Politics 5 July 2013 Five questions answered on report criticising the government’s rural broadband rollout plans We were promised super-fast broadband - where is it? Sign up for our weekly email * Print HTML The National Audit Office has raised concerns over the government’s delayed roll out of superfast rural broadband. We answer five questions on the report. What are they key criticisms of the report? Mostly that the scheme is two years behind its original schedule. Only nine out 44 rural areas are expected to reach targets for high superfast internet by 2015, with another four potentially missing an extended 2017 deadline. The office is also concerned that BT would be the only firm likely to win contracts and thus benefit from £1.2bn of public funds as a result. It also raises concerns over the government’s ability to negotiate fair contracts with BT. If the scheme is delayed does the report think it will cost the taxpayer more? Yes. Originally Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt pledged to have internet speeds above 24 megabits per second available to 90 per cent of premises in every local authority of the UK by May 2015 for £530m, plus funds added by local councils. Last week the treasury revised its plans, stating that it wanted 95 per cent of UK properties with access to superfast broadband by the end of 2017, and pledged another £250m more to meet this goal. The report states that the: "government is not strong at taking remedial action to guard against further slippage". There have also been claims that the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) does not have a proper grip on the programme and that BT is being unclear about costs. What are other people saying? Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who is the chair of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, speaking to the BBC said: "Opaque data and limited benchmarks for comparison means the department has no idea if BT is being reasonable or adding in big mark ups.” What has the DCMS said? "We agree that effective enforcement of the contracts is important and are working with local authorities to ensure this," a spokesperson told the BBC. "As the NAO report makes clear, the project's funding model greatly reduced the cost and financial risk to the taxpayer." What has BT said? "There was strong competition when prices were set at the start of the process and that has ensured counties have benefited from the best possible terms," the company told the BBC. "Deploying fibre broadband is an expensive long-term business and so it was no surprise that others dropped out as the going got tough." However, the report states that there had already been one instance where the company had been caught overcharging the government for management costs of £3m. It also pointed out that some of BT’s figures are largely based on assumption. › What happened to India’s economic miracle? Fibre-optic cables - the tools of the trade. Photograph: Getty Images. Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com Subscribe from just £1 per issue More Related articles Jeremy Corbyn has found a vulnerable spot on Theresa May and trade Politicians are worried that their pensions are destroying the planet. Is yours? Nap Store: Where did all these new mattress start-ups come from?