Hansard

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to the chamber.

The technology that we use to communicate continues to evolve at an incredible speed. Hard though it may be to believe, the first mobile phone call was made in 1973. Admittedly, for some of us in the chamber, that may feel like last week, but it highlights just how many people today have grown up in a world where a physical connection to a phone line is not needed to make a call.

Although some of us can recall the days of police call boxes, they are increasingly known to people only as Doctor Who’s preferred mode of transport or as a local landmark where they can pick up a coffee on their way to work.

More recently, we have seen the trend of phone boxes and public payphones being removed due to lack of use. Today, Superman would not be changing in a phone box. He would be using an app to book a short stay in a nearby room for let. That may be an advance in technology, but I am not convinced that it has quite the same drama.

I recognise and agree with many of the points that Kenny Gibson highlights in his motion. The payphone may be a less popular mode of communication today, but that does not inherently make it unnecessary. We can quite reasonably argue that people who continue to use phone boxes are the ones who have no suitable alternative, and the very people on whom the removal of the boxes could have the biggest impact.

BT seems to be making significant efforts to minimise the impact that the closures will have. As has been mentioned, it is consulting widely on the removal of each phone box and it changes its plans when it receives an objection from the local authority. That being said, I note that one of its criteria for keeping a box in place, even if it is not used regularly, is a lack of any mobile phone signal. An emergency call can be placed from any mobile phone anywhere with a signal, even if that signal is not from the mobile’s network provider, but I am concerned that that is of no benefit in an emergency when a person’s mobile phone has no charge. I wonder whether BT has given any consideration to providing an emergency charging facility in some of the more isolated phone boxes, perhaps by using solar power.

I have recently been involved in discussions between the Royal Bank of Scotland, Age Scotland and others about the impact of branch closures in South Scotland. The issue at the core of that discussion is not very different from what we are discussing today. Technology is changing the way that many of us perform tasks, whether that is banking or making a phone call, but there is a concern that those who are not in a position to change will be left isolated and disadvantaged.

While companies such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and BT will always have commercial considerations to take into account when making decisions about closing branches or removing phone boxes, it is important that they also take account of the wider impact on the communities for whom those services can be a lifeline. That seems to have improved in recent years, and it is clear from the efforts that BT has made in its consultation that it wishes to minimise the impact of those removals.

I have reservations about the removal of phone boxes in rural areas, which are broadly the same as the concerns that I have about the loss of other services. Put simply, do the areas that are losing traditional service provision have the infrastructure to support the modern alternative? Be it broadband speed or mobile phone signal, rural areas in particular still experience very real issues with coverage and reliability of digital communications.

I note that a Which? survey published earlier this week highlighted that three out of the five slowest areas for broadband in the United Kingdom are in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has a particularly high number of regions classified as having low speeds, there are average speeds in parts of the central belt and only Dundee and North Lanarkshire have high speeds.

Changing technology means that change to how we live and work is inevitable, but we have a responsibility to ensure that no one is disadvantaged by that change. That is why, although I am disappointed by the decision to reduce the number of payphones, rather than fighting against that change I encourage members to focus their attention on ensuring that the pace of those changes is reasonable and that Scotland’s digital infrastructure is up to the standard required.