Communities Committee, 31 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Official Report 198KB pdf

---

Petitions

Item 3 is petitions. Before we go into the detail, I will explain my intention to take them slightly out of order. I propose to deal with petition PE447, by Gregor McIntyre, then petition PE650, on terrestrial trunked radio masts, then petitions PE541 and PE543, on landfill and waste management. I spoke to Karen Whitefield MSP—who has been promoting petition PE543—this morning. She is having difficulty getting here on time and has sent her apologies. I said that we would discuss petition PE543 last. If she is here, she will be able to contribute. If not, we will have done our best by her. Is it acceptable to the committee to reorder the petitions in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Volunteers (PE447)

We are invited to consider how we wish to deal with four petitions that have been referred to us for further consideration. The first is petition PE447, by Gregor McIntyre, on local community projects. Are there any comments on the petition?

I do not know whether it was just me, but I found it incredibly confusing and difficult to understand exactly what is going on. There seems to have been a difficulty in the social inclusion partnership in West Dunbartonshire, but I am not clear what the difficulty was. Do we have to decide whether there are national implications or whether it was purely a local difficulty?

I think that that is right. We might be looking at whether the way in which the SIP process is organised affects the ability of SIPs to address local issues, and whether there is a conflict with national priorities.

I noted a few comments when I was reading the committee papers. I was concerned to read that

"Des McNulty MSP—who supports the petition—also indicated that he believes that there are inaccuracies in the Executive response."

Given that the there is to be a transition from SIPs to community planning, it might be worth the committee looking into the matter further to see whether there are lessons to be learned. Like Scott Barrie, I am not clear what the problem was.

Having read the approach paper, I think that we should be concerned because social inclusion is part of our remit. It is a question of whether the Executive's plans, targets and objectives are being considered by Greater Glasgow NHS Board—it appears that the board did not consult the community and the petitioners say that what was done was out of synch with the priorities of the community. The worrying aspect of the matter is covered in the paragraph of the paper that Elaine Smith quoted—the paragraph on page 2 that refers to Des McNulty's involvement—which says:

"Des McNulty MSP … feels that this resulted in the loss of a valued local project and, even looking at the broader work of the SIP, a worsening of service."

We will be having deliberations on the budget today and we are examining how targets for closing the opportunity gap, social inclusion and so on can be achieved, so we should be concerned about the process if Greater Glasgow NHS Board is not consulting the community and if, instead of achieving targets, it is actually making things worse. There have been rumblings about SIPs and their projects for years. We should perhaps hear more from Des McNulty, whose statement is serious. We are responsible for good value and for effective management of the public purse.

I have some sympathy with the points that have been made by Mary Scanlon and Elaine Smith, but I am not sure that we can necessarily construe what they suggest from the information in front of us. I had some difficulty in ascertaining exactly what the problem is. It seems from some of the letters in support of the petition that some people in the SIPs are saying one thing about how community views were arrived at, while others—through organisations that include Greater Glasgow NHS Board—are saying that the priorities were established by people from the community, but in another forum. As I understand it, that is how the conflict appears to have arisen. I find it difficult to work out what we should do about it on the basis of the information that we have in front of us. That was the initial point that I wanted to raise, rather than get into the nitty-gritty of the matter. I am not sure that we have enough information to do so.

There are various processes by which SIPs are monitored and their work evaluated; for example, local SIPs are themselves involved in dealing with evaluations. I would be concerned if we were simply to investigate specific experiences of SIPs following complaints, rather than to consider the general issues that are highlighted. There is no doubt that the community planning process will deal with some such issues as the transfer between organisations takes place.

The Executive is explicit in its correspondence. It takes an entirely different view from the petitioners. We could write to the Executive again to seek clarification on its suggestion, perhaps reiterating the points that were made by Des McNulty about the difficulties that seem to have occurred. Two diametrically opposing things are being said. We could ask the Executive to respond to the specific points that Des McNulty and the petitioners have made, and thereafter reflect on the matter. Would that be acceptable?

That suggestion would be acceptable. The central point is that the petitioners, who represent a community, say that their priorities for social inclusion are not reflected in the priorities of Greater Glasgow NHS Board. There is a point to be made about ensuring that that is corrected in the future, through the community planning process.

Given that we have widened the discussion out to community planning and other SIPs, it was a bit remiss of me not to say earlier that I have an interest to declare in that I am on the board of South Coatbridge social inclusion partnership.

I am in the Greater Pollok social inclusion partnership. We could go into a huddle later and talk about our experiences.

Will we ask for more information from those on both sides of the argument and send each side the papers that have been provided by the other so that they can explain why they think that the other side's case is wrong? Is that what we are aiming for?

I think that the two sides have gone down that road already, even if the matter has not previously appeared before us. It is perhaps a matter of our asking the Executive a specific question on its point of view. Let me find the exact wording. The paper says:

"in this case an unfortunate situation had arisen where some of the people in two of the nine SIP areas … wanted to use the SIP funding".

Later it says:

"The Executive does not think that this was a case where local priorities were being ignored so that national priorities could be pursued."

That is the Executive's view but Des McNulty's view is different. Perhaps we should ask the Executive to respond to Des McNulty's view; Des and the petitioner have already commented on the Executive's view. It would therefore be useful to go back to the Executive for clarification on how it can be so categorical when different views are held. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Terrestrial Trunked Radio Communication Masts (PE650)

I welcome Mark Ruskell MSP. He is here to speak to petition PE650 on terrestrial trunked radio communication masts in Scotland. Petition PE650 is from Alison Mackay on behalf of a group called NO 2 TETRA Scotland.

Thank you convener. I will try to keep my comments brief; I know that you have a busy agenda.

I want to make two points. The first concerns timescales. There is increasing public alarm about the roll-out of the TETRA police communication system. I first became aware of the issue at this time last year, before I was elected, when I attended a public meeting in Cupar. Since then, seven community-based campaign groups have been established in the Mid Scotland and Fife region alone, and I gather that other groups in other parts of Scotland are as concerned as we are about the system.

The roll-out of the TETRA system has proceeded at a pace similar to that of the growing public concern. The background information in the committee's paper on the petition notes that 14 planning applications have been lodged in Fife but that Fife Council has held back on approving them until health studies have been completed. Since that information was presented to the Public Petitions Committee, 12 of the masts have been approved. Indeed, as we sit here this morning, another planning application for a mast is going before Fife Council for approval. This is all happening ahead of an NHS monitoring study into the only active TETRA mast in operation in Fife.

Timescales are an issue. Roll-out is happening apace and public concern is growing apace. Now is the right time for a parliamentary committee to consider the issue that the petitioners have raised.

My second point concerns the difference between conventional mobile phone technology and TETRA. The worry among communities and independent scientists is to do with the perception that TETRA masts pulse; they use different technology from the mobile phone technology that we are all used to. Scientists disagree over whether the masts pulse and there are concerns that the standards that are applied to mobile telecommunications technology predate TETRA and therefore do not deal with specific concerns about the technology. Government advice refers to the precautionary principle, which suggests that we should not be rolling out such low-frequency telecommunication systems until studies have been completed.

There has been some delay in correspondence with the Public Petitions Committee but I believe that the time is right for an inquiry to take place. That inquiry should focus on the specific concerns that are raised in respect of TETRA, rather than rerun the entire mobile phone inquiry that took place in the first session of the Parliament.

Thank you—I appreciate your brevity. Do any members wish to comment?

We will hear a ministerial statement tomorrow on planning and planning consultation; we have heard about GM crops, about pylons that are 70 feet higher and about wind farms. We now have TETRA masts as well. All these alleged health concerns are coming up, so this might be an opportune time to ask whether health concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming planning bill or will go out to consultation. I understand that the Scottish Executive is helping to fund research into TETRA masts—either research on their health impacts or a review of the available research—which will be published this year. At what point in 2004 is that likely to appear?

From reading the background papers, I gained an impression that England was the guinea pig for TETRA masts before Scotland. However, the information that I have received from Newport-on-Tay, Kirriemuir and from Sussex and elsewhere—where TETRA masts already exist—shows that local communities and about 200 police officers who use TETRA handsets have been complaining about various health effects, including headaches, nosebleeds, nausea, disorientation, confusion, lack of concentration, dizziness and interrupted sleep.

I have read the Stewart report, which recommends, for example, that mobile phones should not be used by young children of about eight or 10 who have developing brains. However, no such warning is given on the box or in the instructions for a mobile phone. I spent four years on the then Health and Community Care Committee dealing with various petitions, so I would be a little bit more cautious before giving the proposal the green light. I would like more information to be brought before us before we rubber-stamp the idea. There are serious concerns and we owe it to those who have expressed those concerns to do as much as we can to get hold of the available information before we comment.

I agree with much of what Mary Scanlon says. I think that the Stewart report also recommended that mobile phone masts should not be located near primary schools and other places where children gather and play. I was concerned to read in the committee papers that some TETRA masts will be located in such areas, so I urge adoption of the precautionary principle. The recommendations in our papers are quite reasonable.

My experience of telecommunication masts in my constituency is that a decision not to erect a mast in a school, based on the precautionary principle, can have the unintended consequence of a mast being erected on private land opposite the school. If you think about it, it is probably safer to have the mast cascading outwards from the school than it is to have it across the road, from where it cascades on the kids. Another problem was that, because the masts were not allowed in parks, they were erected in residential areas, where children play at night. We have to keep an eye on such issues.

The Stewart report said that the masts should not be located near schools or places where children play. One of the reasons why they were not erected in schools was that a number of councils put a moratorium on them to ensure that they did not have masts on council land and buildings.

My point is that the good principles that were being operated by local authorities and employers who were concerned about the health effects of the masts resulted in their being erected in areas over which the community had no control. The most vulnerable group of people—owner-occupiers with a lot of children—were worst affected. That was my direct experience of use of the precautionary principle, but that is an argument for another day.

What Mary Scanlon says about the planning bill is important. Many of the issues around community involvement and so on should be addressed by the committee when we gather evidence during stage 1 of that bill. That process will enable us to explore generally many related issues. Mary Scanlon said that we should not give a green light to the proposal, but the reality is that the mast-erection programme is on-going. The green light has already been given.

Are people happy that we follow the recommendation to ask the Executive for the research? We should gather as much information as possible before we consider the matter further. The Public Petitions Committee suggested that we might want to consult the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Health Committee. Are members content with those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members want to add anything further?

My concern is that, as you rightly point out, the masts are going up while we are taking evidence and considering the matter. We must proceed with as much speed as possible, otherwise any work that is done by the committee will be negated by the fact that the programme will have been rolled out. I urge the committee to take action as swiftly as possible, although that might not be easy. The matter is serious because the precautionary principle is not being observed.

The matter is slightly like the previous one in that many—presumably well-informed—people are saying totally different things on the same subject.

If there is evidence from England that police personnel have complained about the system, it might be worth contacting the chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland to ask whether he is aware of complaints about the system by the police elsewhere in the UK.

The general situation is difficult. There is a Latin tag to the effect that everything unknown is considered dangerous. When a funny new mast is put up or a new system installed, people in a community are naturally apprehensive, which is quite understandable. The difficulty is in ascertaining whether the science backs up their fears. Scientists from different sides bombard us with different stories. It would help to try to get the official position from the Executive, but we should also contact the police.

I am happy to follow the recommendations. Mary Scanlon described the symptoms of people who live close to TETRA masts in England, but that situation does not exist only in England. The symptoms are similar to those that have been described by people who have lived around the Firth of Clyde for a number of years. One of the suggested reasons for the symptoms was transmissions between submerged submarines and their bases on land. That was never fully investigated and ruled out. It would be remiss of the committee and Parliament not to fully investigate the potential harm of TETRA, given the symptoms that have been experienced by people in the Firth of Clyde, particularly in Largs. There might be something in the similarity between their symptoms and those of the people in England who live near TETRA masts.

Donald Gorrie's suggestion that we contact the police to ask how they monitor their personnel is worth while. We should ask what process they follow. At what point would the situation become critical and cause them to deal with it? The police must have internal processes and systems to deal with reported complaints. Are they in dialogue with their colleagues down south to establish to what extent the matter is a concern there, and to what extent they are dealing with it?

Are we content with those additions—that we contact the Executive in the first instance to ask about its research and for its comments? We should make a commitment to the planning legislation because the process is out of kilter with the concerns of communities. The situation is on-going, but concerns are building up. Those concerns might be unfounded, but we must ask to what extent the Executive can reassure people as the process continues. Is that agreed?

Do I take it that the committee will refer other aspects to the Health Committee for it to consider?

The committee agrees to consult the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Health Committee on the issues that have been raised, as suggested by the Public Petitions Committee.

---

Landfill Sites (PE541 and PE543)

We move on to PE541 by Dr James S Buchanan on behalf of the Roslin Community Action Group on landfill and waste management, and PE543 by Karen Whitefield MSP on landfill and waste management.

I spoke this morning to Karen Whitefield, who apologised because it is likely that she will be unable to attend the meeting. Clearly, there are several issues that the committee will want to explore. The issue in her constituency has exercised Karen Whitefield greatly; she is keen to emphasise that the experience of her community, as highlighted in the papers, could usefully inform the committee in its consideration of the planning bill, particularly in relation to community involvement. She hopes that the committee can make a commitment that, in our scrutiny of the bill, we will acknowledge the importance of that experience and focus on community involvement. I hope that committee members can take that into account.

I agree with that. We all look forward with hope to the planning statement that will be made tomorrow and to the bill that will no doubt follow. That will open the planning system up a bit so that communities can feel that they have a role in providing for and planning for the future in their areas. They will also feel that they have the rights that many people feel are denied them when they are not able to make further appeals when decisions are made at local and ministerial level. It would be premature to do anything else on the petitions other than assure the petitioners that we will consider the issue very carefully when we scrutinise the Executive's proposals.

As I understand it, one of the complaints is that some areas have problems with landfill, which does not help the area, but they are also denied good recycling opportunities that could help them. As well as public involvement in planning, it might be worth investigating whether it could be part of planning conditions for landfill that commensurate recycling activities must also take place. I do not know at what stage we would pursue that, but it is important.

We have to listen carefully to communities such as Greengairs, which have been particularly active because of what has happened to them recently. During our deliberations we should take on board what such communities say. Only by learning from that can we hope to avoid repetition of such situations in other communities throughout Scotland. What Karen Whitefield suggests seems to make perfect sense.

We will seek further information on plans to address the planning issues that have been raised in relation to the issue and in forthcoming legislation. Tomorrow's statement might give us a bit of a steer on that. We might ask about community involvement and consultation. It might be useful for us to revisit, during our consideration of the bill, the points that Donald Gorrie made about the quid pro quo in respect of recycling.

We will ask the Executive for further information, check what it is doing on community involvement, listen carefully to tomorrow's statement on planning, and make a commitment to Greengairs and other similarly affected communities that we will ensure that their experience is reflected in our evidence taking for the bill. We will also write to the Health Committee to seek comments on the health concerns that have been raised in the petitions. Are those suggestions agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—