliver major milestones, such as the letting of contracts. We are increasingly concerned that those in rural areas may have to pay more, and may reach gigabit broadband speeds late. Given the impact of covid-19, the Department must do more to protect those with limited access to the internet. We remain unconvinced that, if and when rural users finally do get gigabit broadband, they will enjoy the same choice of service provider and the same protections as their urban counterparts.
What the government said
The government responded on 26 March 2021.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it "agrees with the Committee's recommendation" on each of the six recommendations, with target implementation dates mostly of Spring or Summer 2021.
- On timelines, the government says the overall delivery profile will be incorporated into the Programme Business Case, "due to be submitted for approval in Summer 2021", and that it "will publish progress against the programme's milestones regularly".
- On the 2025 target, it "expects that by 2025 at least 85% of premises will have access to gigabit-capable connections" and will work with industry to get "as close to 100% as possible".
- On barriers to rollout, it says it "will publish an update on its Barrier Busting work shortly". The outcome of the technical consultation on Huawei equipment in full fibre networks will be announced "in due course".
- On pricing and competition, proposed contracts include annual wholesale price benchmarking, and where pricing is "deemed too high against market benchmarks" suppliers will be required to revise it. It adds that Ofcom "has the regulatory powers" to address network monopolies in more commercial areas.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 20 October 2020 to 29 November 2021.
- Oral evidence 9 Nov 2020
- Report 8 Jan 2021
- Government response 26 Mar 2021
- Correspondence 29 Nov 2021
What it recommended 5 recommendations · 17 conclusions
2The Department has failed to make meaningful progress to tackle the barriers faced by operators...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department has failed to make meaningful progress to tackle the barriers faced by operators in maximising gigabit connectivity by 2025. At the time we took evidence in early November, the Department expected that state aid rules would be a domestic matter from 2021 onwards and EU approval would no longer be required. However, it had not assessed the potential impact were this not to happen in practice. It has yet to secure the legislative and policy changes that industry deems necessary to address major barriers to delivering gigabit infrastructure at pace. Responsibility for addressing many of these barriers, including changes to planning regulations, business rates treatment of fibre and requirements for new build properties, are spread across other parts of government and we got no assurance that they are being addressed urgently. Suppliers believe that legislation recently introduced to enable easier access to properties while welcome addresses only part of the problem. The Department is not clear about the potential for delay or for cost escalation if these barriers are not addressed before suppliers start work. It is also vague on the potential costs and delays from removing telecommunications equipment supplied by Huawei. Recommendation: The Department should identify which risks and barriers have the greatest potential to add delay and cost to the programme and provide a clear plan for how and when they will be addressed and the impact on time and schedule if they are not addressed.
3The Department is not clear how, in a centralised procurement model, it will retain the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department is not clear how, in a centralised procurement model, it will retain the people, skills and knowledge in local authorities that were critical to success in the superfast programme. The Department recognises that although it now intends to undertake procurement directly, it will still need the commitment and expertise accumulated previously within local authorities to support delivery 6 Improving Broadband under the gigabit programme. The Local Government Association has called for additional annual funding of £30 million for digital champions to co-ordinate delivery at a local level and to provide the additional capacity needed within highways and planning teams to support an accelerated pace of activity. The Department cannot give any reassurance that local authorities will get additional funding to retain their expert resources at a time when local government finances are under severe pressure from the pandemic. Recommendation: The Department should set out in its Treasury Minute response to this report, what steps it is taking to support the retention of knowledge, skills and delivery expertise in local authorities so that the change in approach does not cause delays to the future programme.
4he Department has been unable to show how it has learnt lessons from the superfast...
Recommended (the committee's words)
he Department has been unable to show how it has learnt lessons from the superfast programme into the detailed design of the gigabit programme. The Department’s objectives for its superfast programme were unspecific and delivery of the 95% broadband coverage target by 2017 sat largely with suppliers rather than being within the Department’s control. With full-fibre and gigabit coverage at 14%and 27% respectively on publication of the NAO’s report, which is behind other European countries, the Department is some way off its superfast programme objective to be “the best in Europe”. While the Department agrees that it needs to have clear objectives in place at the time of launching the subsidised element of its gigabit programme, we are not reassured that its new programme objectives will be any better. It is unacceptable that, once again, the Department has set a nationwide target for coverage (now revised from 100% to 85% by 2025), yet it has not published a realistic strategy for rolling it out, and has limited control over the levers necessary to achieve it. Indeed, the Department is relying on suppliers to deliver to 80% of UK premises without government subsidy. We are also concerned that the Department has not learned lessons about where to target areas for subsidy. The Department estimates that of the £1.9 billion public funding for the Superfast Programme, £0.9 billion is due to be repaid, which suggests that the subsidy was often not targeted at the areas in greatest need. It can take up to seven years before the amounts to be returned are calculated and repaid by suppliers. Recommendation: As the Department finalises its approach to its gigabit programme it should set out how it is incorporating the lessons learned from the superfast programme including: • Setting out clear programme specific objectives for the subsidised part of the future gigabit programme (the £5bn programme) • How it intends to improve its targeting to ensure it covers only those areas i
5he Department is yet again failing to prioritise consumers in rural areas.
Recommended (the committee's words)
he Department is yet again failing to prioritise consumers in rural areas. The Department says that it intends to take an ‘outside-in’ approach to the roll-out of gigabit capable broadband, focussing on those areas that currently do not have access to superfast so that they do not remain left behind. But the most difficult- Improving Broadband 7 to-reach premises are not neatly grouped together, and the Department is not yet clear on how it will prioritise its interventions to ensure that they are served. The data available to help determine roll-out priorities is patchy and of variable quality. The Department acknowledges it is reliant on a good dataset but is not clear when it expects to have this in place. We had significant concerns that in the event of delays to the programme, the Department would look to deliver to as many premises as possible in a bid to meet its ambitious timetable. In this case, those people who currently lack superfast broadband would once more go to the back of the queue. Government’s announcements since our oral evidence session, reframing the target to 85% coverage by 2025 and not allocating three-quarters of the £5 billion allocation until after 2024–25, heighten these concerns. This suggests that many consumers, particularly those in rural and remote areas, will have to wait until well beyond 2025 for gigabit broadband speeds and may not even get superfast speeds before then. Recommendation: The Department should set out how it will establish which properties do not yet have superfast broadband, how reliable the data it will use to identify them is, and when they can expect to receive gigabit capable broadband.
6The Department cannot provide certainty to consumers that they will have a choice of internet...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department cannot provide certainty to consumers that they will have a choice of internet provider or be protected from overcharging should they become tied to the sole supplier in an area. The Department wants to encourage greater competition in the telecommunications infrastructure market, but in areas that need subsidy, smaller alternative suppliers may gain dominant positions by default through lack of wider commercial interest. The Department believes that provisions for wholesale access in the gigabit programme contracts should ensure that all internet service providers have access to subsidised networks. However, such access may not be taken up if the most popular internet providers find it commercially unattractive to offer their services over a patchwork of different networks each serving a low number of premises. Some consumers, particularly in rural areas, may not be able to sign up with their service provider of choice and may end up paying more for their services. The Department claims price control provisions should ensure that providers cannot price beyond what is reasonably comparable in a given area, but it is not clear how it will define an area nor how price controls will work. Recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Department should set out how it plans to work with Ofcom, suppliers and industry bodies to ensure that all consumers will have a choice of service providers and are protected from overcharging, in particular where they become tied to a monopoly supplier. 8 Improving Broadband 1 Delivering the future programme
1On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence...
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on improving broadband.1
7We pointed out to the Department that a year has passed since the general election...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We pointed out to the Department that a year has passed since the general election pledge and with 2021 fast approaching, the level of roll-out would have to be extraordinarily quick to achieve nationwide gigabit connectivity by 2025.13 The Department acknowledged that 2025 was “a very challenging target to meet” requiring it to “strain every sinew to make that happen” but was not prepared to admit that it would not meet it.14 Since we took oral evidence, government has dropped the 2025 date for nationwide gigabit coverage and, in its National Infrastructure Strategy (NIS) published in November 2020, has announced a revised target to reach “a minimum of 85% gigabit capable coverage by 2025”. The NIS says that government will seek to accelerate roll-out to get as close to 100% as possible but there is no date for achieving 100%.15
8The National Audit Office’s report called for the Department to present a detailed plan and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office’s report called for the Department to present a detailed plan and schedule identifying how it will meet the timeline.16 But when we pressed for a broad timetable or indicative dates for the essential steps towards achieving the target, the Department stated that it was awaiting Ministerial approvals. The Department repeatedly declined to provide any firm answers on when these approvals would be forthcoming or when it expected to determine the sequencing of events, beyond stating this would be “as quickly as possible.”17 We were unable to elicit any more detailed information about how long the Department estimates the contracting process to take, nor its view on the latest date by which it believes contracts would need to be in place for installation work to start.18
9The Department describes the £5 billion it has budgeted for its gigabit programme as ‘critical’.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department describes the £5 billion it has budgeted for its gigabit programme as ‘critical’. It said that it was continuing as if the programme would gain approval from HM Treasury and expected the funding to be confirmed at the forthcoming spending review.19 We asked whether the spending review was a risk for the programme and the Department acknowledged that the outcome of the spending review was not yet clear but told us it did not expect there to be any change in the government’s commitment to investing in 8 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2020, CP 330, November 2020 9 Spending Review 2020, paras 3.5 & 6.86; table 6.22 10 Spending Review 2020, table C.6 note 2 11 HM Treasury, National Infrastructure Strategy, CP 329, November 2020 12 National Infrastructure Strategy 2020, p. 31 13 Q 40 14 Qq 54–57, 117 15 National Infrastructure Strategy 2020, p. 31 16 C&AG’s Report para 24, recommendation f 17 Qq 41–45, 111–114 18 Qq 60–66, 115–125 19 Qq 52–53, 74 10 Improving Broadband gigabit.20 Since we took oral evidence, the Department has received a four-year settlement totalling less than one quarter of the £5 billion it says it needs to reach most of the final 20% of premises.21 Progress in tackling barriers
10The Department explained that it was focussed on removing barriers to rapid roll out, such...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department explained that it was focussed on removing barriers to rapid roll out, such as the cost of streetworks or a planning system that prevents telecoms operators from getting access to premises, by working with other government departments and through legislation and regulation.22 The National Audit Office’s report included state aid as one such barrier and said that the process of securing state aid approval to provide subsidy to suppliers can take 12–24 months to complete.23 We asked the Department to set out the latest position following its submission of non-binding proposals on state aid to the European Union in late 2019. The Department told us that it expected to be able to deal with state aid as a domestic matter after the end of the transition period in December 2020.24 It said that it regarded the possibility of remaining subject to EU rules after that time as a hypothetical scenario, for which it had not prepared a contingency plan, but believed that if necessary, the process could be speeded up.25
11We asked about progress towards resolving the barriers which industry has repeatedly said need to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked about progress towards resolving the barriers which industry has repeatedly said need to be addressed if it is to progress the commercial roll-out to reach 80% of UK premises by 2025. The Department said that it is working on this, but Openreach told us that the legislation introduced by the Department so far on access to property is insufficient to “meaningfully tackle the numerous barriers;” for example they told us that it does not address landlords that seek excessive costs.26 Given its responsibility for broadband policy, we pressed the Department on how vigorously it was pursuing the removal of barriers where responsibility rests with another part of government, including changes to planning regulations and the business rate treatment of fibre.27 The Department stated that it was working with the Department for Transport on streetworks, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning, but declined to offer any view or reassurance that the matters are being urgently pursued.28
12The National Audit Office report stated that the requirement to remove equipment supplied by high...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office report stated that the requirement to remove equipment supplied by high risk vendors from telecoms networks puts the schedule at risk.29 The Department conceded that this might cause a delay to the future programme and that it was consulting with industry on precise implications, but was not able to provide any indication of the possible length of that delay or impact on the roll-out.30 20 Qq 52–53, 93–96 21 Spending Review 2020, paras 3.5 & 6.86; table 6.22 22 Q 59 23 C&AG’s report para 2.8 24 Q 29 25 Qq 30–34 26 Qq 69–70; IBB0005 - Openreach, para 7 27 Qq 68, 71 28 Qq 59, 71–74 29 C&AG’s Report, para 2.11 30 Qq 98–107 Improving Broadband 11 Retaining skills and knowledge in local authorities
13The National Audit Office report sets out how the Department intends to adopt a centralised...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office report sets out how the Department intends to adopt a centralised procurement for its gigabit programme, even though it considered the partnership approach that it used under the Superfast Programme to have been very successful. The report said that the knowledge and experience of local bodies had been critical to supporting delivery and overcoming obstacles during the superfast programme.31 The Department told us that although it intended to undertake the procurement directly under the future programme, it needs the continued involvement and expertise of Local Authorities and it is important to retain their skills and records of where and by whom broadband infrastructure has been installed with a public subsidy by participating in the Superfast Programme as outlined in paragraph 3.3 of the NAO report.32
14In its evidence to us the Local Government Association (LGA) called for additional annual funding...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In its evidence to us the Local Government Association (LGA) called for additional annual funding of £30 million for digital champions in Local Authorities. The LGA expects digital champions to co-ordinate delivery at a local level and to provide additional capacity, for example, in highways and planning teams to support an accelerated pace of delivery.33 While the Department acknowledged that Local Authorities face significant financial pressures at the moment, not least from dealing with the current pandemic, it declined to say whether it thought the requested funding necessary to retain staff and it could offer no reassurance on what additional funding it is seeking to support them.34 The National Audit Office report stated that in extreme circumstances, a Local Authority may have to fall back to supporting only the legal minimum services it is obliged to provide.35 The Department could not say what assessment it has made of the risk to delivery of the future programme if Local Authorities are faced with this situation.36 Learning lessons from superfast
15The National Audit Office’s report said that it had been difficult to assess the Superfast...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office’s report said that it had been difficult to assess the Superfast Programme’s performance because it lacked programme-specific measures against which to judge success. It explained that the Department’s coverage targets, for example, to reach 95% of UK premises with superfast broadband infrastructure by 2017, were not specific to the publicly-funded element within the Department’s control and could only be achieved in conjunction with industry-funded roll out.37 We reminded the Department of its target for the UK to be “the best in Europe” and pointed out that the 14% full-fibre coverage and 27% gigabit coverage reported by the National Audit Office put us below the European average.38 The Department said that latest coverage rates for full-fibre and gigabit-capable had increased and were now 17% and 30% respectively.39
16The Department told us that it wanted to have very clear objectives and to be...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department told us that it wanted to have very clear objectives and to be clear about the benefits for the subsidised part of its gigabit programme but could offer no further detail on how it intends to design and conduct the evaluation of that programme.40 The 31 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.11–12 32 Qq 126, 146–147 33 IBB0003 - Local Government Association 34 Qq 127–132 35 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 36 Qq 133–136 37 C&AG’s Report, para 13 38 Q 81 39 Q 81 40 Qq 153, 156 12 Improving Broadband Department has, once again, set nationwide coverage targets for its gigabit programme; originally 100% and now 85%,41 and the Department is once again relying on industry to deliver most of it; in this case to 80% of UK premises.42 As yet, it has published no targets specific to its £5 billion subsidy programme such as the number of premises it aims to cover by when. The Department acknowledged that it was better to have control over all the levers but said that it had demonstrated its ability to have influence over the market when it achieved the nationwide target for superfast broadband.43 The Department told us that relying on commercial roll-out does not necessarily mean that they cannot achieve these kinds of targets.44
17The National Audit Office report noted that the Department estimates £0.9 billion of funding will...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office report noted that the Department estimates £0.9 billion of funding will be returned by suppliers where capital expenditure was lower than expected or actual take-up of superfast broadband is higher than expected.45 The Department told us that because some of this represents future profits measured over a 7 year period from contract completion, it has not yet all been received and it will monitor returns to Local Authorities and central government over that time.46 While £0.9 billion of money to be returned represents a significant proportion of the overall public subsidy of £1.9 billion provided under the superfast programme, the Department said it believed it had targeted premises as well as it could with the data available.47 41 National Infrastructure Strategy 2020, p. 31 42 Qq 16–17, 36, 153 43 Qq 156 44 Qq 36, 156 45 C&AG’s Report, para 1.12 46 Qq 16, 28 47 Qq 14–15, 17 Improving Broadband 13 2 Protecting consumers Consumers in rural areas
18The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review sets out government’s intention to take an ‘outside-in’ approach to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review sets out government’s intention to take an ‘outside-in’ approach to rolling out gigabit-capable broadband, where areas that are currently unable to access superfast speeds are prioritised so they are not left further behind.48 The Department told us that it still aimed to focus on areas without access to superfast broadband so that those areas do not remain left behind.49 However, it said that the harder-to-reach areas are not necessarily grouped together and it could not tell us how it intended to establish a sequence for reaching them in the subsidised element of its gigabit programme.50 The National Audit Office’s report suggested that the data needed to support an ‘outside-in’ approach was patchy and of variable quality.51 The Department outlined the steps that it planned to take over the coming weeks and months to build a robust and reliable dataset on which to base planning assumptions but declined to tell us when it expected to have this.52
19The National Audit Office’s report describes how the Superfast Programme was able to leave the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office’s report describes how the Superfast Programme was able to leave the very hardest to reach premises until last when, in a bid to meet its timeline, the Department prioritised maximising the number of premises reached over providing for those in greatest need.53 We asked for assurance that, should the programme timetable start to slip, the people with the poorest broadband would not be sacrificed and put to the back of the queue once more. The Department told us it was committed to an ‘outside-in’ approach and that its priority was to ensure that those who do not have access to superfast broadband will receive decent broadband.54 The National Audit Office’s report referred to the final 1% of premises as “prohibitively expensive” and the Department explained that it was assessing the value for money of alternative technologies for delivering the fastest speeds possible to these premises.55
20Since we took evidence, the government has reduced its coverage target to “a minimum of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Since we took evidence, the government has reduced its coverage target to “a minimum of 85% by 2025” and the Department has been allocated less than a quarter of the £5 billion for supporting the hardest to reach the countries over the four years to 2025. The National Infrastructure strategy contained no revised date for 100% coverage and no date for when those without access to superfast can expect better broadband. Consumer choice and protection
21The National Audit Office was concerned that greater competition in the broadband infrastructure market would...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office was concerned that greater competition in the broadband infrastructure market would not necessarily lead to a greater choice of internet providers for consumers. In its report, it explained that in areas that needed subsidy, smaller alternative infrastructure providers could gain dominant positions. Its report also set out a risk that more popular internet providers may not find it commercially attractive to 48 Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review, July 2018. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-telecoms-infrastructure-review 49 Q 27 50 Qq 26–27, 38–39 51 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.2–3.6 52 Q 40 53 C&AG’s Report, para 3.17 54 Qq 35, 159 55 Q 155 14 Improving Broadband offer their services over many different networks and that consumers, particularly in rural areas, could be left with limited choice.56 The Department told us that it was aware of the risk but said that the contracts for its Superfast Programme enabled wholesale access to a range of internet providers.57 It explained that work was underway outside of government to create a platform to make it easier for internet providers to supply their services over alternative networks but provided no information about when this would be ready.58
22We asked the Department how it intended to protect consumers in areas with a single...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked the Department how it intended to protect consumers in areas with a single dominant supplier from being charged a lot more without proper competition. The Department told us that its contracts had price control provisions to ensure that internet providers cannot charge beyond what is reasonably comparable in that areas.59 The Department did agree that local monopolies were not a good thing but did not explain how price controls will work and told us that it had not yet decided how to define an area.60 56 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.18–3.20 57 Qq 19, 50 58 Qq 50–51 59 Q46 60 Qq 47–49 Improving Broadband 15
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 9 Nov 2020Improving broadband3 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 3 witnesses
- Raj KaliaChief Executive, Building Digital UK, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
- Sarah HealeyPermanent Secretary, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
- Susannah StoreyPermanent Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport