Official Report 301KB pdf
High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
Item 2 is consideration of current petitions—those that have been in our system for a while. PE812, which was lodged by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards that are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health. Do members have any strong views on how we should deal with the petition? The proposed course of action is relatively straightforward.
The petition is highly topical because of the proposed new transmission line from Beauly to Denny. The situation is aggravated by the fact that there is a further proposal to build a new substation to accommodate all the new power that it is supposed will be generated. Two issues are causing concern: possible contamination from the overhead line and possible contamination from the static equipment in the substations. I do not know how we should proceed.
When we have considered similar petitions before, our view has been based on the precautionary approach. Perhaps we should draw the issue that the petitioner raises to the attention of the Government and the responsible minister to find out what discussions are being held with local authorities to address the concerns in question.
The letter that we received from the Government took some of us to task for the comments that we made the last time we considered the petition, so maybe we should ask the Government whether and when it will undertake analysis of the broad conclusions of the current national and international scientific research. There was some dispute about that.
It would be worth while doing that. Are we happy with those suggestions?
Supporting People Funding (PE932)
PE932, which was lodged by Stella Macdonald on behalf of the Citizen's Rights Action Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the supporting people funding for services for vulnerable adults. Given that the petitioner has acknowledged that her meeting with the Scottish Government to discuss the issues that the petition raised produced a satisfactory outcome and that the Government has committed to continuing to work with her, I recommend that we close the petition. Let us hope that the discussions involving the relevant minister and department are positive. Do members agree to close the petition?
Plagiocephaly (PE960)
PE960, from Claire McCready, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that cranial abnormalities of babies are properly recognised and treated through evaluation of babies at birth and at six weeks; that appropriate advice, including advice on repositioning, is available to parents; and that cranial remoulding therapy is available free of charge from the NHS. We have received a letter from John Froggatt, who is deputy director of the child and maternal health division in the health care policy and strategy directorate. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?
Fear of my son developing cranial abnormalities was one of my paranoias—I kept putting him on his tummy when he was awake.
Fantastic.
Home Loss Payment (PE988)
PE988, from Ian Macpherson, on behalf of Harvieston Villas residents, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to increase the home loss payment. We should write to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to find out whether there are any proposals to review the existing arrangements. Indeed, we could invite him to give evidence to us after the summer on how the Government intends to progress the issue. Is that agreed?
National Planning Policy Guideline 19 (PE1048)
Gil Paterson has asked to address PE1048, by Kitty Bell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to alter national planning policy guideline 19 to correct an anomaly in paragraph 21 and ensure that the precautionary approach that is mentioned there also applies to pre-school children and all children at play, thereby giving them the same protection from telecommunication masts that is available to their older brothers and sisters while they are at school.
At present, the precautionary principle ensures that children at school are protected from any emissions from a mast. The argument is that, although there is no proof that damage is being done, the precautionary principle should be exercised. The petition addresses the anomaly that arises because the precautionary principle in NPPG 19 does not apply to designated play areas that are used by children who are not yet at school—in other words, the siblings of the children who are protected. If there is a risk that the emissions from masts are damaging, the danger is greater to younger children.
Do committee members have any comments?
The Government disagrees with the suggestion that an anomaly exists and says that the precautionary principle applies to pre-school children. As what the Government is saying is undoubtedly accurate, the petition would appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the situation. If that is the case, is there any point in keeping the petition open? However, if we close it, we should ask the Government to find a way of making it more obvious to people that there is no such anomaly.
I suppose that the petitioners are asking for a belt-and-braces approach. However, given that a review of NPPG 19 is under way and that the Government's response tells us that the precautionary principle also applies to pre-school children, we need to determine what we want to do with the petition.
Could we ask the Government to meet the petitioner during the review to discuss the concerns?
That is a helpful suggestion.
That sounds good, but the review has been going on for a number of years. If the petitioner and I knew that an end date had been set for the review, we would be a wee bit more relaxed about the situation. However, I am not confident that the end of the review is imminent.
Do members have any suggestions about what to do with the petition? We could close it on the basis that a review is under way and that the Government has clarified the situation—perhaps I trust the Government a bit more than Gil Paterson does—but, as the petition raises a genuine issue of concern, we should try to address it in some way. Do members have any suggestions about how we could do that?
We could ask the Government to tell us what the timeframe for the review is, and also to let us know what guidance it is offering to telephone companies and local authorities on the precautionary principle. Perhaps that could be strengthened.
I am happy with that suggestion. Does the committee agree to that recommendation?
Edinburgh South Suburban Railway (PE1080)
PE1080, by Lawrence Marshall on behalf of the Capital Rail Action Group, calls for the reintroduction of local passenger services on the Edinburgh south suburban railway. The petition has been in front of the committee in recent months. It is obvious that there are continuing issues relating to the campaign. Do members have any strong views on how to deal with the petition?
There needs to be more scrutiny of or more research into what has been proposed.
Communications that we have received have raised the issue that it is the City of Edinburgh Council's responsibility to identify the views held by the south east of Scotland transport partnership and Transport Scotland on the Halcrow report, which is a major report. Consideration of the petition could be delayed until the council has done that and has published a further report on the Edinburgh south suburban railway. We could then seek an update from the Government and the council. The issue is whether we can activate things that are already in process.
We have to wait for the completion of the council's study.
Obviously, the petitioners will be concerned about the timescale.
I am not sure that the timescale is in our hands or that there is an avenue open to us through which we can speed up consideration of the petition. All the relevant authorities need to consider the issues.
That is helpful. We should tell the key agencies that the petition is in our system and that we are keen to respond to the petitioners but have been delayed because other things must be done. We could ask them to give timescales for what they must do, so that we can respond constructively to the petitioners, who have invested a lot of hope in the committee being able to progress matters. Are members happy to accept those recommendations?
Neurosurgery (Merging of Units) (PE1084)
PE1084, by Walter Baxter, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take immediate action to halt the merger of Scotland's four neurological units and to give proper consideration to the impact on people in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland who have brain injuries or trauma and who would have to travel south for life-saving treatment.
I come from the Aberdeen area, where I have been involved in the health service, and I have supported the petition from the outset.
That is a fair call. The petitioners have had the chance to appear in front of the committee and debate the issues, and the minister and the department have responded. We should close the petition on the grounds that Nanette Milne suggested.
Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)
The next petition is PE1089, by Morag Parnell, on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network in Scotland. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to investigate any links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and the workplace and the rising incidence of cancers and other chronic illnesses.
Care Standards (PE1092)
PE1092, by Ronald Mason, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that the long-term sick, elderly and disabled receive care on the basis of need and, in particular, that such care is provided seven days a week.
We should emphasise the care commission's role if it is decided that the care provided is inadequate.
Okay. Do members agree to close the petition?
Previous
New Petitions