Communities Committee, 16 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Terrestrial Trunked Radio Communication Masts (PE650)<br />TETRA Communications System<br />(Health Aspects) (PE728)

---

TETRA Installations (Planning Process) (PE769)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of three petitions on terrestrial trunked radio communication—or TETRA—masts in Scotland. The committee has considered petitions PE650 and PE728 before and is invited to reconsider them in the light of further developments. Petition PE769 has been referred to us for consideration because it is similar in subject matter to the other two. The committee has received from the Executive a response to its questions on PE650 and PE728. The petitioners of PE650 have sent some research that they have conducted, and additional information has been sent on the health impact of 3G—third generation—telecommunications.

Do members have any comments on the Executive's response, the information that the petitioners have submitted or the additional material that has been received?

I wonder what progress, if any, has been made on an aspect that we discussed previously; namely, whether research should be undertaken into the experience of other countries. The petitioners argue that there is good evidence from other countries but that the Government does not accept it. If research has not yet been done, I wonder whether we should ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to compile a paper on the experience of other countries. I am sure that the petitioners would supply SPICe with chapter and verse on statements from other countries that they have found helpful.

Our difficulty is that we are not in a position to prove the medical arguments one way or the other; it is not our job to do that. If there is an issue about that, it is for the Health Committee. From the planning point of view, it would be helpful to know about the experience of other countries. Perhaps SPICe, the Executive and the petitioners could supply us with that information, which we could then take into account when we consider the forthcoming planning bill.

Paragraph 15 of the paper by the clerk refers to other countries' experiences, but part of the difficulty is that many other countries are in exactly the same situation as the United Kingdom in respect of a lack of material.

I was interested to read the Local Government and Transport Committee's report on opencast mining, to which we referred last week and which crossed planning issues, health issues and so on. The petitions are in the same area. Paragraph 6 of the paper by the clerk states:

"the Health Committee agreed to appoint a reporter on health matters to participate in any Communities Committee inquiry."

It might be that we should consider using two reporters: one from the Health Committee, and one from our committee who would consider just the planning aspects and how far planning should be involved in health issues.

Unfortunately, petitions such as these sometimes get kicked from pillar to post. The petitions fall into the same category as petitions that were submitted by communities that have been affected by opencast mining. The research that Donald Gorrie requested could be included in the reporters' paper, which we would have before us with the paper on opencast mining when we examine the forthcoming planning bill and consider to what extent health issues should be part of that bill's context. The Executive's response says that

"health concerns can in principle be planning considerations",

but I think that there should be stronger recognition of such concerns in planning issues where there are obvious questions about health risks.

Before I allow Patrick Harvie to come in, I point out that the committee will undertake considerable work on the forthcoming planning bill. I therefore have reservations about our appointing a reporter, given that we will consider the planning process in general when the planning bill is published later this year.

I suggested our appointing a reporter because the Health Committee will get involved in the issue only if we start something.

I understand that when the Health Committee took a decision on the petitions, you were its convener and that you said that the Health Committee was far too important and busy to deal with the matter.

No—I got a reporter appointed, which was as good as it got.

Perhaps the Health Committee must be reminded of its responsibilities on the issue.

I look forward to your reminding the Health Committee of that, convener.

I agree in principle with Christine Grahame that it would be unfortunate if we continued to kick the petitions from one committee to another. We should do some substantive work on them. Every time the issue has been discussed, there has been broad agreement that real issues and serious concerns have been raised, but the petitioners have not yet had the opportunity to speak about their concerns formally through Parliament's processes. Similarly, the industry has not had a formal opportunity to put its case. That leaves the matter in the realm of informal lobbying and it is clear that the industry has far more resources to do that than the petitioners have.

There are contradictions in the Executive's response. Although the letter states that

"health considerations can be material",

in the middle of page 3, it states that it is for central Government

"to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health."

The Executive has decided that there is no public health issue and that local authorities do not need to consider further the concerns about health aspects in considering planning applications.

One issue that has been outstanding since Parliament started to consider the matter is that research is on-going. Even the Home Office does not say that it is satisfied that there are no health risks, but merely that none has yet been demonstrated. Even though research is on-going, the TETRA system has been rolled out and switched on. There is a strong case for our taking action on the petitions, either in the way that Christine Grahame suggests or in other ways that members might propose.

I will let members have their say, after which we will go through the clerk's paper and consider individually the recommendations as to how we should proceed. There are issues in relation to community involvement, but I hope that as we consider the forthcoming planning bill, the committee will regard as a priority the involvement of communities and individuals in the planning process.

As Patrick Harvie mentioned and as our paper states:

"material planning considerations are not defined in legislation and are … a matter for the courts."

We might want to consider that point in the autumn when we see the proposed planning bill, although I appreciate that that suggestion will probably not satisfy the petitioners who are with us today. However, we need to consider not just TETRA masts, but opencast coal mines, landfill sites and wind turbines. In the Highlands, some people have researched the effects of wind turbines, although I do not know whether the research is accurate.

The minister's letter does not really give us much more information than we already had. The three points at the top of page 3 are: that

"TETRA signals have no effect on calcium exchanges";

that

"Airwave masts do not pulse";

and that

"hands-free kits transmit very little energy".

The letter also states that more research is being carried out. It has been suggested that we should ask researchers to collate evidence, but the final page of the minister's letter states:

"We are not aware of any research on the current approaches within the rest of Europe to health concerns".

I would not say that I have read every word, but I have been reasonably diligent and I cannot find anything that really suggests that there is a serious health concern. That is for the Health Committee to consider, but this committee should consider—as has been done in Wales—whether health should be a material consideration in planning legislation. I am sorry if that point is not helpful for today's discussion, but nothing has jumped out at me as being categorical and empirical proof that there is a serious health concern.

One of my colleagues tells me that the radiation that is emitted from a TETRA handset is 1,000 times less than that from a mobile telephone. That may be right or wrong, but it is the kind of information that we need. No one is talking about banning mobile telephones.

They are banned in this committee.

Some people tend to leave them switched on, or even to use them.

It seems to me that the committee has neither the remit nor the expertise to judge medical issues. If there is any evidence whatever that any new structure or process could be detrimental to health, it must be the responsibility of the chief medical officer to advise the Executive and thereafter for the Executive to act on that advice. That would be the correct route. I take the point that colleagues have made about the case for introducing medical considerations into the list of material considerations in planning issues, but that discussion will be for later in the year.

Patrick Harvie's point about the petitioners being kicked about from one place to another might be right. People have been kicked about. Other committees have either passed on their responsibility or have misled people into thinking that another committee might have something to offer.

We clearly cannot get involved in health issues: we must take account of them, but health is not within our remit. If people have serious health concerns, they should address them to the Health Committee. MSPs and committees of the Parliament should not drag things out and give people hope that they will conduct an inquiry when they will not.

It was right that we wrote to the Executive, but the Executive has failed to answer some of our questions. We asked the Executive to ensure that it gave the public the facts about TETRA, to allow people to consider those facts and so to make well-informed decisions. It would be difficult even for us to sit here and make well-informed decisions. On one side, the Executive says that there are no medical concerns but, on the other, the petitioners have listed a host of medical concerns. We need to give the public the facts and we need to take decisions based on those facts. Donald Gorrie suggested that we gather relevant information from other parts of the world and that we use that during our consideration of the planning bill later this year. That is the way forward. We must ensure that people in communities across Scotland feel that they can be heard, can be involved in the planning process and can have their views taken into account by the democratically elected representatives who take decisions on planning matters.

I have little to add, other than to say that it is unfortunate that the petitions have been around for such a long time. There has been no closure on them, which gives out an unfortunate signal. One committee must grasp what is obviously a difficult nettle. We are being asked to prove a negative—that is always difficult to do.

The Health Committee initially ducked its responsibility in offering a reporter to another committee when it had not even agreed to have an inquiry. That was a bit of a cheek, but maybe we can gloss over it today.

I did not do that single-handedly; it was the committee's decision.

I said that the Health Committee made the decision. However, we need to give some signal—if that is not an unfortunate pun—to the petitioners that we are listening to their concerns. We have responsibility for planning, and a major planning bill will be forthcoming later this year, which means that the issues coincide. When we come to examine the planning bill in detail, we can consider the issues that the petitioners and other people have raised over the past couple of years, and examine them as material considerations.

Like other members, I am keen to let the petitioners know where they stand because they have brought issues to Parliament that are of genuine concern. It is important that they feel that their engagement with the process has been worth their while. To push them around from pillar to post is in no way helpful. For that reason, I am keen for us to decide what we can and cannot do, and to decide how we will progress matters so that the petitioners know where they stand and where they might be able to engage with us in future on some of the issues that they have raised.

I would like clarification of whether members agree that the health effects of TETRA are not for the Communities Committee but for the Health Committee to consider, of which we will advise the Health Committee. Mary Scanlon's point—which was echoed by other committee members—on whether health effects should be considered on planning applications is, however, a matter for this committee. I suggest that when we consider the planning bill in the autumn, health effects should feature in our evidence taking. Are we agreed?

I accept that. Of course, I made the point that planning issues cut across opencast mining, wind farms and everything else. I hear what you say, convener. I hope that the petitioners might be considered as witnesses, along with others who have similar concerns, when we deal with the forthcoming planning bill.

They will certainly be able to submit written evidence and, after our sifting of all the written evidence, they will, along with everybody else, be considered when we decide who will give oral evidence.

There remains an issue with the current development of the technology. If research is on-going under the auspices of the Home Office, and the Health Committee is being encouraged to examine the health implications of the technology, should we—even if only from a purely financial point of view—ask the Executive to think carefully about whether the technology should be put in place in any more parts of Scotland than it already is?

You are suggesting that there should be a moratorium on the installation of TETRA masts, which is not a matter for the Scottish Executive or this committee; it is a matter for local authorities. Perhaps the petitioners would be best placed to pursue that issue with their local authorities. On that basis, we must clearly explain the position.

Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final important issue is community involvement. I gather from comments that have been made by every committee member that we are keen that community involvement in the planning process be revisited when the proposed planning bill comes before Parliament in the autumn. Many issues and petitions that we considered in the past—in relation to opencast, landfill and the planning process as a whole—will be revisited. I hope that the points that the petitioners raise in relation to TETRA and telephone masts will be considered again in our evidence gathering. Are we agreed that that should be the case?

Members indicated agreement.

I would like to obtain evidence from other countries. The report deals with Europe, but there is a world outside Europe. There would be no harm in our asking SPICe to find out whether other developed countries, such as the United States, Australia and Canada, have experience of TETRA masts and the relationship between health and planning. If we ask SPICe to produce such research, that will help us in the autumn.

I see no difficulties with that. I hope that SPICe will in the autumn be able to furnish us with whatever information it can find.

With all those conditions agreed, are we content to close the petitions?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 12:16.