Communities Committee, 29 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Official Report 147KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Community Volunteers (PE447)

Agenda item 5 is consideration of petitions. PE447, which was submitted by Gregor McIntyre, is on local community projects and was last considered by the committee in March. Since then, we have received two responses from the Executive, which advocate the use of joint health improvement plans within the community planning process. Are there any comments on the petition?

As a new committee member, I am new to Mr McIntyre's petition, but I can understand the frustrations that many people have felt about the lack of genuine involvement and participation in social inclusion partnership projects. I know that SIPs are being replaced by the community regeneration fund and I wonder whether the committee has discussed or has any view on monitoring the regeneration aspects of the CRF and assessing whether local communities are having an input and are participating properly.

I wonder whether, in addition to what the paper suggests, we might tell the petitioner that, if the new CRF system does not seem to deliver on the particular points that he has raised with the Parliament, he should re-engage with us. His petition could be reactivated or he could consider lodging a new one. Such action would be slightly stronger than that suggested in paragraph 10 of the paper.

As Linda Fabiani will recall, this committee in its previous guise as the Social Justice Committee did a lot of work around how social inclusion partnerships operated and so on. Perhaps it would be worth while for the committee to keep an eye on how the transition to the CRF is going and whether the key aims of bending the spend, community involvement, empowerment and so on work out in practice, or whether the CRF is simply a place where professional organisations in a community come together and decide matters.

The concerns that PE447 flags up would be a helpful prompt for us and we might want to keep the petition as a reference point for future considerations to see where those concerns fit in. Realistically, we have a heavy agenda, but it would be worth while for the committee to consider the development of the SIP process into the CRF and to keep the points that committee members have highlighted in mind when we do. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Donald Gorrie's suggestion that the petitioner should be encouraged to keep prompting us about the matter is helpful as well.

We have agreed that we will keep the transition from SIPs to the community regeneration fund on our agenda. We should also encourage the petitioner to come back to the Parliament if he has further points to make. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We must also agree to conclude consideration of petition PE447. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

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

We move on to consider petitions PE650 and PE728, on TETRA communication masts in Scotland. PE650, by Alison Mackay, is on behalf of NO 2 TETRA; and PE728, by Paul Goddard, is on behalf of Comrie Action on TETRA. Both petitions relate to the potential health risks of terrestrial trunked radio and the committee agreed in June to consider them together.

The Executive's report, "An Evaluation of Revised Planning Controls Over Telecommunications Development", was published during the summer. It does not specifically take account of health issues, although it acknowledges that there are public concerns over the health risks of TETRA. We should note, too, that health concerns are not considered to be a material planning consideration. Members will be aware that there are strong feelings on the TETRA issue—I have had correspondence on it from a range of concerned people. Given how concerned the members of the public who have contacted us are, we should take plenty of time to consider the matter seriously. Can I have comments from members?

We should clarify with the Executive the exact role, if any, of health issues in planning decisions. As I understand it, there is a two-stage process. There is a decision on planning considerations, whatever they may be; and, if there is a health issue, it comes in later. That seems to me to be pretty stupid. We are meant to have joined-up Government, so I would have thought that planning matters would be considered in the round, which would include consideration of health issues. I wonder whether we can raise the planning side with the Executive. On the health side, we are not the committee to decide whether TETRA masts cause ill health; however, we do have a concern that the planning system should be sensible. In my personal view, that means that health considerations should be included.

I echo Donald Gorrie's comments. It would be useful for us to consider whether the Executive intends to allow health issues to be a material consideration in planning. It has indicated to us that it does not intend to make such a change, but if it did, that would be an extremely important decision about the planning process and we should scrutinise it.

There is another issue. As I understand it, some reporters recognise the public perception of health fears as a planning consideration, so there are some contradictions that need to be ironed out.

At the last meeting at which we discussed the issue, we agreed to await the Executive's research, but I am disappointed that that research mentions TETRA only once in passing and not in relation to any of the health concerns.

Bearing in mind all those points, I would be keen for us to act on the matter in some way.

In what way?

I would support the idea of an inquiry, but if there is a feeling that we need to set out the remit of any inquiry more carefully at a preliminary stage, I would be open to members' ideas.

Do you envisage this committee conducting that inquiry?

We are recognised as the lead committee on the matter and the Health Committee has offered to send a reporter to consider the health issues if we conduct an inquiry. The process that is rolling out TETRA masts is the planning process, which comes within our remit.

It is helpful that we now have Christine Grahame, who used to be the convener of the Health Committee. It would be useful to get an insight into the Health Committee's thinking and why that committee considered that it could not address the matter.

That is a challenging remark, convener.

I find the Executive's statement that it does not conclude that health is a material consideration for planning guidance to be extraordinary. If a planning authority was considering an application for a sewage works or a landfill site, it would take the health issues into consideration.

The reason why the Health Committee cannot take on the matter is simple: its agenda for the year is so chock-a-block with inquiries, research that is the foundation for further inquiries and legislation that it was simply impossible for the committee to do justice to the matter. The suggestion that the matter be batted back to the Health Committee is not appropriate because it would send the wrong signal to the petitioners. They went to the Public Petitions Committee, which remitted the petitions to this committee, which remitted them to the Health Committee, which remitted them back to us, and we are talking about remitting them back to the Health Committee. The issue is serious, so it is not correct, procedurally as well as for other reasons, to send it back to the Health Committee.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what Mark says about the matter. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant Patrick Harvie—I have made my first bloomer. By the way, from the noise in the room, I think that there is a TETRA mast behind him.

We are not scientists, but when the Health Committee discussed the matter, Helen Eadie and David Davidson said that we needed scientific input. It might be useful to collate information on the various scientific aspects from both sides of the argument, which would not need to take up committee time. I believe that there is European work on the matter, so perhaps the Scottish Parliament information centre could prepare a paper to give us a basis before we think about beginning an inquiry. Perhaps we could find out a timescale for that.

The Health Committee is not unique in having a heavy work load, and if a committee ends up being the last one to consider something, it ends up becoming het—as they say in Glasgow—because, as you are right in saying, we do not want to send the wrong message to petitioners about our attitude to the concerns that they highlight.

May I respond to that?

I will let you come in later. Scott Barrie has a comment to make.

It is clear from the amount of correspondence that the petitions have generated that there is a fair degree of public disquiet about the possible health impacts of TETRA masts. Members are right to say that there are two elements to the matter. One is the planning process, but concern about that process has been generated by the health concerns, and we cannot conveniently separate the two.

One of the difficulties about the health issues is that it is always much easier to prove a positive than a negative: it is much easier to say that something is a danger than that it is not. Quite rightly, people want reassurance on the matter; they want to know that the masts are not a danger. That is the point at which we enter into a more difficult arena of the debate.

I was not a member of the committee that considered the issue in the first session of the Parliament. If I remember rightly, the Transport and the Environment Committee undertook an inquiry into telecommunications masts. However, I am not sure that the report clarified the position as accurately and clearly as people had hoped would be the case.

My initial response is that I am reluctant to go down the road of an inquiry, as that would give the impression that we would be able to come up with a cast-iron answer when that might not be the case. We should tread carefully and not raise expectation that, by having an inquiry, we will come up with the answer.

That said, we need to ensure that we consider the issue thoroughly. I am not sure that we are in a position today to come up with a statement about where we should be going. Perhaps we should gather more information. If the Executive believes that TETRA masts are not the danger to health that some people suggest they are, perhaps we need to ask it to present its evidence in a more forthright fashion than has been the case to date.

Two issues are involved, the first of which relates to our committee and the second to the Health Committee. Our focus is whether health concerns should be taken into account in planning. Given the current consultations, the new framework and the fact that we are getting a planning bill in around 14 or 15 months, I suggest that we could look into the health concerns.

The issue has been acknowledged in the paper that was produced for the Scottish Executive. Under the section entitled "Changing Perceptions", the paper says:

"Whilst the new regulations provide opportunities for greater consultation and information sharing, the perceived exclusion of health-related matters in the context of telecommunications is problematic."

We should look at that issue when we consider the bill.

In welcoming my new colleague Grahame—I am sorry, I mean Christine—

We are all getting our names wrong.

I am sorry to introduce a note of discord in welcoming Christine Grahame, but having sat on the Health and Community Care Committee for four years, during which time we considered weighty legislation such as the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Bill and the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill, I think that it is unacceptable for any committee to bat back a petition because it cannot find a place for it in its work programme. I accept that all committees have heavy work loads, but when the Health and Community Care Committee had such a work load, we appointed a committee reporter.

All members have received a lot of letters about TETRA masts. The bottom line for me is the Stewart report, which recommended that frequencies

"around 16 Hz should be avoided"

as they are known to interfere with rhythms in humans and may cause serious illness. It is alleged that TETRA masts pulse at 17.6Hz. I am aware that that issue is not for our committee, but for the Health Committee. I feel strongly that we should ask the new convener of the Health Committee to take on responsibility for the petitions.

The first committee on which I served was the Transport and the Environment Committee, which conducted the inquiry. However, the subject of that inquiry was standard mobile phone masts, whereas the masts that we are considering are a very different animal. We need a lot more information on TETRA masts. Perhaps it would be useful if the clerks were to look at the recommendations in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report and at whether the base information in that report could act as a useful basis for an inquiry into TETRA masts. The Stewart report was quoted at the time and the committee took a lot of evidence. That might cut out some of the work that would be needed for a full inquiry into TETRA masts.

Picking up from Donald Gorrie's point at the beginning of the discussion, I note that the Executive stated in February 2004 that it does not intend to include health as a material consideration in planning guidance. I find that bizarre. If something poses a risk to health, surely it should not get past first base. We ought to give further consideration to that point in the planning context.

There are concerns about all sorts of things out there: one needs only to pick up any newspaper on any day to see the health issues that people are worried about. Scott Barrie made the point about trying to prove a negative. If the judgment about whether something is a health risk will be dealt with by a parliamentary committee, surely the Health Committee should do that. It is not a question of passing the buck; it is about ensuring that the buck goes to the right place and gets dealt with in the right place.

I will try to be conciliatory. I hear what John Home Robertson is saying. The Health Committee said that, if the Communities Committee decided to take on the issue, it would appoint a reporter to the Communities Committee. However, having raised the matter of health issues not being part of the planning process, perhaps we could broaden the inquiry. This may sound a bit daft, but a reporter from the Communities Committee and a reporter from the Health Committee could be appointed to deal with the issue, with the reporter from the Communities Committee looking at the planning aspects and broadening it out. [Interruption.] Do you not think that that is a good idea, John? That would tackle head-on the Executive—

It would be confused.

Okay.

A couple of members have mentioned that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. However, we can at least look for the link. In some cases, when there has been a lot of public concern but no proof, a significant attempt has at least been made to establish the link. That has not happened in this case. If we are arguing that health concerns should be a consideration in planning, it is for us to review the planning system and how the Executive operates it. If those considerations are decided without sufficient evidence having been gathered—without sufficient relevant research having been done—it is for us to review how the planning system is being operated.

Anyone who was looking in at this committee might conclude that we were all trying to pass the buck. It seems like a hot potato that members are juggling about. As Scott Barrie said, people are seriously concerned about the health effects of the masts. Whether that is something that people should have a concern about, I do not know—I am not a scientist and I do not know the detail. However, it is clear that people want answers. I, too, am going to start passing the buck by saying that the Health Committee should take on the responsibility of looking into the concerns to see whether it can find some answers. The Health Committee should work with the Scottish Executive to ensure that we have the research that is required. Both petitions raise the issues of health and planning. This committee can take the matter forward and keep it in mind when we look at the planning issues that will come before us over the next wee while.

For the Executive to say that health issues are not a material consideration in planning is correct, in a way. However, environmental impact assessments have to be submitted with any major planning application, and those assessments take account of the development's effect on people's health and the environment. We should deal with the issues that are raised in the petition when we look at the proposed planning legislation. We should say to the people who have petitioned us that although we will not be able to change the situation tomorrow, we can change it, and hope to do so, in the future.

When the Transport and the Environment Committee held its inquiry into the siting of telecommunications masts, the situation did not change overnight but changes were introduced over a period of time. As I recall, companies used to be able to erect telephone masts below a certain level, but changes were introduced to ensure that planning permission was required for all telecommunications masts. Changes happen, but not overnight. I realise that that will not please the people who are petitioning the Parliament, but if they can be reassured that we will consider seriously the points that they raise in regard to planning when we discuss the proposed legislation, that will be a step in the right direction.

A couple of members have indicated that they want to speak. Before allowing them to do so, I will summarise the position and make an observation.

There has been a suggestion that we write to the Executive to ask how it thinks that the health and the planning aspects will fit together. It would be helpful to get that clarified. My understanding is that the argument centres on a fine point. One cannot deny planning permission to something because one has ruled that it is unhealthy. A process that related to health and safety regulations would determine whether something was safe or not safe. If something is deemed safe enough to be built, it cannot be denied planning permission on health grounds but something that is a threat to health should not be being constructed in the first place, regardless of whether it then secures planning permission. We need to have a dialogue with the Executive on that issue and get further information on the research that has been done. I understand that the relevant research has been done by the Home Office. We might want to get hold of that research and ask the Executive how it is being fed through into its work.

Another suggestion is that, if there is a question about whether the masts are unhealthy, the issue should not be whether the planning committee deems that they should be constructed. If that is the case, the Health Committee should conduct an investigation into that matter. However, we must be careful that we are not instructing other committees to do something; other committees have to make judgments on their work loads, just as we have done. As we have said, there will always be a difficult balance to be struck between parliamentary pressures on our time—our commitments and responsibilities—and what comes to us through the public petitions system, and there will always be people who will not be happy with our decisions in that regard.

Cathie Craigie and others have mentioned new planning regulations. The fact that health is not included as a planning consideration—a situation that the Executive intends to maintain—was a great frustration for the Transport and the Environment Committee when it conducted its inquiry into telecommunications masts. However, during that inquiry, there was no talk of a planning review or the implementation of a new planning system. Now that the Executive is changing the planning regulations, surely we should decide whether the Executive should be lobbied to consider having health as a planning consideration. That would support the call for a further inquiry.

Would it be logical for us to say that, as part of our preparation for the planning bill, we undertake to enter into a dialogue with the Executive on the question of how health can fit into the planning process? We could take the matter forward in that context, which would allow the Health Committee to do other work.

One of the 10 commitments in the paper entitled "An Evaluation of Revised Planning Controls Over Telecommunications Development" relates to International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection certification. I am no expert on the issue, but I have read comments by people who have written to members of the committee, one of whom said that the ICNIRP certificate that is used by planning departments to rubber-stamp the safety of communication masts is not appropriate in the case of terrestrial trunked radio because it does not take into account the fact that the signal has a component of 17.6Hz periodicity.

I wonder whether that is correct. Is it the case that the evaluation is considering the old mobile phone masts and that the certificate does not take into account the TETRA system? If it does not, the guidance that is issued to local authorities should be updated. That could be done in advance of the planning bill.

You are right to suggest that the international guidance and United Kingdom guidance measure the strength and intensity of radiation but ignore the pulsing, which is, principally, the issue with TETRA. The Executive has the power to implement its own set of guidelines. It is not bound to follow the UK or international guidelines, but can take a stricter position.

I want to pick up on the convener's point. It is correct to say that the overall safety of a piece of technology in relation to health is not a matter for us, but even if a piece of technology is regarded in general as safe enough to use, the decision about where to site it is organised through the planning system. Applications that are submitted for TETRA masts in local communities, perhaps in residential areas, require planning decisions and they are relevant to us.

If people's concern, which they are legitimately expressing, is that they believe the system to be unhealthy—

I could make the same case in relation to landfill sites, runways or incinerators. The Executive's position is that all those things are necessary, but where they are sited and how they impact on the people who live near them should be material considerations for planning. TETRA is another good example of that.

Mary Scanlon asked why we are writing to the Executive. We want to drill into its thinking about why it says that health is not a planning consideration. The Executive's response will inform us in relation to the planning legislation that is coming through, and could be the starting point for that discussion.

We must be careful about how we word that. If planning authorities took health into consideration in every planning application, anybody could argue that a planning proposal would have an adverse effect on their health. To give a petty example, if somebody wanted to come along and build a house right in front of mine and spoil my view, I could say that that would have an adverse effect on my health.

We must ensure that the environmental assessments that people have to submit when major planning applications are considered take into account the adverse effects that they might have on people's lives. The committee has considered the matter as a planning issue, but we have to widen it a bit. It is perhaps too easy for a civil servant somewhere to say that health is not a material consideration. If the Health Committee agrees to conduct an inquiry, we must try to get the scientific information that must exist on whether TETRA masts have a detrimental effect on people's health.

As I said, I understand that there is continuing research into that by the Home Office. It would be useful to know whether such things are monitored regularly and whether there is a facility for pulling back from development if further information emerges.

I will try again to say something sensible. Would it be possible to suggest to the Health Committee that it take up David Davidson's argument about collating information on various aspects of the science and health issues? The committee could commission that work and have it done off-piste, as it were; the research would not have to be part of its work load. Also, I would be interested to know what happens with planning applications elsewhere in the UK and Europe when TETRA masts are involved and what views are taken into account in planning processes before plans go any further. That would allow a two-pronged approach to the matter.

We should write to the Executive and ask it to clarify the wider relationship between health and planning, as Cathie Craigie suggested. Secondly, we should ask the Executive for its understanding of the scientific research that has been done so far on TETRA masts and we should ask SPICe for an assessment of the existing published research, either directly or, if members prefer, via the Health Committee. We should try to get as much information as possible, while doing as little work as possible. We can do the necessary work on the basis of that information.

We are reaching a consensus, which is remarkable. We will write to the Executive and ask it what point it has reached in this discussion and in its on-going research. We could ask SPICe for information or, if that would involve too much work for SPICe, we could commission a study or examine the published research, which presumably takes in what has been done at Home Office level. I am interested in the idea that at some point we should examine how these matters are dealt with elsewhere in planning terms, as that would inform our work on the planning bill. It is possible that the Scottish Executive has relevant information and that it is building its planning bill around work that has been done elsewhere, so we could usefully ask the Executive about that. Do members agree to those three suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

When we ask SPICe about the state of play with research, we should ask about research that is relevant to pulsed radiation, rather than just to telecommunications masts in general. That is the issue that has been raised with us.

I do not envisage our returning to the broader discussion about telecommunications masts that took place in the first Parliament. Our inquiries will relate much more specifically to the issues that have been flagged up in the petitions.

I want to seek clarification of whether the ICNIRP process that rubber-stamps the safety of masts takes into account TETRA.

That is agreed.

What we have discussed is all very well, but we have received petitions and back-up information from people who feel that their health is being adversely affected by TETRA masts that have already been installed. I do not know whether we can even begin to address that issue.

We would need to ask the relevant organisations—the Executive and so on—how the masts are being monitored and what is being done to respond to local concerns.

Do we agree to take the course of action that has been proposed in relation to the petitions and to inform the petitioners appropriately?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 10:52.