Official Report 233KB pdf
The next item is inadmissible petitions. This is a departure for the committee—we have never had this item before—and we agreed to it only recently. We have received a number of petitions that, in all honesty, are not admissible under the criteria for submitting petitions to the Scottish Parliament. It was agreed that the clerks could sift such petitions before they came to the committee, rather than send them to the committee. It was also agreed that in doing so they would, for the committee's information, provide a paper that indicated the reason why a petition had been ruled inadmissible. As members can see, the clerks have decided that there are four inadmissible petitions. We will go through them one by one.
The second petition from Mrs Mary Speirs. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to instruct One 2 One to re-site a mobile phone mast at an appropriate site. That is outwith the powers of the Parliament or the Executive—it is a matter for local authorities. Therefore, it is recommended that the petition is inadmissible and that no further action be taken.
Perhaps it is a matter for the UK Government, because local authorities pass the buck by saying, "It's not our fault. It is forced upon us by Government that we must accept these masts within our city boundaries." People are tremendously concerned about such masts, because we do not know how much of a health risk they are. Like most MSPs, I have had a considerable number of cases of people complaining and saying, "We don't want a mobile phone mast here." They are sick of going to councils and being told that they must accept it. It is all part of the deal that Gordon Brown won to gain the Treasury tens of billions of pounds, but wherever such masts are sited, local folk are sincerely worried.
We have had a series of petitions on mobile phone masts and they were referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the issues and produced a report. We are not ignoring the issues, but the Parliament has already taken action as far as it can.
The Parliament is slow in taking action. The Stewart report was published in May last year, if not earlier. Supposedly, legislation was to be proposed as a result of that report, but that has not happened. In the meantime, many people in Scotland feel that they are disadvantaged because masts are being put up where they do not want them. I suggest that the Parliament and the Executive get their acts together and address the issue as a matter of urgency.
I am told that the Executive, rather than the Parliament, has been slow to respond to the report.
Indeed.
The Parliament awaits a response—which has not been forthcoming—from the Executive.
As members know, I was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee and I attended its meeting last week, although I am no longer a member. I am glad that that is allowed under standing orders. I have a close interest in the matter. There are two reports: the Stewart committee report, which was produced at a UK level; and the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, which was sent to the Minister for Transport and the Environment. Thereafter, the Executive published a document, which is out for consultation. That document was discussed by the Transport and the Environment Committee last week. That committee welcomed a number of the issues that the Minister for Environment, Culture and Sport will take action on, for example every mast that is erected will have to come under national planning policy guidelines.
Obviously, action is being taken. The Scottish Parliament has been active on the issue. There is the Stewart report, the Transport and the Environment Committee has produced a report, and the Scottish Executive will have to produce proposals. However, the petition is asking us to re-site an individual mast. We cannot do that, which is why the petition is inadmissible.
That point came up last week, when some members asked for retrospective planning permission. It was pointed out that that would not be possible. However, the point was made that under the new proposals, every local authority would be required to produce a development plan with the developers. It was suggested that at that point it would be appropriate for local authorities to include in the negotiating process a discussion about masts that have caused unhappiness locally. It will be up to local authorities to have such discussions, but people could make representations to their local authorities if they wished their views to be taken into account. As part of the negotiated outcome, some of the masts might be re-sited.
By the time the Executive gets round to taking action, horses bolting and stable doors closing will be springing to mind. The Executive needs a kick up the backside to get this done.
I am not sure whether we are in a position to do that.
Perhaps not.
In any case, the Transport and the Environment Committee dealt with the relevant petitions, which we referred to it.
Today's discussion has been quite timeous. The Transport and the Environment Committee's report was published in May or June last year. The then Minister for Transport and the Environment acted very swiftly and brought out her report by November. That report is out for consultation now. It is only January. By the time the Parliament breaks for the summer recess, we hope to have a final outcome.
This may be a good subject for a parliamentary question—perhaps next Thursday. The minister could be pressed on the matter.
Has the Health and Community Care Committee been involved? I am a member of that committee, and I do not remember the issue coming before us.
The Transport and the Environment Committee is dealing with it exclusively.
It is also a health issue.
I am not sure about this, but the Transport and the Environment Committee may have taken advice from the Health and Community Care Committee.
The Transport and the Environment Committee took advice from health advisers during its inquiry. That was what finally led us to the view that the health issues should be of material concern for planners. There was a unanimous view on that; there was no dissent at any stage in the discussion.
The convener and deputy convener might consider writing to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, to intimate to her the number of petitions that have been received on the matter. Would that be appropriate?
Apparently not. I understand from the clerk that, given that consideration of the matter is now the responsibility of the Transport and the Environment Committee—
Exclusively?
We cannot interfere in that committee's on-going consideration.
I was thinking only of sending notification.
Policy committees get very upset if the Public Petitions Committee starts to trample over their work.
We could send just a notification, stating our interest in the subject.
Both you and I, Dorothy, as members of the Health and Community Care Committee, can indicate our thoughts on the matter.
Has not the Transport and the Environment Committee responded to the consultation process in a similar vein? There is no point in our flagging up the health issue again anyway.
We can do so as individual members, but I agree that we should not do so as a committee.
Agreed.
Inadmissible petition IP3 concerns a licence for a proposed bar/restaurant in Imrie Place car park, Penicuik. That is a matter for the local authority, not for us. We cannot accept the petition.
Previous
Current Petitions