Standards and Public Appointments Committee, 17 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Official Report 120KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group

I welcome Mark Ruskell to the committee. Do you wish to make any opening remarks about the application for a cross-party group on electromagnetic radiation and health?

I will make some brief remarks. There is much interest in the establishment of such a group among MSPs, the public, industry bodies and academics. A range of issues concern the public, surrounding different technologies and their ability to emit an electromagnetic field, and what the potential effects might be on human health. One of the main issues that concerns members of the group is the Beauly to Denny pylon upgrade. There have been about 12,000 letters of objection to that line, many of which cite health issues as a concern. There is a feeling among members who attended the two initial meetings of the group that we need to get to the truth behind those health concerns; that we should invite academics and industry representatives to speak to the Parliament; that we must understand better how the guidelines relating to various types of EMF-emitting equipment are established; and that we should invite members of the public to share in that dialogue with MSPs. There is a feeling that the jury is out on many types of equipment. We need to get up to speed on that and to try to foster dialogue. That is why we have decided collectively to set up the cross-party group, which had its inaugural meeting last week.

The application meets the criteria for cross-party groups. Any cross-party group is entitled to use that title only if it is approved by the committee. Members have before them details of the application. Are there any questions?

I share a number of the concerns behind the formation of the group, many of which came to the fore in the early days of the cross-party group on ME, when I was its vice-convener. If this cross-party group's aim is to become better informed, will it be hearing from the many sides of the argument? As you will be well aware, everyone seems to have a different opinion on the issue. What can a cross-party group on the issue achieve that would not be better achieved by an inquiry of some nature, which a lot of people would welcome?

To deal with your last point first, in a number of public petitions that have been submitted to the Parliament there have certainly been calls for a full inquiry into issues surrounding EMF. However, a number of members and I have sensed a reluctance on behalf of the parliamentary committees to wade into the science behind concerns about EMF. There is a general feeling—certainly among the members who have come to the meetings so far—that we need to be better informed as MSPs before we can start to engage fully in the debates around such technologies. A cross-party group is needed to bring MSPs' knowledge up to a level at which we can take the issue more seriously in the Parliament.

On the need to consider all sides of the argument, that is why we have decided not to have a class of membership for people outside the Parliament. We recognise that we will want to bring in a variety of stakeholders for different meetings and for different issues. For example, in the case of pylons—which is one of many concerns—we would want to bring in stakeholders from the industry; the utility companies; the stakeholders advisory group on electric and magnetic fields, which is constructing guidelines relating to pylons; and indeed many of the communities that have been running campaigns. At our initial meetings, we stated that we would not want the group to turn, in effect, into a campaign group for MSPs to campaign against pylons, terrestrial trunked radio—TETRA—masts, mobile phones or digital handsets and so on. The aim is very much to provide a bit of objectivity while, of course, fostering dialogue between people who have different views. The group wishes to bring key stakeholders together as and when appropriate, within the debate about individual technologies.

That reassures me in many ways.

Mr Ruskell, will you elaborate on Mr Fergusson's underlying point? Do you intend that the group should be a long-term cross-party group? In your opening remarks you indicated that the impetus behind the group is the current controversy over pylons. A decision will be made one way or the other on that issue, probably relatively soon.

This is yet another health-related cross-party group. There are 63 cross-party groups and only around 100 members available to service them. How confident can you be that there will be enough commitment on behalf of the members of the group, who will be exclusively MSPs, to maintain its parliamentary nature?

You raise important issues. On the short-term versus long-term issue, in our initial discussions we envisaged that the group would be set up to run for the remainder of this session. Given the range of concerns and issues that respective members of the group want to discuss, there are enough topics to run a series of meetings—perhaps between four and six—between now and the end of this session. I do not know whether, next session, members will feel that there is a need to form a CPG again and to continue the work, but there is enough meat in there for us to consider holding four to six meetings between now and spring next year.

I take the point about the number of cross-party groups—I find it extremely difficult to get to meetings of cross-party groups, which often conflict. However, the formation of the group has been driven by the concerns of the public, the counter-concerns from industry and new evidence from academics. The concerns have resonated with MSPs, a number of whom have come to our initial meetings. As you can see, more than a dozen MSPs want to participate in the group, and a number of them have told me that they are receiving correspondence on the issue from constituents, academics and the industry and are having trouble making sense of it. The CPG will not be made up of a small selection of MSPs concentrating on a special interest; it relates to constituency work and questions that MSPs are being asked and do not necessarily know how to answer. I am sure that, because the CPG seeks to inform MSPs and relates directly to their parliamentary work, we will see more of a commitment from members to attend the meetings.

Do you have any plans to co-operate with any of the other cross-party groups on health whose interests might overlap with those of the proposed group?

We have appointed a number of co-conveners who sit on other CPGs. For example, Dr Jean Turner convenes one or two other cross-party groups on health issues. As a result, we could hold some joint meetings. Indeed, as Alex Fergusson has pointed out, the cross-party group on ME has already considered the issue of electromagnetic sensitivity. In any case, as I have said, we need to hold a series of four to six meetings towards the end of this session to investigate MSPs' concerns.

Do members agree to the application?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, I will write formally to Mr Ruskell on the committee's behalf to offer its approval of the CPG. I thank him for attending the meeting.