Telecommunications
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-803, in the name of Mr Andy Kerr, on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, on that committee's report on the inquiry into proposals to introduce new planning procedures for telecommunications developments. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I am delighted to open this debate on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I thank my colleagues for their hard work in producing a thoughtful and thorough report. I also thank the clerking and research staff, who have contributed greatly to the report.
I believe that the report is a vindication of the committee system of the Scottish Parliament. Cross-party representation and people's ability to contribute their views have resulted in a consensual report, without any divisions, but with plenty decisions. As I have said on many occasions, the experience of the Transport and the Environment Committee in this inquiry has been yet another good example of how this Parliament works best.
The issue covered by the report was first raised with me by the community living in Lister Tower in East Kilbride, who came to me with some searching questions that I could not answer. Those questions were repeated by the high-rise flats residents association, which represents people in other high-rise flats in East Kilbride. I was asked: "What are these masts? How did they get here? Why was I not told about it? Is there a health problem?"
When I shared those concerns with members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, we were all able to relate them to our own areas, where communities were coming up with similar questions. We did not have clear answers. When we started our investigation, many other MSPs told me similar stories. Local newspapers are running campaigns all over the country. In my constituency, the East Kilbride News is running articles and asking questions on this issue. Again, answers are not to hand.
The strength of this Parliament and its committee system lies in the fact that we were able to take up the issue, agree a remit, take action and reach a conclusion. I hope that the minister will take the issue to its ultimate conclusion and, in due course, adopt our recommendations in full.
Since the report was released, it has received a warm welcome from many people inside and outside the Parliament, including organisations and individuals in communities. I have been genuinely surprised by the impact that it has had and the attention that it has received. The response to the report has only added to our desire to see the matter resolved in the manner advocated by the committee.
The Transport and the Environment Committee recognises the importance and the social and economic benefits of modern telecommunications systems. We also recognise that this is an emergent technology and that exciting developments offer us the third generation of mobile telephony, wireless application protocol, and the possibility of using the internet from the handset of a mobile phone. However, all that is counterbalanced by the genuine concerns of the public and of planning authorities over the perceived lack of planning controls and over telecommunications developments and their related impacts.
The economic contribution of the technology is immense. I am sure that the Parliament recognises that. We can all imagine how it would affect our lives if we were unable to use our pagers and mobile phones. Commerce and society as a whole are aware of the necessity of this technology.
At its meeting on 22 September 1999, the Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence from the Scottish Executive on the process for considering telecommunications developments in Scotland and on its proposals for revising the planning regimes for those developments. We also took evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Not entirely convinced by what we heard, the committee decided to undertake further inquiries into the appropriate process for considering telecommunications developments.
The committee was concerned that the Executive's proposed approach of bringing telecommunications developments under a system of prior approval could be insufficient in terms of the control required in the planning system. As in all things that the committee undertook, we were meticulous. We ensured that the inquiry was sufficiently wide to enable us to draw conclusions, and yet not so wide that we would have either been swamped by the issues or crossed into the remits of other committees, something that we were keen to avoid.
It is important to stress that, for the Transport and the Environment Committee, this was an issue about the environment. Although we looked at health issues, we considered a number of other issues. We were clear that, if we were to examine health issues, we would do so in the context of the planning process.
As members are aware, the Stewart committee will report today at 10.30 am; I understand that a summary is available at the back of the chamber. The report deals with many of the health matters. Members will also have seen the health concerns expressed in today's newspapers.
The committee sought views on the proposed planning procedure and on the policy framework for the consideration of telecommunications developments. The terms of reference to which witnesses were invited to respond were: whether telecommunications developments should be subject to full planning controls; what factors—such as health, amenity and the precautionary principle—should be taken into account in forming policy on telecommunications developments; and what the published guidance from the Scottish Executive should contain. I am pleased to report that the committee received many written responses and supplementary papers.
The committee met on a number of occasions on this subject and heard oral evidence from 20 organisations and individuals. I believe that the strength of the committee structure in the Scottish Parliament lies in the fact that we could harness the best information on the subject from Government, local government, elected members and officials, the industry—in the form of the phone companies and professional bodies and organisations—pressure groups and, crucially, community groups and campaign groups that are dealing with mobile phone masts literally in their own back yard.
On the evidence that we received in writing and from organisations that attended the committee, we came to the following conclusions. Under the current planning framework for telecommunications, developers and operators enjoy permitted development rights. The majority of planning authorities that responded to the inquiry sought enhanced planning control over telecommunications. In particular, they expressed concerns about the speed, quality and effectiveness of the current process, which they said lacked local democracy and local accountability. In its oral evidence, COSLA stated that the common ground between the Scottish Executive and the operators was that the present system was inadequate and should be changed. The committee concurred with that view.
At the time of our report, the Scottish Executive proposed the introduction of a prior approval procedure to give planning authorities greater control. It was believed that the system, which incorporates licence conditions, permitted development rights and planning guidance, would provide adequate planning control and would be consistent with the Government's policy. However, the committee came to the conclusion that there were significant weaknesses with regard to prior approval. The system will need to be reassessed in the light of the Stewart committee. I am pleased to say that the Stewart committee—I have had a quick look at its report—concurs with our views that prior approval is not satisfactory in terms of control.
The committee's report notes that the Department of Trade and Industry and the telecommunications developers suggest that the introduction of full planning control would not be a preferred option. However, that view contrasts with the position of COSLA, the planning authorities, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland and others, which support the introduction of full planning control, which they suggest would have a number of advantages over the system of prior approval.
The committee recognises the social and economic benefits arising from modern telecommunications systems. However, having carefully considered the evidence, the committee is not convinced that the introduction of full planning control will significantly slow down the roll-out of telecommunications developments and concludes that the benefits of the introduction of full planning control outweigh the potential disadvantages. The committee therefore supports the introduction of full planning control for telecommunications developments. I am, again, pleased to say that the Stewart committee concurs with our view on that matter.
At the start of the inquiry, the committee sought views on the factors that may require to be taken into account in informing policy. The key factors relate to amenity, health and a precautionary approach.
The committee is of the view that a number of steps should be taken to minimise the environmental impact of telecommunications developments, including: early discussion with telecommunications developers, operators and planning authorities on strategic network requirements; site sharing; mast sharing; design and disguise of masts; and the introduction of a requirement on telecommunications developers to conclude national roaming arrangements.
The committee considered that some areas might be more environmentally sensitive than others—for example, areas subject to existing designations and areas that local authorities and other bodies identify as sensitive. The siting of telecommunications infrastructure in those areas would not necessarily be precluded. The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should, allowing for local flexibility, develop guidance on the treatment of environmentally sensitive areas to minimise the impact of telecommunications development. We take the view that, beyond that, it is for individual planning authorities to determine the designation of environmentally sensitive areas with regard to the characteristics of their localities.
On health, the committee recognises that there is no conclusive scientific evidence on non-thermal effects and the risk to the public. The report from the Stewart committee, which we now have, states:
"We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases".
Based on that judgment and the committee's judgment—which in turn is based on the evidence that we received—and recognising the complex issues of public health, including information on the perceived effects, the committee considers that there is reasonable doubt about the health risks. We therefore recommend that health should be viewed as a material planning consideration and that a precautionary approach should be adopted at a national level, allowing for local flexibility.
The committee thinks that sites such as schools, nurseries, hospitals and residential areas should be considered sensitive for environmental health reasons. We recommend that, in taking the precautionary approach, local authorities should refer to a hierarchy of preferred locations for telecommunications developments. Where possible, densely populated areas should be avoided in favour of areas that are more sparsely populated. However, the committee does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support a recommendation for the implementation of mechanisms such as a cordon sanitaire. The Stewart report has much more to say on health; and other members may raise the issue in this debate.
The inquiry received evidence, particularly from local authorities, that supported the need for clear and firm Government guidance on a range of matters within a national policy framework. The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should develop a national plan incorporating telecommunications developments and co-ordinating the plans of other agencies. The committee recommends that in the interim there should be speedy preparation of national planning guidance on telecommunications development, which should be supported by a planning advice note setting out best practice.
Within that framework, local authorities should be encouraged to develop their policies on telecommunications developments speedily and, if necessary, through amendments to existing plans. The committee recommends that the process of developing the policy framework and guidance should allow full consultation with interested bodies, including telecommunications developers and operators.
Several requirements for guidance were identified during the inquiry. The committee recommends that guidance should be based on a precautionary approach. Guidance should cover health and safety; planning and development control; obligations on operators and information that is required from them; the role and responsibilities of different parts of the Scottish Executive and other bodies; monitoring and reporting; and good practice for local planning authorities and telecommunications developers.
I am now aware of the contents of the report of the Stewart inquiry and am pleased that it has echoed many of our proposals. It is interesting to note that our report is one of the four references in the Stewart report; that is a measure of the committee's work. I am particularly pleased that the Stewart group supported our view that there should be full planning powers.
I thank the Minister for Transport and the Environment for her positive response, which has been widely trailed and was issued to committee members. There are matters of detail on which we may differ, but I am sure that we will soon be able to resolve those differences. However, I will stick to the substantive point on full planning. I acknowledge the warm response that there has been to many of our proposals.
I hope that the minister will tell us when she will make a full response to the committee report and the Stewart report, stating what action will be taken and in what time scale it will be taken. She can rest assured that the Transport and the Environment Committee will remain on the case until that response has been received.
I urge members to examine the facts that we have gathered and the conclusions that we have drawn. The issue is complex and multifaceted, but that reflects the society that has brought us to this debate and the communities throughout Scotland for which its outcome matters. Everyone is involved, even if they do not look intently at the signal strength on their phone or live close to a mast. Some people rely on mobile phones and others do not. It was the need to balance difficult factors that led the committee to adopt the approach that it did. I hope that the Parliament will support our report.
In a sense, we are here to reflect the views and concerns of our communities; I believe that our report does that. I believe that Scotland is leading the way in changing the structures for telecommunications developments. I commend the report to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report, 2000 of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Report on the Inquiry into Proposals to Introduce New Planning Procedures for Telecommunications Developments (SP Paper 90), and commends the recommendations to the Scottish Executive.
I am pleased to speak in this debate. The first report of the Transport and the Environment Committee is the result of a great deal of investigation. Committee members have worked well; they have achieved consensus and a result that, if implemented, would be in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
It is regrettable that the summary report of the Stewart inquiry was not available to members until this morning, particularly given that the media was telephoning me—and I presume other members of the committee—last night, asking for comment on the report, which had been issued to them. I would have thought that the Executive and the Government in London would have realised by now that journalistic spin is not an acceptable alternative to democratic accountability. However, that is an on-going issue, which the Scottish Parliament will have to deal with properly in the near future.
Today, we are dealing with the proliferation of mobile telephone masts across our country and the legitimate concerns surrounding that issue. All members will have had some representation from concerned parents about masts being erected near schools, or from people who have arrived home to find themselves in the shadow of such a mast. As our convener said, in some cases, such as Lister Tower in East Kilbride, the masts are erected on the buildings themselves. In all those cases, there are valid concerns about the reports of potential adverse effects on health and the impact on the visual environment.
The Transport and the Environment Committee tackled the task of reporting on those concerns very seriously. We took evidence from a range of bodies during the inquiry; we received more than 100 written submissions and heard evidence from 20 organisations and individuals. The report was agreed unanimously and our main conclusion is that the erection of masts for mobile telephones should be a matter for full planning controls. That is the only way in which the views and concerns of people most directly affected by the masts can be properly addressed.
In addition, planning authorities confirm that the work load for councils is almost exactly the same for planning applications as it is for the prior approval system previously favoured by the Executive. However, the suggested fees for the prior approval system are lower. If the auction of licences to the industry can rake in £22 billion for Gordon Brown's daily inflating war chest, why should Scottish councils have to subsidise the same industry's on-going approvals?
Health, environment and the right of the public to notification and consultation are just some of the reasons why I have concerns about the Executive's seeming reluctance to accept in full the recommendations of the committee. I suspect that the Executive will now move some way towards full planning controls, but I am concerned about the statement issued by the minister in which she worries about neighbour notification. The people who live in the areas where masts are being erected have the right to prior notification and to have input into the siting of such masts.
The minister is adamant that we should not lose sight of the beneficial effects of the expansion of the mobile phone system. However, I am confident that local authorities, local government officers and, most important, the people who have to live, work, play and go to school in the shadow of the masts have the intelligence and wit to weigh up the pros and cons of where those masts are sited. After all, who knows the needs of an area better than the people who live and work there?
I exercise the precautionary principle in welcoming the Executive's response that it intends to move some way towards the committee's recommendations. I give a cautious welcome to the minister's announcement to the press on Tuesday that she will act quickly in examining the matter. However, I contend that the matter has already been examined—by the Transport and the Environment Committee and by the Stewart inquiry. Now it is time for action.
I call Nick Johnston to open for the Conservatives. You have eight minutes, Mr Johnston.
I will try to keep to my time.
I stand here this morning as a warning to every young researcher or putative candidate to Parliament—never lodge a members' business motion on any subject, because anyone who does so becomes their party's expert on that subject. I stand here leading for the Conservative party, promoted unwillingly as a telecommunications expert.
Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the report of the Transport and the Environment Committee on telecommunications masts. My first members' business motion was on the subject of mobile phone masts, occasioned by the appearance of a rather large structure not more than 25 m from my kitchen window. Members can take that as an expression of my interest in this matter.
Telecommunications is the boom industry of this decade; like Andy Kerr, I cannot think of one member of the Parliament who does not use a pager or mobile phone as an everyday working tool. We know that, under the Executive, crime is rising and police numbers are falling. As a result, children, women and more vulnerable members of society feel the need to carry mobile phones for their own protection.
The Executive hails the success of Motorola Ltd in taking over the mothballed Hyundai plant in my constituency for the production of the next generation of mobile phones. As Linda Fabiani said, the national Exchequer has just gained more than £20 billion as a result of auctioning off the next phase of mobile phone licences.
The telecoms industry is an important one, with a turnover of more than £6 billion and with 25 million users. The Scottish Conservatives want a competitive industry with a comprehensive infrastructure, yet we believe that, if we take a commonsense approach, commercial and environmental concerns do not have to be in conflict. We have to be realistic, not emotional, and understand the importance that mobile phones play in people's lives.
It was the foresight of the Conservative Government that allowed the mobile communications industry to accelerate at the rate that it has. However, we must acknowledge that the regulations that we put in place are no longer valid for today's market. Our policies enabled the fast-track development of the industry, but the sheer number of masts involved was not anticipated.
Lest we forget, 18 years of Conservative Government liberated people from the nanny state, lifting standards of expectation and taking the lead in giving people the opportunity to participate in local decision making. Regrettably, this Administration has not generally grasped that right; it must do so on this issue. While the public has embraced mobile phones, this Administration has not yet understood the need for the equipment necessary to enable the phones to work. We need to address those issues to ensure public confidence in the operating system.
The erection of mobile phone masts is causing considerable concern in many parts of the country. One of the problems of becoming my party's expert is that, every time a Conservative member receives a letter or a telephone call on this subject from a constituent, it is directed straight to my desk. I know exactly how many problems we are having throughout the country.
Measures to enforce the current environmental restrictions are weak, outdated and poorly enforced. Local communities will welcome the opportunity given by the Transport and the Environment Committee's report to have a greater say over where masts are located.
The Conservatives want to protect our visual environment and respond to concerns over public safety. The new networks—the new wireless application protocol technology—could result in up to 100,000 new masts across the countryside of Great Britain. Correspondingly, we have developed seven commonsense solutions to tackle those issues.
Permission for mast development should not be automatic. Planning guidance should be redrafted to provide a better balance between environmental and commercial concerns. Operators should have to justify the need for a new mast when environmental or health and safety concerns are raised.
A local community should have a greater say on mast developments in or near areas of environmental importance. We propose that full planning permission should be required for green-belt land, listed buildings, local wildlife sites, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and conservation areas. In addition, full planning permission should be required if it is proposed that a mast be situated just outside those areas, but still visible.
Local communities should be allowed to question mast developments near schools, hospitals and residential buildings. There are concerns that mobile phones are damaging to public health. The Stewart report has been mentioned this morning; I believe that it says that children under 12 are especially at risk, as their bodies are still developing and their skulls are lighter, thus providing less protection from radiation. I cannot understand why anybody would want to give a child of 12 a mobile phone. Several of my friends have children who have not one mobile phone but two. The precautionary approach urged by the Stewart committee is probably the right approach at this time.
We believe that full planning would make local authorities better informed about future mast developments and would encourage co-ordinated development. At the moment, operators have to prove to local authorities that they have explored mast sharing before they are allowed to erect a new mast. That is hampered by the fact that many local authorities do not have a record of all the existing masts in their area.
I refer the minister to my question on 1 September last year, asking how many applications had been received for mobile telephone transmission masts in the whole of Scotland. The answer was that the information was not held centrally. I urge the minister to start a database of masts now so that we know exactly where they are. Furthermore, the Stewart committee has asked for the masts to be registered and the radiation transmissions to be recorded for future information. We also propose that operators notify planning authorities of their forward plans for two years to ensure that the needs of all operators are known to authorities when applications are considered.
However, we should acknowledge that, in practice, there is little incentive for mobile phone operators to share masts or for surveyors to find mast locations that can be shared. Although it is recommended that local authorities keep a shared database of masts, there is actually little record of how many masts are shared. At the moment, only a third of existing masts are shared; steps should be taken to ensure more mast sharing. However, although that is technologically viable, there is the problem of competing operators wanting the top spot on the masts.
For new masts, planning regulations should be clarified so that new permission is conditional on other operators being allowed to access the completed phone mast. In fixed-line telecommunications, British Telecom's local loop is accessible to many of its competitors and the principle of common carriage could be used to encourage operators to share masts.
Although the code of best practice urges operators to replace old masts with less intrusive new technology, there are no measures to enforce that. As a condition for the new licences, targets should be set for phasing out old masts and replacing them with new technology as soon as it is developed.
On greater network sharing, we suggest an investigation into the viability of cross-network roaming within the UK, which would reduce the demand for new masts in sparsely populated areas. I spend a lot of time in Spain and am amazed that I can use my mobile phone with far greater ease there than I can in Scotland. Agreements between phone companies calculate the cost of such network sharing and a charge is passed on to the phone user. In the UK, there is no requirement on networks to provide roaming, with the exception of calls to the emergency services. However, consumers could benefit from that system; people should perhaps be able to choose to have roaming or non-roaming calls and absorb the extra costs. We urge the exploration of cross-network roaming in Scotland and the UK and consultation with the industry on this issue.
Masts should be blended into the environment. There have been some totally inappropriate attempts to disguise masts as trees and bushes, and we need to examine alternatives that are visually acceptable for the environment, to ensure that tree masts fit in with real—not pretend—trees.
All in all, we welcome and commend the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. Although we do not want to hamper the industry, we have reached the point where industry expansion and public concern must be recognised and balanced.
I am grateful to Nick Johnston for clarifying the Conservative front-bench situation. For a terrible moment, those of us who enjoy transport and the environment debates thought Murray Tosh had been demoted to the back benches. We are gratified to hear that this is just a temporary measure for today's debate.
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee and as a Liberal Democrat spokesman, I support the motion in Andy Kerr's name. The report is constructive, important for the Parliament's work and, as Linda Fabiani said, the result of exhaustive work by the committee and everyone who gave evidence. Furthermore, I want to echo Andy Kerr's tribute to the clerking staff, particularly to Lynn Tullis for her work as clerk team leader. However, I do not know whether maternity leave is due reward for all her work.
When Andy Kerr first raised this issue in the committee, other colleagues such as Elaine Smith told us of particular concerns in their communities and asked us to undertake serious work in this area. I think that the report's publication reflects well on the Parliament's ability to adopt issues of concern to the whole country and to produce important reports on such issues.
I am sure that other members heard Sir William Stewart of Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust on BBC radio this morning. He said—if I can trust my handwriting—"In some cases, emissions from mobiles may cause biological change; in particular, a child's response time may be stimulated by exposure to radiation, which may create a short-term health effect". In his radio interview this morning he linked that to the siting of mobile phone masts. His points about health were important.
The Stewart committee recommended that the Government take a precautionary approach until more research has been completed and another review has been conducted in two years' time. It has backed up the work that has been done by the Transport and the Environment Committee. That is extremely helpful.
The Stewart committee also recommended, as other members have said, that the need for planning control for mobile phone masts should be addressed. Paragraph 1.36 of its report states:
"We recommend that for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process."
That is entirely in line with what the Transport and the Environment Committee recommended. I hope that that will help to deal with concerns about different standards being applied throughout the UK.
The Stewart committee report will inform the Government at Westminster and the Transport and the Environment Committee's report will inform the Executive in Scotland, so consistency can be achieved. Vodafone AirTouch Group Services Ltd wrote to members of the Transport and the Environment Committee urging
"consistency between the Scottish Parliament's response to the Committee's Report and Westminster's response to the Stewart Inquiry Report."
We have that consistency, and I hope that the concerns of the mobile phone companies have been dealt with.
Sir William also mentioned that better information about buying and selling mobile phones should be available. That is important and relates to points that the Transport and the Environment Committee has made about people being in charge of—or, at least, involved in—the planning process. There is an opportunity for that to happen and there is consistency in the approach to that in the two reports. Sir William's report augments the work of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I encourage the Executive to pursue the precautionary approach that that report stressed and to endorse the proposals for full planning control.
I would like to pick up on a couple of points in the Executive's interim response. As Linda Fabiani said, it will be useful if Sarah Boyack tells us, in her winding-up speech, when she hopes to give a final response to the two pieces of work.
I represent a rural constituency. It is sometimes difficult to ensure that the highest standards of modern technological advancement are available in rural areas. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has put a lot of resources into that and the new objective 1 programme involves investment in it. I understand that, in European Community terms, that is known as soft infrastructure.
Mobile phones claim coverage only of a percentage of the UK's population. Evidence from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Transport and the Environment Committee said that about 90 per cent of the UK population would be covered by December 1999. That is not much help if one has three screaming kids in the car and the car radiator bursts on some back road in the middle of the Highlands where there is no mobile phone coverage.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement recently about mobile phone companies bidding for licences and the money that will accrue as a result of that process. I hoped that he would attach some strings that would ensure that the money that came into the Treasury would be used to provide greater coverage than the DTI is currently asking for. I hope that the Executive will be able to exert additional pressure in that regard. As the Executive's interim response says:
"Supporting rural economic development is a key priority of the Executive. It is important, therefore, that the economic prospects of rural areas, where modern telecommunications infrastructure can offset the disadvantages of distance, are not frustrated."
I agree absolutely, but there is an opportunity for joined-up government. There could be some strings attached to the financial return to the Government. I hope that that will be pursued with some vigour in the times ahead.
Andy Kerr mentioned the importance of mobile phones to the ways in which we do business nowadays. That is true, but they are not always a godsend. At times, I am grateful for the fact that some of my constituency is not covered by mobile phone networks. There is a particular advantage when I get off the plane at Sumburgh. BT Cellnet does not cover that end of Shetland, so when the pager goes off at 20,000 ft saying that the "Lesley Riddoch Programme" wants me, I cannot respond. That is, occasionally, quite an advantage.
I know that Ian Jenkins—if he can catch the electronic eye—wants to make some points about conservation, which Nick Johnston rightly mentioned. I do not think that it is good politics or a particularly good approach to say that national scenic designations and natural heritage areas are really important and that we must be careful about locating masts, if any, in such areas yet, given the health concerns, not go for full planning control to allow local people to be involved. Andy Kerr rightly pointed out that health should become a material planning concern. There must be a consistent approach to ensure that people are every bit as important as our natural heritage, birds, wildlife and all the rest of it. I hope that the final response to the committee's report will reflect the need for such consistency.
It is right that the committee should recommend tougher planning controls on the proliferation of masts through a requirement to apply for local authority planning permission. Given the reasonable doubt, which others have mentioned, about whether radiation from masts presents a health risk, it is also right to presume that masts should be located away from schools and residential areas.
Local people and communities should get involved in the planning process. As the committee highlighted, the current arrangement, whereby people have no right to be informed about or object to a mobile mast proposal, is not acceptable. The Stewart committee's recommendations strengthen that point.
The Transport and the Environment Committee has worked hard on the report. It is an important piece of work. I encourage the minister and the Executive to endorse the findings of the committee and to implement its recommendations.
We move to the open part of the debate. Members will have four minutes.
I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate, as I have been rather vocal on the subject of telecommunications developments since about June last year.
First, I congratulate the Transport and the Environment Committee on the work it has conducted in its inquiry into the issues surrounding telecommunications developments. I submitted comments to the committee and I am pleased that the committee's recommendations have addressed my main concerns.
Many of my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston have expressed particular anxiety about the siting of masts and base stations in residential areas and close to schools, nurseries, play areas and hospitals. Although the National Radiological Protection Board has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that masts or their emissions are dangerous or are a threat to public health, neither is there concrete evidence to suggest that such masts are safe. Only time will tell.
We have a responsibility to protect our citizens, particularly our children, from unnecessary exposure, which means not siting masts in residential areas or near to children's facilities or hospitals. Last year, Dr Helen Irvine, consultant in public health medicine at Greater Glasgow Health Board, called for the precautionary principle to be applied to developments in such areas until conclusive evidence was produced to determine developments' safety or otherwise.
Many local authorities have imposed moratoriums on telecommunications developments on their own land and buildings. I commend authorities that have taken such action, in particular North Lanarkshire Council. However, as we know, local authorities have no powers over the siting of masts under 15 m on private land.
The lack of a requirement for neighbour notification and the lack of control that planning authorities have in making decisions on such developments means that there is no obligation for public consultation. It is not surprising that the general public see an anomaly in our planning process when a 15 m mast can appear unannounced on an individual's doorstep, yet he or she is notified when a neighbour wants to build a small extension.
The plight of my constituents in the village of Glenboig highlights the problem. They discovered by chance that a day had been set to begin work on the installation of a telecommunications development on private land and under 15 m close to their homes. No consultation had taken place with the local community, despite the fact that the company involved produced information leaflets highlighting its commitment to communities.
The leaflet stated that the company seeks to work closely with councils and local communities to achieve mutually acceptable locations for its base stations and masts. The company states further its commitment to discuss requirements with local councils and community representatives, to have regard for their views and concerns and to address those through open, honest and frank communication. The company failed to do any of that in Glenboig.
In desperation, the villagers took matters into their own hands and put up a barricade at the end of the road to stop construction traffic. After that, I facilitated a meeting with company representatives, who seemed quite keen at that stage to attend a meeting. The villagers at the meeting asked that a site further from their homes be considered. They were not being unreasonable in doing that.
The company agreed to look again at the siting of the development and to attend a further meeting. The next anybody heard, however, was that the planning authority had received notification that development was going ahead. I wrote to the company, expressing my concern and disappointment at the matter, and received a short note that merely stated the start date of development.
Such a cavalier attitude to local communities perfectly illustrates the need for a proper planning control system. The introduction of full planning control would make the system more accountable, would ensure consultation and would make provision for community input from the outset.
I welcome the recent indication from the Minister for Transport and the Environment that she will respond positively to the committee's inquiry, and that the protection of public health will be at the heart of any action taken by the Executive. I also welcome the Stewart report. I accept the fact that there are benefits to modern communications systems, but they must not be to the detriment of our communities. Devolution means that we can implement a system to suit Scotland. This Parliament can lead the way in easing public anxiety, and I urge the Executive to implement the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendations as soon as possible.
I would like to begin by congratulating the Transport and the Environment Committee on its work and on its report. I think that Andy Kerr did a good job of putting the case on the committee's behalf.
I will tell the chamber a sorry tale about what can happen as a result of what is permitted under the current guidelines, particularly with regard to replacement masts, and about why I believe that the procedure of prior notification will not suffice and why I believe in the committee's recommendation that full planning permission should be the starting point.
In the spring of 1998, a neighbour to a new mast development contacted me to alert me to the erection of a monster mast in an area of outstanding conservation in Kinross town, 25 m from Nick Johnston's window. Directly across the street is the local high school, attended by 800 pupils. The new mast is to replace one of a slim pole variety, erected many years previously. The original 27 m mast had been granted planning permission in 1986 for use by the police. The new mast, erected by Orange with the police's consent, despite being of the same height, is a large lattice-type structure, a bit like a poor man's Blackpool tower. The mast is a carbuncle on the Kinross street scene, and has caused much angst, anger and concern.
But enough of that. The real issue is that, according to Perth and Kinross Council, the mast did not require planning permission, and could be erected under existing permitted development rights, despite being in an outstanding area of conservation. According to the council's legal department, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 says:
"that development is permitted when it consists of the installation, alteration or replacement of any telecommunications apparatus".
There are always, as may be obvious, lots of caveats to that, but it seemed that, in this case, the development was indeed permitted. In short, the mast which previously existed required planning permission, whereas its replacement was erected under permitted development legislation.
Some people might suggest that the matter could have been sorted out if a procedure of prior approval or notification existed. Not so. Under regulation 67(5) of the 1992 order, it is made quite clear that the erection of a mast in a conservation area is permitted, subject to the condition that the operator shall give prior notice in writing to a planning authority not less than eight weeks before development has begun. That eight weeks of notification was observed, and Orange proceeded to erect the mast.
What is at issue is that, although the planning officers knew what was happening, the local community was entirely unaware of Orange's proposals. Even the local elected members were not alerted beforehand. All that would not have happened had full planning permission been required. The whole point of the planning procedure is to ensure that there is a process of checks and balances between what the planning officers think and what the elected council members think, with planning officers working to policy guidelines and elected members representing the legitimate concerns of their community.
That procedure best guarantees that an issue of substantial concern to a community is properly discussed in an open and transparent manner. It is a shame that those rules did not exist previously as a lot of damage has been done in this country and I do not know how we will redress it and how we will regain a proper perspective. Perhaps the minister will talk about that later. There can be no replacement for enabling communities to participate in the decision-making process with their elected representatives. Folks, this is democracy. I suggest that we lay democracy aside at our peril.
I welcome constituents who have travelled to the Parliament from Strathblane and who have been going through an ordeal with a mast in their area. I thank the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Stewart committee for their reports, which complement each other.
The last time that this matter was discussed in the chamber, many of us expressed great concern about the behaviour of the telecommunication companies. Since then, the situation has worsened. In my constituency, proposals to erect masts near houses and children's play areas, by the side of roads and in built-up areas have caused great anger, which has led to public demonstrations in Strathblane and Bannockburn.
In the case of Strathblane, Stirling Council was able to order the mast to be moved as it hampered drivers' vision. The bad news is that, under present planning regulations, Orange could move the mast a couple of yards further up the grass verge and there would be nothing that the council or the community could do about it—not legally, anyway. The situation in Bannockburn resulted in what a local paper referred to as the second battle of Bannockburn. The area faces the prospect of five masts being situated in the area by three companies. So much for the press releases that state that the companies are trying to work together.
As a growing number of constituents have become concerned about the siting of the masts near their homes, Stirling Council agreed to have a moratorium and not allow any masts to be erected on council land. However, that cannot be fully enforced as areas such as grass verges, which are available to the utilities, must also be available to telecommunication companies. That came as a shock to us when we heard about it last week. Stirling Council also agreed that any proposals received after the February moratorium date would be communicated to community councils. However, news of many of the masts that communities are fighting was communicated to the council in 1999. As a consequence, no prior warning has been given to the communities. No wonder that communities feel powerless, as Elaine Smith said earlier.
With masts of less than 15 m, councils can intervene only in areas of conservation or when masts placed on grass verges block drivers' vision. What can we MSPs do? What can we recommend that the Scottish Executive does? We should ask for full planning powers to be implemented with regard to all telecommunication masts. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities believes that prior approval procedures are an unsatisfactory halfway house. We need to prepare national planning guidance that will set a framework within which local councils can work with telecommunication companies. The guidelines should be based on the precautionary principle that masts should be sited away from residential areas. As the report says, the guidance should include local flexibility to prevent masts from being placed in environmentally sensitive areas such as Bannockburn. Also, there must be more mast sharing.
If all the proposals that I have mentioned are adopted, what happens in the intervening period? Can we have a moratorium on the erection of masts? I have spoken to Sarah Boyack about that and have lodged a written question on the subject. I hope that she will say something about it in her winding-up speech.
What happens to the telecommunications masts that are already in place? The Scottish Executive could urge all the companies to reconsider the placing of masts and to think about repositioning them. We really must move on this issue, as people are sitting there with these masts, as Nick Johnston said, next to their kitchen windows. We must address that immediately.
I, too, welcome this report, with the important development that it proposes, and the Stewart report that was published today. There will be widespread agreement on the key recommendations of both reports that masts should be subject to full planning controls. Tavish Scott mentioned the Stewart report's recommendation 1.36, that
"for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process".
I can hear the cheers reverberating throughout the country. In the Borders, it is a common experience that masts are erected without the public being informed. Most have been erected without neighbouring householders being consulted. If my colleague Ian Jenkins catches your eye, Deputy Presiding Officer, he will give you a few examples.
Coldstream, a small town in my constituency, is now graced by three masts. The latest is less than 15 m high, but it is on top of the Eildon Centre, which is the tallest building in the town. I was particularly pleased to read recommendation 8 in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, on mast sharing. I sincerely hope that that can be achieved, as the company whose mast stands on top of the Eildon Centre owns one of the companies that operates one of the two masts outside the town. I hope that we will not be flat-footed about this, but that we will pick up the impetus of these reports and try to encourage a rationalisation of existing masts, as Sylvia Jackson suggested.
I also noted recommendation 6 of the committee's report, on the early involvement of the companies in discussions with the planning authorities. That is particularly important, as are the further recommendations that flow from it, on planning controls. I was pleased with the balance in that report, and noted recommendation 5, on an obligation to cover all of Scotland. Tavish Scott mentioned parts of Shetland that are not covered, and parts of Roxburgh and Berwickshire are not covered. Newcastleton, in the south of my constituency, near the English border, suffers not only from a lack of TV reception, but from the fact that people are unable to use mobile phones there.
Equally, it is important to bear in mind recommendation 9 of the committee's report, on roaming agreements. A roaming facility would be especially welcome in Berwickshire, where Vodafone coverage has historically been poor, although Cellnet coverage has been good—a position that is reversed in other parts of the Borders. I hope that the minister will pursue that recommendation.
I agree that there should be continuous monitoring of existing masts such as that in Kelso. I went to see that mast, which looks like the top of a battleship. It is a great, tall thing in battleship grey, but it emits a very small electromagnetic field. It has only one base station on it at present, but that is the point. If there is a development of telecommunications, which is an important objective, there must be continuous monitoring of the effect of that on individual masts, and an audit is an extremely welcome proposal in the committee's report.
This is a significant day. It is important that the impetus of these reports is continued, and I look forward to the minister assuring the Parliament that that will happen in the weeks to come.
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I thank my fellow committee members and the staff of the committee for the tremendous amount of work that was carried out in preparing the committee's comprehensive report, which has been widely welcomed. We should also appreciate the work that was done by Phil Willis MP and his colleagues at Westminster, who first took up this issue several years ago and have undertaken a hell of a lot of work.
What is interesting is the way in which we have been able to leapfrog the process at Westminster, by publishing speedily a considered and full report for the Parliament. Following that process, we are now able to move ahead with clear recommendations to the Parliament. It is an interesting example of how this Parliament can respond quickly and effectively to public concerns and take them into the legislative frame in an appropriate way.
The key public concern is that some masts have been erected without a fully responsible approach being adopted by the operators. As a councillor I had to deal with situations where masts were erected immediately adjacent to housing when available sites further from housing could easily have been used. The operators' cost benefit analysis has often ignored public and amenity considerations; they have gone for sites where they can erect masts quickly and have not looked at wider considerations. We must move from the position where there is no accountability to one where there is a process—and Bruce Crawford set out some dimensions of that process—of proper notification of the operators' intentions, following which local people have a right to participate by submitting their views, and with technical assessment of the proposal and the options and alternatives.
We also need a process that allows local authorities to manage developments locally. That is particularly important. A dialogue must begin between the operators and local authorities so that commonsense considerations are applied to siting masts. The problem of retrospection is significant. I hope that the process of introducing new planning controls and the necessary dialogue will encourage the operators to look at the most problematic existing sites and to re-site masts.
I wonder if Des McNulty would agree that particular attention should be paid to masts near schools. Bruce Crawford shares my concern about the situation in Kinross. Some of the considerable amount of money raised from the new licensing fees could be used to encourage companies to re-site masts. I am not suggesting that the Government should pay for that, but that we should ask Westminster to consider using some of that money to support the re-siting of masts that are near schools.
I am sympathetic to that view and that some of the income coming to local authorities in site rental should be used in that way.
Monitoring health risks is a key dimension. We should recognise that the Stewart committee is saying that the phones are more of a cause for concern than the masts. We can encourage a faster reaction to research findings. If there are health concerns that are scientifically validated, planning powers will put us in a better position to encourage operators to respond effectively. If there are no environmental regulations, then the operators do not have to take proper account of risk. Where there is a proper process of monitoring and regulation, then the operators can be made to use the lowest-risk technology. We want a well-regulated industry.
We are asking a lot of local government, but I welcome that. Local government is accountable to the people. It is a democratic process. We should be encouraged by the fact that the planning process will, for the first time, give local authorities, and thereby local communities, real control over the erection of masts in their areas.
I associate myself with all the positive remarks that have been made about the work of the staff on the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I congratulate the committee's convener on bringing this piece of work to fruition. His good luck in being able to launch his report on the same day as the Stewart report's publication has made his conclusions virtually unassailable.
When the committee addressed the issue, it understood perfectly well why the initial approach to developing telecommunications had been through a system of permitted development rights. It was essential to get the industry up and running, to set national standards and to emphasise the rights of the developer at that stage. However, we quickly came to recognise that those rights had been granted at considerable cost.
Evidence to the committee showed that communities throughout the country had been disfranchised and local authorities disempowered by the process. We heard examples of situations in which even the operators of the masts had recognised that mistakes had been made and had repositioned some of them, but not enough to please the people of Coldstream, Glenboig, Kinross and other places that have been mentioned. I could also mention Gullane, from where I had a letter this week, and Bridge of Weir, from where I also had a letter recently. People all over Scotland seem to be protesting about the lack of consideration of amenity in the development of masts and equipment.
When we took evidence, we were careful to take account of the views, authority and expertise of people involved in the planning process. We interviewed officials from COSLA and from councils across the land and asked them to spell out precisely what the prior approval system meant and what the difference was between that and full planning permission.
It quickly became clear that, from the point of view of the people doing the work, there was little difference. They had to do the same paperwork and administration, the same site visits and the same reports. Only two things were substantially different. First, they got a lesser fee, which is significant in a planning system that is supposed to be funded by fees being paid. Secondly, they had to approve the prior approval applications within 42 days or a deemed consent would be given. The officials therefore had to work harder and faster on the applications for which they were not paid than on other applications. The clock was ticking for them.
We also found that, if the applicant did not fully co-operate and did not supply the necessary information, the clock continued to tick. There was no ability to extend the deadline, as is the case with a normal planning application, where officials will say, "We can't process this until you give us the full response." The officials had to process the prior approval applications and had to reach a decision within 42 days, whether the applicant was thoroughly co-operative or not.
The main point that COSLA wanted to make to the committee concerned how prior approval affected the relationship between the planning system and the public. What is wrong with prior approval is that no one understands how it works and no one has any experience of it in Scotland, except in the context of agriculture and forestry. It is an unknown concept in built areas and I do not think that it is a concept that one can ever get across.
What is wrong with it? There is no neighbour notification and people cannot feel that their representations and objections influence the process. There is frustration with the output and with the developments that result from the system. Every planner knows that the anger and indignation of the public will be vented not on the industry and not on the politicians or the Parliament, but on the local authority, which will be blamed for its negligence in handling something over which it has relatively little power.
We asked the City of Edinburgh Council, which covers many conservation areas, where full planning permission is necessary, whether conservation areas were a technological desert from which it had chased the telecommunications industry. The answer was a resounding no. What drives the industry is the money that is to be made from it. The telecommunication companies do not want full planning powers, but if that is the game, they will play by the game. They will adjust to the rules and live by the rules, and the licensing requirements and the money to be made from the process will lead to the industry developing quickly in its third phase throughout Scotland. We have no reason to fear that they will be scared away by the requirement for full planning permission.
Full planning permission will redress the balance; it will give back control to the planning authority and influence and involvement to the people. The situation is over-ripe, and the time has come for us to strike a better balance than that which is in place at present. The Transport and the Environment Committee's report recommends that approach, and I hope that the Executive will agree to implement its proposals.
I welcome the Stewart committee's report, which was published today, and I am pleased to see that it vindicates many of the recommendations in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I also welcome the Executive's early indication that it will consider its position in the light of those recommendations.
Many members have mentioned planning. I want, first, to set the context of our recognition that the telecommunications industry is burgeoning and developing and our welcome for the opportunities for the industry. However, I want to put on record the fact that many people use mobile phones—particularly those of the pay-as-you-go variety—because it is the only way in which they can afford to access that kind of communication; they cannot afford the installation costs of a telephone system in the home.
It is unfortunate that, yet again, the poorest people with the lowest disposable incomes are paying disproportionately more—because they make calls using such systems. I hope that the industry will take that on board, particularly in the light of its marketing strategy, which appears to target young people, many of whom pay a considerable amount of money to own the latest fashion accessory, as mobile phones were described on television this morning.
The Transport and the Environment Committee did not conclude that planning authorities should have full planning control because we are anti-development. My constituency takes in a rural area. I am conscious of the need to develop in a balanced way—that approach has proved possible in my area—but some of the operators who came along to the committee gave the impression that they do not favour giving planning authorities full planning control because local politics would get in the way. I have no difficulty with local politicians taking local decisions on behalf of local people—that is what they are elected to do and that is why we should argue that they should have full planning control.
As many members have said, the committee arrived at its conclusion because local communities do not feel that they are part of the process. Difficulties in many areas have been mentioned this morning: I will give another example. Villagers in Drongan in East Ayrshire got up one morning to find that they had a new mobile phone mast on their doorstep. No one has any information about it. They do not know where it came from or to whom it belongs. Nothing.
A constituent in New Cumnock was one of the first to raise the issue with me. In circumstances similar to those described by Bruce Crawford, she found that the operators were allowed to move a few yards a mast that had been in place for a number of years. It is on roughly the same site, but it is now a huge construction that sits about the same distance from her home as the Tory benches are from the Labour back benches—some would say that that is not far enough. My constituent sees the mast daily from her living-room window, yet she has had absolutely no say about it and no opportunity to do anything about it.
Some mobile phone operators said that the introduction of full planning control would not address what they believe to be the core issue. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee received a letter from Vodafone AirTouch Group Services Ltd in which the company suggests that the problem is a
"lack of communication between operators and local authorities".
The letter goes on to say that full planning control
"would not improve local authorities' understanding of the practical demands and constraints of mobile technology".
I suspect that the profit motives of the industry may also be involved.
If we do not move to a system in which local people feel that they are being consulted and that the industry is working alongside them—they are the people who are putting the money back into the industry—we will have made no progress.
I want to take up a point Sylvia Jackson made about the siting of existing masts. Many operators came to us saying, "Look, we want to be helpful. We want to put up nice masts. We want to have masts that blend in with the environment. We want to talk to people and we want to get this right." I urge the industry to take up Sylvia's suggestion to revisit existing sites. It knows where they are. It knows the masts that are on controversial sites. I ask the industry please to go back and look at those sites. If something can be done as a gesture of good will to those communities, why not do it? That would go a considerable way to restore public confidence.
In the meantime, I urge everyone to support the committee's findings. I hope that the Executive will take on board the fact that we can go for full planning control. Tavish Scott has already outlined the operators' concerns about the potential difference between the legislative regimes in Scotland and in England and Wales. I would have had no hesitation in supporting the report's findings even if there was a different arrangement south of the border, but any such difference is no longer an excuse. We want planning controls across the whole of the UK, and the correct place for planning decisions to be made is at a local level. We can make that happen.
First, I apologise to the chamber because I must leave this debate early. I have a ceremony to attend at the University of Edinburgh in which I am playing a relatively central part. I will therefore address one major point that has been raised in almost every speech, concerning the way in which the mobile phone companies work and democratic control.
I note in the response from the Executive that it wishes to provide a system of regulation that is clear, simple, efficient and effective. In the context of this debate and what we have heard today, I would have liked to see the word "democratic" added to that list, because democracy is what this debate is about. It is about giving local authorities the power to exercise their discretion in matters relating to visual impact and health concerns when masts are put up across the country.
I warmly welcome the responses from the Conservative benches, with the one reservation expressed by Tavish Scott. Before I forget, I should also indicate my support, and my party's 100 per cent support, for the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. That only one third of masts are shared is an indictment of the companies. Two thirds of masts are not yet shared.
The possibilities for improvement are enormous. There is only one thing that will get in the way of development—the companies not acting in the spirit of the report, not speaking to each other and not engaging in conversations with local authorities before they apply for planning permissions. If they do those things, the planning permissions should not get in the way, the roll-out of companies' networks will take place and we will have been able to allow local authorities proper democratic control over the process from beginning to end. That is the central point of this debate—allowing local authorities to include in their planning permissions their concerns about health and visual impact.
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. I congratulate the Transport and the Environment Committee on a thorough and well-considered report. Telecom masts and the related issues of mobile phones and the safety or otherwise of this technology have concerned many parts of Scotland—a point that has been echoed around the chamber this morning. I have my own mast story. There are two masts in my constituency that have caused a lot of concern for local residents, some of whom wrote to the committee during its inquiry.
The report has concentrated on the planning aspects of telecom masts. If the recommendations are implemented, they will go a long way to resolve the difficulties of people who feel that they have no control over their immediate environment because telecom masts can almost literally spring up overnight without consultation with local residents, especially if they are 15 m or less in height.
I am also glad that the committee report recognises the social and economic benefits of the current revolution in telephony. Who in the chamber does not have a mobile phone? The Scotsman today has a graph that shows, in effect, vertical growth in mobile phone use over the past year or two.
Much of the public concern about telecom masts and mobile phones lies around the health risks, whether known or unknown. The Stewart committee, as other members have mentioned, reports today and I believe that it will recommend further research into the health risks.
I am glad that the Transport and the Environment Committee included health as one of the factors that should be considered in the development of telecoms policy, but when we consider health risks, the difference between fixed and mobile operators must be clearly understood. Fixed operators gave evidence to the committee, but they operate on a completely different frequency band from mobile operators and use much lower power levels. They use the industrial, scientific and medical band, which operates with a maximum power of 100 milliwatts.
Friends of the Earth made recommendations for the field strengths and power densities to be used by telecoms operators. The fixed operators use strengths 13.5 times lower than those recommendations. Because of that, Dundee City Council, for example—which, like many councils in Scotland, has imposed a ban on telecoms equipment on council property—has specifically exempted fixed operators. In particular, Atlantic Telecom was exempted in recognition of the fact that, as a fixed operator, it is in a completely different ball park from the mobile operators. I hope that the minister will consider that in her response.
I look forward to the implementation of many of the report's recommendations. That will provide much-needed reassurance to local communities and, as other members have said, restore some local democracy to the decisions on where the masts are located.
Carlops, in my constituency, is one of the most famous of the mobile phone mast episodes, but I do not wish to go into the details of that today as we are in negotiations with BT Cellnet. In those negotiations, contrary to what I hear from some others, BT Cellnet, far from being aggressive and assertive, has been courteous and considerate. Of course, we have not come to any decision yet, but I hope that the discussions will continue and be helpful to everyone.
It is ironic that, in our case and others, the problems seem to have arisen from blocked lines of communication. Local authorities were not quite sure that they could stop the 50 m masts, only that they could have some influence. As a result, they decided to try to ameliorate the appearance of the masts by painting them a different colour and all that sort of stuff, rather than say that they must be stopped.
I appreciate what the member is going through. Perhaps I can offer some help. A mast was erected in my constituency. Fortunately, it was close to a B-listed building as well as on the edge of the motorway. Placement of the mast close to the B-listed building allowed us to insist on its being removed and it was replaced by two false trees at the Keir roundabout. I recommend that Ian Jenkins look at those trees—they are very pleasant looking. The Carlops villagers might feel happier about two Scots pines than about what they had previously.
I really do not want to go into the details because there are aspects of our discussions that might involve trees, or whatever.
It seems totally unacceptable that people in a conservation area, who are not allowed to choose whether to have plastic or wooden windows, should wake up to find a 48 ft mast outside their windows or above their village hall. That is crazy and unacceptable and I just do not understand how it can be allowed to happen.
I welcome the committee's report. Indeed, I welcome the underlying direction of the minister's provisional response. I am convinced that after the report and today's debate, and other discussions that will take place, things will improve. However, I am worried that changes will take time. As Nick Johnston said, the Parliament must bring decision making closer to the people. We campaigned for this Parliament because it would do that.
We cannot ignore the fact that the democratic will is being frustrated on this issue and not being given an opportunity to be heard. We owe it to ourselves and to our communities to act on this report quickly and clearly.
I understand that changing the planning regulations will take time, but I believe that the minister has great influence, even without regulation. I do not think that she should wait for regulations to be put in place. I ask her in her response to this debate not only to make it crystal clear that she will eventually establish full planning control, but to say that she wants new standards of good practice in consultation and public awareness to be established and implemented as of today.
If the minister says today that she does not believe that masts should be erected in conservation areas without special reasons, that will influence the behaviour of mast companies and local authorities. The minister has a chance to change things now, by changing the climate in which negotiations take place. She could do that with a clear statement. I hope that she will.
I join other members in thanking sincerely the support team led by Lynn Tullis and all those who briefed us in the Transport and the Environment Committee and helped us produce this report.
I want to begin by making clear that I am an enthusiastic supporter of technology in all its forms. Laptops, computers, pagers, mobile phones—you name it, I am sure I use it. I recognise that in the global economy of the 21st century it is critical to ensure that all parts of Scotland, even the most rural, are served, so that we can lead the field and win a competitive advantage.
The precautionary principle has been fought for by Friends of the Earth and community groups across Scotland. Their efforts are beginning to illustrate how politicians can be pressured to respond.
I am concerned to note that the Department of Trade and Industry does not have plans to ensure early 100 per cent coverage on the ground that the remotest parts of the country have few, if any, potential subscribers. Surely the safety implications for lone travellers must be considered. Many such travellers will be professionals—doctors, nurses and tradesmen—who need to keep in touch with others. That applies particularly to Tavish Scott when he wants to contact Lesley Riddoch, or vice versa.
In my mailbag and in public meetings, the issues of most concern are the health risks, the environmental impact of masts being erected outside people's homes and their lack of a right to object. That public concern appears to be vindicated in the report, published today, by Sir William Stewart.
In his report, Sir William states that the balance of evidence to date suggests
"that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below"
the guidelines set by the National Radiological Protection Board and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. Under the latter body's guidelines,
"the maximum levels of exposure of the public are about five times less than those recommended for workers. The reason for this approach was the possibility that some members of the general public might be particularly sensitive to RF radiation . . . This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is potentially important information".
I welcome in particular the Stewart report's recommendation that
"the ICNIP guidelines for public exposure be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines. This would bring the UK into line with other countries in the European Union and accord with the Recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology Report on Mobile Phones and Health".
I warmly welcome the minister's acceptance of a number of the recommendations in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. In particular, I am extremely pleased that the Executive recognises the health implications of mobile phone technologies. It is absolutely right to accept that the protection of public health is a priority.
In his report, Sir William Stewart calls for the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around station antennae to delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded. The incorporation of exclusion zones should be part of the template for the planning protocols that are being considered by the minister.
I am pleased that the two reports agree in many areas. From my experience as a member of the planning committee in Fife Council, I know how actions flowing from the reports will begin to address the concerns of families. The big question for all of us will be how to take action swiftly enough to protect people right now in the face of burgeoning applications for the development of mobile phone masts. Sylvia Jackson spoke very well on that point.
The final challenge will concern what to do with masts that have already been erected but do not match the recommendations made in the two reports—especially when they are in school grounds or hospitals. I welcome the commitment in the minister's responses to the Transport and the Environment Committee to act swiftly. I know that people right across Scotland will welcome that.
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I would like to echo the gratitude of my colleagues to the staff who have helped us through the inquiry. I would also like to thank the committee's convener, Andy Kerr, for helping us through what I hope will be the first of many inquiries in which we will be able to listen to the concerns of our communities and act on them by producing reports such as this one.
Last month, in the chamber, I praised the Scottish Executive for adopting the precautionary principle in its approach to the development of genetically modified foods in Scotland. Today, I urge the minister to show the same level of care regarding the future of telecommunications. It is vital that the Executive show consistency in its approach to areas that could have wide-ranging effects on health. I have argued that we should proceed with caution on GM crops; I argue for a similar approach on telecommunications today.
In many respects, it is even more important that the Executive adopt a safety-first attitude on the erection of telecommunications masts. People have a choice about whether to eat GM foods, but it is a bit more stressful to have to move house every time somebody erects a mast at the bottom of your garden.
Like other members, I have received a lot of information from telecommunications companies this week outlining the benefits of expansion in the industry. I do not dispute the fact that there are benefits. There are great benefits to be had from expanding the availability of mobile telecommunications, including clear economic benefits. As Elaine Thomson said, telecommunications has been one of the highest growth sectors in the Scottish economy. There are also social advantages. The technology allows people—especially in rural areas—to keep in touch with the outside world. It has a safety element, especially for women travelling alone.
However, those benefits cannot be regarded as more important than the potential dangers of irresponsible, unregulated erection of masts. The Scottish people certainly do not think that they are more important; it is surely the Government's duty to reflect those concerns.
During our evidence taking, the phone companies argued that business in Scotland would be damaged if the development of communications were hampered by a requirement for full planning control. They said that the Scottish economy would struggle in comparison with the English economy if we imposed stricter regulations. We did not find that to be the case. We remain utterly unconvinced that the introduction of full planning control will seriously damage this, or any other, industry in Scotland.
We must be clear about one thing: the Transport and the Environment Committee is not saying that mobile phones are definitely dangerous. Indeed, during our consultation process not one person or organisation provided us with any proof that they are. We are saying that the effects are unclear. Would it be good government to take the risk of continuing with unregulated planning of mobile phone masts? Would it be good government to allow masts to continue to be erected in sensitive areas? Would it be good government to be seen to be putting the interests of private companies ahead of the health of the nation? I do not believe that it would. That is why I fervently hope that the minister will listen to the concerns of the committee and the Scottish people on this issue.
As I argued in relation to GM crops, we must learn from the mistakes of the past. With asbestos and tobacco, successive Governments proceeded without considering the potential dangers and ended up paying a heavy price. The benefits of mobile telecommunications are considerably more tangible than those of asbestos or tobacco but, none the less, we must be cautious. We should not put the health of the country at risk in any way.
Yesterday, the Transport and the Environment Committee considered nitrate-vulnerable zones. In her submission, the Minister for Transport and the Environment extolled the virtues of adopting the precautionary principle with regard to those zones. I sincerely hope that the Executive will show consistency in its approach to matters of public health. I have been encouraged by the minister's statements in recent days. I would like to think that they are a clear sign of the Executive's support for the committee's report. We must accept that prevention is better than cure in the interests of public health.
We listened to many organisations in our evidence taking; some have been mentioned today. The committee has not come to the Parliament with this report lightly. We deliberated about it long and hard. I sincerely hope that we can demonstrate today that this is another example of how the Scottish Parliament is supposed to work. I commend the report to the Executive and hope that it will enjoy its full support.
I do not hold myself out to have the same expertise in these matters as my colleague Nick Johnston, but I was previously employed by British Telecommunications plc. I may have to rely on it for a pension in due course.
I will start by making a general point which, with his usual foresight, Tavish Scott made, anticipating my question at this afternoon's question time. It relates to developing a telecoms strategy for Scotland. Telecoms is the infrastructure of the future and must be regarded with equal importance as road and rail. The Executive and other agencies must work with telecoms companies to ensure that Scotland benefits from those new technologies.
As Tavish Scott and Euan Robson pointed out, technology such as asymmetric digital subscriber line and WAP-enabled mobiles will not necessarily be available to all our citizens unless there is a clear strategic decision to do so and there is public funding and a public structure for working with commercial companies. As many members have said, the companies are driven by commercial rationale, which is why it is attractive for them to put a mast on a road verge, which they do not have to pay for, rather than on somebody's land, which they would have to pay for. It is important that we grasp that point.
The experience in the Highlands and Islands with European funding has been successful. A significant part of that funding went in to ensure that there was mobile telephony in areas that would not have had it if commercial considerations had applied. It is important that the Executive and the Parliament make progress on that.
We want Scotland to have the best communications and to play its role globally, but that will not happen without the Executive and the Parliament playing their parts. It is difficult to strike the balance, because we cannot have services if we do not have masts and people digging up the roads. It is not that long ago that Des McNulty and every other councillor in Glasgow was being inundated with complaints about cable companies digging up the streets and questions about whether they had a right to do so.
We cannot have the services without the technology. It is an important balance for the Government to strike. It is an important balance between the local community and the wider world, because as we drive along the motorway we all want the service to continue. I know how irritating it is when there are gaps in services in some parts of our motorway network. We want it to continue, but it is not providing anything to the local community.
In the light of what Mr Mundell has just said, will he comment on the recommendation in the Stewart report that no one should be encouraged to use mobile telephony, whether hand-held or not, in motorcars and on motorways?
Mr Tosh raises a very interesting point. If regulations are introduced, they should also apply to the use of car radios, as operating a car radio has been identified as one of the main reasons why drivers take their eyes off the road. Nevertheless, Mr Tosh's point is important and worth while.
It is important to get the balance right between the need for technology and the rights of local people. It is clear that the powers that have existed have been quite draconian. I have always thought that people consented to such powers because they did not notice the extent of the powers of compulsory purchase and so on.
Part of the problem is caused by the history of many of the powers, which were held by the General Post Office and the Crown—of course, the Crown can do anything. The powers that legislation in the 1960s gave the GPO to erect telegraph poles in one's garden were significant—there was nothing one could do about it. That is the backdrop to what is happening now.
It is clear that that is not acceptable any more. Local authorities do not find it acceptable and, in many ways, nor do the companies. There is great confusion about the meaning of the legislation. I think that confusion has crept into the debate—I do not want to be critical of anyone—as members have talked mostly about mobile phone masts. However, a significant amount of fixed telephony is provided through masts and microwave dishes. If we do not ensure that that is covered, we will not achieve a great deal. In fact, I suspect that if planning is made more difficult, companies may return to using the existing framework for fixed telephony. All the most controversial issues involving schools that I have encountered have concerned existing poles, the definition of poles and what can be put at the top of poles.
Local authorities need help on this issue. They need clear support from the Scottish Executive. Despite what we have said, masts do not go up every five minutes—it is quite a rare occurrence. Planning authorities, particularly in rural areas, do not have the expertise to deal with these matters; they need clear and consistent support from the centre to deal with them when they arise.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the additional time that I have been allowed. This has been a worthwhile debate and the committee's report has much to commend it.
As others such as Des McNulty have done, I put on record my thanks to the members of staff of the Transport and the Environment Committee. In many instances, I was simply an advocate for views arising from their diligent research. I am glad that many of them are here today to see the fruits of their labour.
I, too, welcome the report. This has been a consensual debate, which shows the agreement and unanimity that exists in the Parliament. Three interventions—two from Richard Simpson and one from Murray Tosh—were all made in a supportive rather than a point-scoring spirit.
However, there have been difficulties in bringing this matter to debate today. The fact that the debate coincided with the publication of the Stewart report at 10.30 am has caused problems. I was not alone in trying to speed-read a report and fathom matters earlier this morning. I do not blame anyone for that, but it is a matter to which we will have to return. Difficulties are also caused because we have received only an interim response from the Executive—I appreciate that the Executive has to await the voice of Parliament.
The one point in the debate on which I take issue is Nick Johnston congratulating the Tory Government on rolling out the mobile phone network. The reason why we are having this debate and why the Transport and the Environment Committee and Sir William Stewart and his colleagues have had to do such intensive work is that the Tories did the equivalent of building a fast car with no brakes. Matters have proceeded apace and local authorities and individuals have suffered, with little democratic right to change things. Many members—in particular, Cathy Jamieson—touched on that.
Would Mr MacAskill be gracious enough—in the spirit of consensus that has evolved in the debate—to acknowledge that we are learning from experience, whereas other parties live in the past?
I should be happy to acknowledge that the Conservatives are learning from the past, although I would not go beyond that.
The most important issue is to decide where we go from here. There is a general acceptance that the report is to be welcomed. There are three clear principles: first, full planning permission; secondly, the precautionary principle, which has been added to by the Stewart report; and thirdly, openness and transparency. Thankfully, the need for a register is also mentioned in the Stewart report. It is important that the Executive takes that on board and acts speedily.
Sylvia Jackson and Dr Richard Simpson mentioned two important factors. If we do not move with speed and alacrity, we might face problems. I worry that a plethora of companies might attempt to move in before the window of opportunity closes and local authorities have the ability to regulate matters. Therefore, a moratorium is a constructive idea. We also have a relevant power in the Parliament, if we make speedy progress on a bill. As I understand it, it is possible to specify the relevant date as the one on which the bill is lodged. Adam Ingram, who is lodging a member's bill on leasehold casualties along with Pauline McNeill, told me that. It might take some time for a bill to go through Parliament, but the date that matters would be the date on which the bill was lodged.
I want the Executive to take on board the principles recommended by the Transport and the Environment Committee, which I expect to be supported by Parliament today. The Executive must also take on board the additional benefits of the research by Professor Stewart and move speedily. The legislation that the Executive introduces must make it clear that the relevant date is the date on which the bill is lodged. The phone companies must not think that they will have a window of opportunity of six months or a year in which to put up masts around the country and avoid any local authority controls or input from individuals. I ask the minister to consider that. If the Executive were happy to accept the proposal of a moratorium, I should be happy for us to use that method. If it does not accept that proposal, we must use the powers that exist in the parliamentary framework.
Richard Simpson touched on the fact that a substantial bounty is available to Gordon Brown. I appreciate that the £18 billion is to be paid over several years, yet it is a considerable amount. We must use that to help society; we might consider the provision of some recompense. There will be additional costs for local government—we must ensure that additional income is provided so that it does not have to cut back on other services.
As Richard Simpson suggested, we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide incentives to encourage operators to relocate their masts. I would prefer it if operators were to move their masts voluntarily and, as the third-generation technology is rolled out, to accept that they should move equipment to better sites. However, if push comes to shove and the only way to shift operators is to pay them, perhaps we should provide some financial incentives. My researcher provided the initial response from the telecommunications industry and the industry appears to be happy to go 50:50. However, with that offer, the 50 per cent commitment from the Government must come out of Gordon Brown's bounty.
The jury is out and the committee has not been able to show that many people who claim to suffer ill health as a result of the installation of masts and related technology have suffered for that reason. However, when canvassing in a recent by-election, I heard the complaints of people living in the Oxgangs and Firhill area. It was pointed out to me that two young women—in their 30s and 40s—had contracted cancer within a year of two masts being erected opposite their homes.
If it can be shown that there is a link, I ask the chancellor to consider whether those people can have some recompense for the misery and injury that has been inflicted upon them. After all, we recompense people who suffer criminal injuries. Can we not use the bounty available to recompense those who have suffered from the actions of the telecommunications industry? I support the report.
I listened with interest to the many excellent contributions throughout the debate. The debate has been marked by the consistently high quality of those contributions. I suspect that that is because members have read the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendations and the Executive's interim response. I suspect that it is also because they have received a large number of letters over the first year of the Scottish Parliament. I am aware of the extent to which the issue has attracted significant public interest. Many members have written to me directly, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, so I know that there is strong interest in the subject.
I wish to take this opportunity to do three things: to give some insight into the thinking behind the Executive's response; to elaborate on some of those points; and to focus on where we go next—what the next steps are.
We will make a full response in due course. However, as I am sure everyone is aware, the related report from Sir William Stewart's independent expert group on mobile phones is extremely relevant to the issues that we are discussing. I want to ensure that, before we come to our final conclusions, we not only consider carefully the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, but consider in detail the Stewart report.
I do not propose to discuss each and every recommendation of both those reports—I do not have time. However, I wish to focus on the key issues that many members mentioned this morning.
A number of recommendations in the report of the Transport and the Environment Committee relate to extending planning controls over telecommunications installations and equipment. I acknowledge at the outset that there was limited support for the Executive's prior approval proposals from those who gave evidence to the committee. Andy Kerr made that point in his opening remarks. However, there was strong support for the introduction of full planning control from most of those who gave evidence to the committee. I understand the strong views of local communities and parents on the need for more advance warning of developments, more effective regulation and more accountability. Against that background, the Executive intends to move towards the committee's recommendations on that central issue, particularly in relation to planning controls over ground-based masts.
I wish to make it clear that it is not our intention severely to impede the industry from continuing to provide the people of Scotland and the Scottish economy with the undoubted benefits that mobile telecommunications offer in terms of business growth, e-commerce and economic efficiency. I have detected strong support across the chamber for an approach that supports the Scottish economy in an increasingly competitive global market.
Having said that, I stress that we will expect the industry to be more sensitive than it has sometimes appeared to be in the past. I will return to that point later, but there are obvious issues about mast sharing and providing information to local communities. Nick Johnston, Euan Robson, Elaine Smith and Bruce Crawford all spoke eloquently about those issues.
Not just the central belt and other large population centres will benefit from this fast-developing technology. It is particularly important for rural Scotland. Telecommunications infrastructure can help overcome many of the disadvantages associated with distance and remoteness. It can provide valuable opportunities for development in rural Scotland, which is an important priority for the Executive. I note the Transport and the Environment Committee's support for the extension of mobile coverage across Scotland. That point was addressed by Tavish Scott.
I wish to make it clear that, as we move towards the committee's recommendations, not every item of telecommunications equipment will be made subject to a specific application for planning permission. There is some equipment for which permitted development status might remain appropriate. However, before I announce any details on what will or will not require full planning control, or what will or will not be permitted development, I wish to ensure that we take the appropriate steps.
I wish to clarify a point made by David Mundell and Sylvia Jackson. If we extend planning control, it will cover road verges.
We want to liaise with the industry so that we are clear about its future development proposals; in fact, it will be in its interests to be more forthcoming about such proposals now that the recent licensing auction has been concluded. We need to know the nature and scale of the roll-out of new investment in telecommunications. Factors such as the number of sites, which areas are involved, whether there is more scope for mast sharing and future improvements in technology and design will be critical in shaping the future regulatory regime.
Furthermore, we also want to liaise with planning authorities on what they can do to prepare development plans and alterations to those plans, to provide a sound basis for the development of the industry while addressing environmental, amenity and other concerns. That will also enable input from communities.
Will the minister clarify whether planning requirements will cover masts on top of BT stations?
As Elaine Smith and David Mundell both stressed, the critical issue is the detail behind our proposals.
I also expect councils to have procedures in place to ensure that planning applications for telecommunications development are dealt with efficiently and consistently. That point was made by many members. On the important concern raised by Linda Fabiani and Murray Tosh, the standard rate for planning applications will apply as we increase planning controls, which will enable full cost recovery for local authorities.
Failure by councils to provide an enabling planning framework and a positive approach to decision making on planning applications could not only deprive people and businesses in their own area of the technology but create gaps in network coverage that would deprive others as well.
As every member who has spoken this morning has acknowledged, there are no easy solutions. Planning involves making difficult choices: we should not simply assume that all will be well if we introduce full planning control. Although the Executive will liaise closely with the industry and planning authorities, I will expect the industry and planning authorities to work together constructively on solutions that balance the economic benefits of a modern telecommunications infrastructure with addressing environmental sensitivities and the concerns of local communities, which have been so strongly raised in the debate.
Will the minister give way?
No. I want to move swiftly on to the issue of guidance, which many members raised.
As there is a clear need for central guidance and advice, I fully endorse the committee's recommendations in that respect; we will urgently start work on the preparation of national planning policy guidance and a planning advice note. In preparing planning guidance, we are committed to a more open and inclusive approach. As a result, we will involve the industry and planning authorities in preparing such guidance, which will, of course, be subject to a full public consultation exercise. Our aim is to circulate the draft NPPG later in the summer and in final form by the end of this year.
As is our current practice, the NPPG will be kept under review; however, I will not commit the Executive to the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendation of an annual exercise, because I would prefer to allow some flexibility. That said, I recognise that guidance and advice must remain relevant to the needs of a fast-moving industry.
Some recommendations relate to the need for developers and planning authorities to liaise with each other and to co-operate more than at present. I could not agree more, and will encourage such an approach at every opportunity. Our guidance and advice will certainly emphasise that.
I now refer to the report's recommendations on health matters. The protection of public health will be at the heart of any action taken by the Executive. My colleague Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care, and I clearly have a shared interest in working together to protect the health of the Scottish people.
Coincidentally, as we debate this subject, the Stewart report is being launched. I welcome the report as a helpful framework within which the Executive and the UK Government can develop matters, and it makes a number of recommendations that are relevant, respectively, to health, planning, education and industry. MSPs will wish to be aware of its main recommendations.
First—and this is worth stressing—the independent expert group has concluded that the balance of evidence to date does not suggest that emissions from mobile phones and base stations put the health of the UK population at risk. However, the group also notes that there is some preliminary scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to radio-frequency radiation might cause subtle effects on biological functions. That does not necessarily mean that health is affected, but the Stewart group concludes that it is not possible to say that exposure to radio-frequency radiation—even at levels below national guidelines—is totally without potentially adverse effects.
Against that background, the group recommends that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should be adopted until more detailed and scientifically robust information becomes available. The report recommends further that—although there is no evidence that there is a general risk to the health of people who live near base stations—exclusion zones within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded, but which are defined by a physical barrier, should be established around antennae. The Stewart report also recommends that base stations should be brought within the normal planning process. Much of that chimes with the Transport and the Environment Committee's report.
Another recommendation proposes that the UK should adopt the guidelines that were prepared by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection instead of the currently accepted—but less demanding—guidelines that are recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board.
Other recommendations in the Stewart report include proposals for publicity about the health aspects of mobile phones. It recommends measures that could be taken that would secure greater protection of children and measures to tackle the indiscriminate use of mobile phones in hospitals and other sites where radio-frequency radiation might interfere with sensitive equipment. The report also recommends further research in specified areas.
The protection of public health, and in particular children's health, must underlie our every action in the matter. The Executive has no difficulty, therefore, in accepting the Stewart group's recommendation that we should move towards a more precautionary approach. How such an approach can be implemented will, of course, be the subject of consultation, which I would like to see started soon.
In response to Helen Eadie's question I can say, however, that the Executive is happy to accept the Stewart report's suggestion that, as part of any precautionary approach, the ICNIRP guidelines should become the accepted standard in Scotland. Those guidelines have been incorporated in a European Council recommendation and agreed in principle by all countries in the European Union, including the UK. The Stewart group records its understanding that all mobile phones that are currently marketed in the UK comply with that EU recommendation The report notes also that exposures from base stations are much lower than those from mobile phones.
The Executive will need to study the Stewart report—which is a weighty document—in some depth. It would be wrong to respond to its detailed recommendations without reflecting on them and working on them with other ministers. We must consult widely before giving a more detailed response. I repeat that the protection of health will be our prime consideration. I recognise, however, that the relationship between planning and heath is complex. That was addressed in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report and it requires that a number of practical issues and significant policy issues be addressed. A key task for the NPPG will be, therefore, to clarify that relationship.
Many members acknowledged that complex issues are involved and that it is important that we get this right. I intend to move forward as quickly as possible, but the introduction of a new regulatory framework along with complementary guidance and advice is a major task. That task involves working in partnership with the industry and local councils and requires a period of consultation. The dialogue that Des McNulty called for must start. The points that Ian Jenkins made about changing circumstances must be acknowledged. That is why I intend to call a summit early this summer to engage with local authorities and the mobile phone companies, to enable us to make progress swiftly and to have the dialogue that is urgently required.
I know that there is concern that the industry will try to accelerate its programme of mast development, but a telephone survey of Scottish planning authorities—whose co-operation earlier this week I greatly appreciated—suggests that that is not the case. Scottish ministers have powers to issue an article 4 direction. The effect of such action would be that operators would have to apply for planning permission for new development that was specified in the direction. It would not—indeed, could not—halt telecommunications development pending the introduction of a new planning regime.
We would have to consult on such proposals. They would at best confuse and at worst cut across the consultation that we intend to undertake on draft legislation, guidance and advice. I want to move ahead purposefully and swiftly.
I thank Andy Kerr and his committee for the report.
Will the minister give way?
I am concluding.
I also want to thank everyone who contributed to this morning's debate. Members have raised many points, which, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, I will consider in developing proposals.
We have a window of opportunity to take forward a number of new initiatives to allay the real and widespread concerns that people have about these issues. We will therefore move forward urgently on the range of fronts that I have identified this morning, to ensure that Scotland has in place a regulatory framework for telecommunications development that supports our economic competitiveness, addresses environmental concerns and provides greater reassurance to the public on the potential impact on health.
One of the pleasures of being a member of a committee of the Scottish Parliament is having the opportunity to examine an issue in some depth. Hindsight might be shedding a rosy glow when I say that because, as other members of the committee will concur, going through the equivalent of three telephone directories of written evidence was quite a slog at the time. Nevertheless, there is satisfaction in doing a thorough job. I want to add my thanks to the clerks to the committee for their excellent work in facilitating our task.
This has been an excellent debate with a great deal of consensus. Many members outlined the many deficiencies of the current situation and the lack of protection. Many members highlighted past mistakes and suggested how they should be put right. Suggestions ranged from encouraging voluntary action by operators, to making replacement of old masts a licensing requirement, as Nick Johnston suggested, to retrospective action, as indicated in the Stewart report.
Everyone who spoke seemed to accept that full planning control is the best way forward. Des McNulty encapsulated the benefits of full control quite neatly when he said that it would allow us to have proper notification, public involvement, technical assessment and local authority management, giving local flexibility and opening up the possibility of dialogue between communities' elected representatives and the operators and developers to ensure good communication and information, so that we can arrive at good local solutions.
There are concerns that full planning control might slow down the process. However, the evidence received by the committee did not suggest that such slowing down would or need be significant. The monetary aspect was also raised—as an Aberdonian, that appealed to me—which would mean that local authorities would get fees that reflected the amount of work that goes into dealing with such matters, whether under the existing system or under full planning control.
One of the disbenefits of full planning control is the risk of lack of consistency across the UK. The fact that the Stewart report has come out in favour of full planning control eliminates that barrier, which is helpful.
We were concerned about whether retrospective action would be possible. We therefore welcome the Stewart committee's recommendation that retrospective reprobation of permitted development rights should be possible.
Sylvia Jackson asked what would happen in the intervening period and suggested that a moratorium might be one way of addressing the problem. The minister addressed that point in part when she said that a moratorium would not cut the intervening period by very much and could cause some confusion.
Does the member agree that many communities in Scotland are worried about the intervening period? What does she advise such communities to do in the meantime?
I was coming to that point. That might be covered by the fact that it would probably be in the best interests of companies and developers to behave responsibly. If there are retrospective powers, it will not be in their interests to do something that they will require to put right later. The retrospective element is therefore quite important for the whole equation.
Among other points touched on was the importance of encouraging mast sharing, better mast design and a record of where masts are located—which would let us know what we are dealing with and would give us more comprehensive knowledge. Once we know all the locations, on-going monitoring—checking to ensure that things are as they should be as time goes on—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
Does Nora Radcliffe share my concern—the minister will, I hope, share it too—that, in the intervening period, local authorities will decide to have their own moratorium until the measures are in place? That would result in many more appeals being made to the minister as part of the planning process, and it would probably mean costs being racked up elsewhere. Speed is therefore absolutely necessary, and it would have been useful had the minister put a time scale on when the measures will be taken.
I thank Bruce Crawford for that point and I will take it on board.
Roaming arrangements and rural coverage were both covered. With regard to health, the committee's evidence indicated that there was no health risk, but everyone is aware that the technology has not been around for very long, and that knowledge about it is still developing.
Our recommendation was that the Scottish Executive should provide guidance and advice, which will take account of developing information as the research proceeds. We recommended that the Executive should set the framework for telecoms development in Scotland through national planning policy guidance, with full planning control provided through local authorities, and applying the precautionary principle in the light of the best, most current medical and scientific knowledge and advice.
It is helpful that the Stewart report supports that approach, and would provide for consistency across the UK. I accept the minister saying that, before she can make a full response, she has to take proper cognisance of both the Transport and the Environment Committee's report and the Stewart report. I am glad that she is moving towards our position, and I accept that it is important for there to be full discussions with the industry and with the planning authorities. I hope that only a small number of developments are permitted, and that planning control will be required for most of them.
I endorse the sentiment that swift action is important. The minister assured us that we will move forward as quickly as possible, taking into account the need for consultation, to arrive at the right, not the fastest, decision. I believe that speed and thoroughness will be accepted by everyone.
I commend the committee's report to Parliament.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on whether the Parliament can expect a full account of the cost of moving to Glasgow, and a full explanation of why it should cost around £370,000 to deconstruct and then rebuild the chamber.
Although that is not a formal point of order, I will try to be helpful. Parliament decided on 20 January to move to Glasgow. The costs are properly a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Presiding Officer. I refer Ms MacDonald to rule 13.9.2 of the standing orders, which states:
"A question addressed to the Presiding Officer under paragraph 1 shall normally be for written answer but may, exceptionally, be for oral answer."
That cannot be done today, but I suggest that Ms MacDonald should look at that rule.