Terrestrial Trunked Radio Masts
The final item of business today, is a members' business debate on motion S2M-74, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on terrestrial trunked radio masts.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that there should be a halt to the introduction of terrestrial trunked radio (TETRA) masts throughout Scotland until such time as (a) safety standards specifically relating to TETRA technology are drawn up and (b) TETRA masts and equipment are fully tested against such standards and any adverse health effects identified and made public.
I am honoured to introduce the first Green members' business debate in the second session of the Parliament. No doubt many more will follow. I welcome some of my concerned constituents from Fife, who are in the public gallery and who will be interested to hear what politicians from all parties have to say.
I am sure that the debate will contain many differences of opinion and interpretation. One myth that can be disposed of now is that the Greens are anti-technology—we are not. However, we call for technology to work effectively, which means partly that the protection of human health and of the environment must be paramount in designing technology. In a competitive corporate environment, technology that is not up to the job of servicing society's needs is redundant and should not be considered, let alone purchased by public bodies.
What is terrestrial trunked radio—TETRA—and is it fit for its purpose? TETRA is a new system of mobile communications for the police, which will, in time, be rolled out to all the emergency services. It has been commissioned by the Home Office to the tune of £2.9 billion and the contract was awarded to a company called Airwave mm02 Ltd. The European Commission subsequently found that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in considering tenders that could supply only the TETRA standard and the Public Accounts Committee in Westminster has questioned seriously whether the system represents value for money.
The rationale behind TETRA is that it is a single secure system to be used by all emergency services. The contract requires all United Kingdom police forces to be switched over to the system by 2005, which means that 700 TETRA mast sites are needed throughout Scotland.
Is the system safe, and therefore effective? The Home Office states that it has adopted the precautionary principle with regard to TETRA. In essence, that means that we should look before we leap by proving that the system is safe rather than waiting to find out whether it is unsafe. However, the Home Office is only now—as the system is being rolled out—implementing studies into the health effects of TETRA on handset users. Once again, precaution is being thrown to the wind.
The National Radiological Protection Board has issued guidelines for mobile telecommunication equipment, but they relate only to the heating effects of radiation on the brain, not to the effects of pulsing radiation. Low-frequency, pulsing radiation is at the heart of the TETRA debate. The NRPB admits that TETRA handsets emit a low-frequency form of pulsing radiation that is similar to that of the human brainwave, but it denies that such pulse radiation has any established biological effects.
However, evidence is building that, at very low frequencies, the movement of calcium ions from tissues can occur, which can affect both the nervous and the immune systems of the body. Meanwhile, on the ground, 177 police officers in Lancashire have reported adverse health effects that they believe relate to their TETRA handset use.
Would Mark Ruskell agree that there is only one reference to pulsing in the Stewart report, which came out in 2000 and which is regularly quoted by opponents of the TETRA system? The concern was that the frequencies involved were close to those in the human brain, and some studies that were carried out in the 1970s suggested that there might be an effect on brain function. Does Mark Ruskell agree, however, that recent attempts to replicate that study have been totally unsuccessful and that Dr John Tattersall, of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories, has shown that no such effect is caused by TETRAs?
I agree with Ted Brocklebank's concerns about the lack of research. Indeed, I call for such research in my motion, which I hope he will support.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not give way again. I have too much to tell members.
Although the NRPB is less committed on the issue of pulsing, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, which produced the Stewart report in 2000, advised that
"as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16 Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments in signal coding."
TETRA modulates at 17.6 Hz. Therefore, according to the Stewart report's recommendations and following the precautionary principle, we should avoid it. A general precautionary approach regarding mobile phone masts, because of their health effects, was a specific recommendation of the Scottish Parliament's Transport and the Environment Committee in 2000.
What I have just said relates to the handsets. There is controversy over whether the masts also pulse. Several scientists who have conducted independent tests believe that they do. The NRPB believes that they do not; however, that is only because, when the emissions from the masts are measured, the signal strength over a period of about 3.5 seconds is averaged out. That masks the controversial pulse that is similar to that of the human brainwave.
I am not an expert in this area, but there are clearly problems with uncertainty and conflicting recommendations. In replying to my parliamentary question on TETRA pulsing several weeks ago, in this chamber, the minister categorically stated that the masts do not pulse. However, that position is on shaky ground. We believe that that is a dangerous basis on which to allow the roll-out of 700 masts across the country.
Safety is the key issue, but even the security of the system has been called into question. Alarmingly, the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel that reports to the European Parliament stated that there was a
"major risk that could result from the omnipresence of US companies that supply radio communication equipment to the European police forces".
The same memorandum added that
"Motorola played a crucial role in defining the TETRA standard, with collaboration from the National Security Agency, in order to guarantee for the US Government the possibility that TETRA networks could be eavesdropped."
Those are the words of the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel; they are not mine.
Meanwhile, planning applications for TETRA masts are being submitted throughout Scotland. Those applications are often listed as simply mobile telecommunication mast applications, and the public is largely unaware of the difference. However, because our planning guidelines do not regard the potential health impacts of TETRA masts as a legitimate planning concern, councils can officially consider only the effects of the masts on local amenity.
We ask the Executive not to leave councils stranded high and dry on this issue, but to understand and react to the concerns of the people of Scotland. Whatever difficulties may lie with the contract for the technology, the Home Office or the planning system, a committee of the Scottish Parliament must look into the issue. Health and planning matters are within our powers. We cannot afford to store up potential problems with this technology, as it will only come back to haunt ministers. We ask the Executive to act now, please, to address the genuine concerns that lie behind the motion.
I welcome the debate on TETRA masts that Mark Ruskell has secured. It is a huge issue in Fife and elsewhere.
I doubt that there is anybody in this chamber who does not possess a mobile phone. That is the crux of the problem. We all want mobile phones and 100 per cent coverage, but we do not want the masts anywhere near us. Our challenge is to satisfy those demands while protecting both the environment and the health of our citizens.
In 2000, the Transport and the Environment Committee's "Report on inquiry into the proposals to introduce new planning procedures for telecommunications developments" made a number of recommendations about telecommunications masts. Recommendation 20 said that health issues should be "a material consideration" in the planning framework, but that recommendation has not yet been implemented.
As Mark Ruskell said, TETRA is the communications system that all the emergency services are to use. I think that we all recognise that the time has come for our police, fire and other emergency services to be able to communicate with each other effectively, but is the TETRA system safe? I do not know. Neither I nor anyone else in the chamber is qualified to judge that issue. That is the problem. More independent research needs to be commissioned. We need to be assured that the proposed system is safe. People are uncertain; they are not convinced about the safety of the masts or the equipment.
Although the Home Office implements TETRA throughout the United Kingdom, local authorities in Scotland have the responsibility of determining whether planning permission should be granted. The Scottish Executive is letting our local authorities down badly. It should be giving them guidance on telecommunications masts in general and TETRA masts in particular.
I cannot make judgments on whether TETRA is safe and I doubt whether many of our local authority planning committees could make that judgment. If planning committees cannot take into consideration all the available information, or indeed information that might not yet be available, then we are asking local authorities to make judgments that, frankly, they should not be asked to make.
Although I support Mark Ruskell's motion, I believe that far greater testing and security are required. We need to reassure our communities that, if there is a demand—and there is—for a joint communication system, the system is safe for the environment, the people who will use the equipment and those who will live beside the masts.
The debate is important, particularly to my constituents in north-east Fife, as that is one of the areas in which TETRA is proposed to be rolled out in Scotland. There are currently 14 applications pending for the erection of TETRA masts in north-east Fife. It is important that politicians treat the matter seriously. Our role is to establish the facts, ensure that the public is aware of them and that people are able to contribute to the debate on the issues.
When we debate issues of this kind, the serious danger is that we get into scaremongering. Earlier in the debate, it was alleged that 177 police officers in Lancashire had reported illnesses as a result of the installation of TETRA. In fact, the police officers had reported illnesses in a survey that happened to coincide with the introduction date of TETRA handsets. The officers did not report illnesses that were caused by the handsets. It is important that politicians do not build on the myths that build up around these important technologies.
Like Tricia Marwick, I do not know whether this technology is safe, but I will set out my position. However, my role as a politician and as a representative of my constituents is to establish the facts as best I can.
The first time that I became aware of the issue was when it was raised at a public meeting in Cupar during the Scottish Parliament election campaign in April. Mr Ruskell was also present at the meeting. I immediately took up the matter by writing to Jim Wallace, who was at that time the Minister for Justice, to ask what assessment the Scottish Executive had conducted of the health implications of the new police communication system. I also wrote to Fife Council, which was to deal with the planning applications, to ask about its position on the matter.
Subsequently, I wrote to Malcolm Chisholm and I ultimately received his reply. On a number of occasions, I have asked parliamentary questions of Cathy Jamieson about some of the health concerns that my constituents have raised. I have also asked questions in the chamber on the matter. In addition, I met with the chief inspector of Fife constabulary, Rennie Ritchie, who is the officer responsible for the implementation programme in Fife, to discuss those concerns.
A related matter was raised with me about an existing TETRA mast in Fife at Drumcarrow craig, where there appeared to be a cluster of neurologically related health issues. I have raised that matter with the director of public health for Fife and I raised it with Hugh Henry in the chamber a couple of weeks ago at question time.
I have received assurances from all the public agencies involved about the safety of the TETRA masts. I have to say that I am not 100 per cent convinced by those assurances, but I have received them.
One concern is in relation to the comments made by Sir William Stewart in his report, which Mark Ruskell mentioned in his opening speech. It is interesting that people who refer to the point in the report that states that
"as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16 Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments in signal coding"
fail to recognise that a report published by the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation on 31 July 2001—after the Stewart report—states:
"current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health."
Four of the six members of the advisory group that produced the report in July 2001 were also members of the Stewart committee. In one case people are willing to accept their evidence, but in another case they rubbish it. I am not sure where the consistency is in that position and how that is meant to assist the public debate.
It is important to reflect that the authors of that report use the word "unlikely." The report does not say "definitely not"; it says "unlikely". There is an important difference between those two terms.
If Robin Harper defines the precautionary principle as "will never happen", I do not think that he will ever get anything done. In that case, I would not walk out of the building if it were not certain that I would not be knocked over by a car. The precautionary principle is that I probably will not get knocked over by a car. The balance of probabilities is taken into account. The report by the advisory group suggests that the evidence is that TETRA is unlikely to cause a health risk.
However, it is premature to have the debate, because there is much still to be done. The Home Office, which is responsible for promoting the project, is doing a lengthy programme of research into some of those matters. One piece of research is on calcium efflux. The Home Office's programme of work on TETRA health and safety issues states:
"The full analysis will be completed by the end of September 2003."
On research into brain slice electrophysiology, it states:
"Results are expected by the end of September 2003."
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
On epileptiform activity, the Home Office work programme states:
"Results are expected by the end of September 2003."
On cognitive performance, it states:
"Special TETRA handsets are being procured for the cognitive tests, which are expected to start in November 2003."
A series of experiments is currently being conducted by the Home Office. I want to know why we do not wait for the results of those experiments before we decide whether to go ahead with TETRA masts. That is surely what we should be doing.
Does the member accept that, as the Home Office is responsible for rolling out TETRA throughout the United Kingdom, that might mean that the results of the research that it is carrying out might not be believed? Does he agree that it would be better for everybody concerned if independent research was commissioned to investigate all the potential health risks?
That is an interesting concept. The Home Office has commissioned independent research. Who else would commission such research? We should at least wait until we have the results of that research—much of which is due to be concluded within the next few months—before we go any further with this programme.
I find it bizarre and premature that the Home Office is pressing ahead with this new system when the results of the research that it has commissioned are not yet known. If there were sufficient concerns for that research to go ahead, there are sufficient concerns for us to wait for the results of that research before we go any further with the introduction of TETRA communication systems.
I conclude by commending the decision of the east area development committee of Fife Council. It recently decided to defer the applications for TETRA masts in north-east Fife for six months, in order that it could get the results of some of the health research before it agrees to the erection of the masts.
I have no doubt that some of the health fears about TETRA masts have been overstated, but I believe that the precautionary principle dictates that we should take decisions in the light of the best available information. I see no reason why we should be rushing to introduce TETRA communication systems now, when we will have much better information on the potential health risks in a few months' time. I urge the Scottish Executive to impose a moratorium on the TETRA project until the results of the current scientific studies are available.
I, too, welcome Mark Ruskell's motion, which is on an extremely serious subject to which we must give much attention. No one can give a categorical assurance that microwave radiation will not, in certain circumstances, have adverse effects on people's health. It is essential that we take the best available scientific advice and that we monitor microwave radiation carefully—whether it is from mobile handsets, police radios or microwave ovens—for any impact on health.
About 1,000 TETRA public network masts are in situ throughout the UK. In Mid Scotland and Fife, which I represent, there is a TETRA mast on Drumcarrow hill, near St Andrews. There is another in Dundee, one near Perth, one near Abernethy and one between Glenfarg and Milnathort. The masts are currently owned and operated by Inquam Telecom Ltd. Most of the masts have been in situ for up to four years. Other private operators may also be using TETRA technology.
All eight Scottish police forces favour TETRA technology because they believe that it is safer and much more efficient than existing methods of telecommunication which, because of lack of coverage and poor transmission, can often result in officers' being isolated and their safety compromised.
There have been reports of complaints from about 170 police officers in Lancashire of symptoms that they claim to have experienced since TETRA was introduced in their force. Some of those officers claim to have suffered deafness and others have cited migraines, nausea and body warming as symptoms. It is also true that people living near TETRA masts have complained about cancer clusters and other ailments in their areas.
Because of the potential risks of radio frequency transmissions, strict safety guidelines were introduce by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which consists of a group of independent scientists who are considered to be leaders in the field and are drawn from around the world. As a result of public concern in this country and elsewhere, and because scientific research is continuing, the ICNIRP has set guidelines with very wide safety margins of at least 50 times below the level at which it is believed any adverse health effect can occur. Handsets and transmitters comply with those guidelines, the latter to a degree of hundreds if not thousands.
Will Mr Brocklebank acknowledge that the ICNIRP guidelines—which relate to our National Radiological Protection Board guidelines—do not look at the pulsing effects of radiation but only at the heating effects on the brain? Consequently, we do not have guidelines that relate specifically to TETRA technology, which was the point that I made earlier.
I will try to cover that point.
As members will know, research into terrestrial trunked radio has been going on for more than 30 years. The Stewart report into mobile telephony, which was published in 2000, advised caution and continuing research, but claimed that there was
"no general risk to the health of people living near base stations."
Professor Colin Blakemore, who contributed to the Stewart report, claims that the microwave radiation that is emitted from a TETRA handset is "1000 times less" than what is emitted from a mobile telephone.
An expert group set up by the Government's National Radiological Protection Board concluded:
"Current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health."
However, because concerns about mobile technology—specifically TETRA—persist, the latest independent research programme funded by the Home Office was set up two years ago. We on this side of the chamber are not complacent about health and safety issues, but are committed to engaging with all sides of the debate. In our view, the latest research evidence gives some reassurance at least.
Nevertheless, we support the Executive's decision to co-fund the latest Home Office research, which will be done under the chairmanship of Professor Lawrie Challis of the University of Nottingham. However, we want to know when the results will be available and we seek assurances about the inquiry's time scale, to which Iain Smith alluded. We also want to know whether the Executive has considered halting the current roll-out of new systems until the report is available.
We recommend to the Executive that a survey be carried out on all existing public and private TETRA masts throughout Scotland by the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health—SCIEH—to obtain accurate information about radiation emissions in all climatic conditions.
That said, at the request of the concerned residents in the Drumcarrow and Radernie areas of north-east Fife, whom I met recently, I have already written—as I am sure the local MSP has—to the chief executive of Fife NHS Board to request urgent information about ailment clusters that allegedly relate to the existing TETRA mast on Drumcarrow hill. The initial indications that I have had from Fife NHS Board suggest that it knows of no such detectable clusters.
I am glad that there seems to be consensus among members on the need to adhere to the precautionary principle, because there are many questions about the technology. The many who have expressed concerns include not only those who will be forced to live close to the TETRA masts, but those who will have to use the technology and those who question whether expenditure on it represents an appropriate use of huge amounts of Westminster money.
The response must be for local authorities to take the precautionary approach and to hold off giving approval until the doubts and fears have been properly allayed. As we have heard, some local authorities have already taken that approach. My local authority, Angus Council, is to be commended for its response to concerns in Montrose and Carnoustie.
We are talking about a huge project: it is planned that 700 masts be installed all over Scotland, which means that many more people will be affected by future decisions. The costs for the United Kingdom—£2.9 billion—are enormous. That is in spite of the fact that the technology has not even been fully tested.
Mark Ruskell commented on how the Home Office had run into trouble with the EU when the system was first put out to tender, because it had specified that tenders had to be only to the TETRA standard. That meant that the tender process was not open, which is illegal under EU law. Nevertheless, the Home Office went ahead with the tendering.
All that begs us to ask what is going on, especially as the Home Office has commissioned a study that will research the technology and review police use of the handsets, but which will not examine the health issues that are faced by those who are forced to live, work or go to school near the masts.
There is another aspect that is specific to Scotland: I understand that Scottish police forces still own all their hilltop masts. There appears to be pressure for the new system to be rolled out, to make the old system redundant and to enable the sell-off of those highly lucrative hilltop sites to the highest of many bidders. There are concerns among Scottish police forces that operating problems could be experienced with the new technology in the trial areas, whereby the emergency services would not be able to use their handsets near hospitals, because it would interfere with the hospitals' technological set-up. The fire brigades are concerned that pulsing could cause ignition and start fires where chemicals are involved. Those issues must be addressed carefully. From the comments that I heard, Scottish police are concerned that the new technology would actually fail in parts of the Highlands and Islands and that it would not be as effective as expected.
Surely the most sensible and cost-efficient way forward would be merely to improve the system that the emergency services already have. At least the present system is not being placed in housing estates, schools and right beside a health centre, as is being planned in Montrose. We need real assurances on the safety of the technology before it is rolled out further in Scotland.
At the outset, I take the opportunity to congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing a debate on TETRA masts. Contrary to the opinions that some members have expressed, I believe that TETRA masts are exactly the type of issue that members' business debates could have been designed for discussing. Such debates allow us to put an issue on the parliamentary agenda at an early stage when, even though we might not have all the information, we can sit round in a circle, discuss matters, put forward our points of view and not have a vote—that can happen at some time in the future.
My colleague Ted Brocklebank has already set out the Conservative position in some detail, so I shall not repeat that at any great length. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity to express some views about issues that have been brought to my attention and that are related to the issues that Shiona Baird mentioned.
I am well aware of local concerns about the location of TETRA masts, in particular those that are sited in residential areas. I, too, have had communication from people in the Alfred Street area of Montrose. Not only is that area adjacent to the new health centre, it is also close to Montrose Academy. That should be of some concern. I have been contacted by residents of the Taymouth Terrace area in Carnoustie, who have put up quite a vocal public campaign to highlight their concerns about the positioning of a mast. I sympathise with people who have genuine fears about the safety of proposed equipment.
Over 1,000 TETRA masts are operational in the UK and I am aware that the emergency services believe the masts to be a vital part of their communication needs. I have spoken to senior police officers in Scotland who have assured me that there are huge safety issues about continuing with the existing system. They want to progress to a more modern and more effective system. There are sound arguments to suggest that the TETRA communication system may be capable of achieving what the emergency services want it to achieve.
Until the research that is being carried out by the Home Office is completed, the Scottish Conservatives will back the view of Scotland's eight police forces—which is supported by the research that has been carried out to date—that TETRA is a more effective and safer system than that which was previously available. When the research is completed, we will re-evaluate our position according to the new evidence that is presented to us.
However, one concern that I would like to hear answered—I am not sure whether it can be answered tonight—relates to some of what Shiona Baird said at the end of her speech. Why are some proposed masts to be positioned within towns and residential areas? If it is true that the system is capable of achieving better coverage and will have a longer range, would not it make sense to position the masts on the hilltop sites that were used previously? Councils deal with the masts as a planning matter, so we need answers to that question. We need to know why the masts are being positioned in places that cause concern among local residents instead of on hilltops, where the masts might actually have a better range.
If the minister has an answer to that question, I will be delighted to hear it. If he does not, I will certainly write to local authorities; I hope that he will do the same.
I had not intended to contribute to the debate but, like others, I have had constituents contact me about these masts. As Mr Brocklebank said, this is a wide issue that causes concern regionally and, beyond that, nationally.
It is incumbent on MSPs and on the Parliament to treat such an issue not only seriously—as my colleague Iain Smith rightly said—but responsibly. We have a responsibility to our constituents not to cause any scaremongering or unnecessary worry.
Mr Ruskell indicated agreement.
I am glad that Mr Ruskell is nodding at that juncture. I am reassured by that, given the somewhat vague phrases that he used in his speech, not least among which was the phrase "evidence was building"; he did not say what that evidence was. He also mentioned "scientists" without saying who those scientists were.
Will the member give way?
No. I will not give way to Mr Ruskell. I am sure that he will learn the habits of the chamber in due course, but he did not have the courtesy to give way to me when I wanted to raise precisely these points. I do not want to detain members any longer than is necessary, but perhaps in a minute, once I have covered my main points, I will show Mr Ruskell the courtesy that he failed to show me.
As I said, it is incumbent on us to treat the issue not only seriously but responsibly. That is why I was slightly surprised by Ms Baird's remark. I understand that there is a problem with the existing technology, which is beginning to get out of date. I am not up on this high technology—I doubt that many of us are—as physics and communications were not, I must confess, my strongest academic subjects at school. However, I understand that there are problems with the existing system, including potential safety problems.
We do not want to stand in the way of advancing technology. I am sure that the Greens do not want to do so either, and that they do not wish to be seen as 21st century luddites. I am glad that they are nodding vigorously again, and that they are behind the economy of Scotland and want to ensure that we get it growing into the future. I am glad that the Green party is not a populist party. I am reassured that the last thing the Greens would ever do is jump on a bandwagon. We would not want them to become the kind of politicians who cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it. They might end up like the Tories if they were to do that—and we know what trouble the Tories are in. I had better be careful, as I do not want to test the Deputy Presiding Officer too much, but I understand that Mr Duncan Smith is escaping from Brent East to Scotland this weekend—let us just leave it at that.
The issue is important, and I look forward to seeing the Home Office research. The debate today serves as an interim debate, as my colleague, Iain Smith, rightly said. We are at the point where concerns have been raised with us, which we are right to raise with the Executive. We are also right to wait for the results of the Home Office research.
I am always glad to help my former party and make up for the black holes in its knowledge. The Conservatives have a slight problem that is similar to the problem with telecommunications in Scotland—there are also telecommunications black holes, where there is no coverage. Let me reassure Mr Johnstone on the point about why masts are sometimes in urban areas or villages rather than on hilltops: I understand that it is because of the level of power needed. That point has been explained to me simply, and I certainly do not want to answer any interventions on it.
Will the member give way?
Oh well, why not? It is always jolly to give way to Mr Johnstone.
I can assure Mr Raffan that, in quite a few areas of rural Scotland, we now have this newfangled electricity.
I understand that masts on hilltops will require greater power, although I share Alex Johnstone's concerns about masts being in urban areas. Indeed, it was Liberal Democrat councillors who got the mast in Kinross removed, and I am sure that all parties will pay tribute to us for succeeding there where the SNP failed.
I repeat that we are at the interim stage of what is an important and serious debate and that it is incumbent on us to behave responsibly and to wait for the results of the Home Office research. I am sure that we will return to the issue. I hope that, in his response, the Deputy Minister for Justice will answer some of the serious questions that have been raised. I think, however, that if members are to quote evidence that has been building up or the concern of scientists, they should say what the evidence is and who the scientists are.
I will follow that if I can, Presiding Officer.
The matter that Mark Ruskell has raised is clearly of concern to several members and it has been the subject of questions that Cathy Jamieson and I, as well as other ministers, have answered this session. One of the calls that Mark Ruskell made towards the end of his speech was for a committee of the Parliament to look into the matter. That is not for me to address; that is a matter for the Parliament and its committees to determine themselves.
The reasons for the current arrangements have been outlined both in correspondence to members and in answers to parliamentary questions, and we know why the Airwave police radio system is the subject of change. The new system is due to be rolled out to Scottish forces in 2004-05. Because of that time scale, we are now in the midst of preparation for the changes to the transmission network in Scotland, and local authorities are dealing with planning applications in that context. I will return later to the role of local authorities.
The new radio system will have a number of advantages over the existing one. It will be digital, and will provide better voice recognition. It will provide for encryption, so that criminals cannot use scanners to listen into police transmissions. It will allow officers on the beat to get direct access to data. It will therefore assist the police in fighting crime effectively and efficiently.
However, as has already been made clear, we know of the concerns that have been raised about the TETRA standard that Airwave uses. As a mobile radio system, Airwave requires a network of masts and handsets. Members will be aware of the general concerns that have been expressed over recent years about the possible health risks from such systems, the most familiar of which is the mobile phone.
As a result of those concerns, a number of independent reviews have been commissioned, as Iain Smith and others have mentioned, and research has been undertaken or is in progress. I shall attempt to summarise that but, essentially, my conclusion will be the same as the one that I gave in reply to Mark Ruskell's oral question on 4 September: that the work undertaken so far indicates that emissions from the system are not harmful to health.
A key report is that by the independent expert group on mobile phones under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, which was published in May 2000. Its recommendations dealt mainly with mobile masts but included a reference to TETRA systems. The expert group considered the totality of relevant research published up to the time at which its report was published. It included reference to some studies relevant to radio-frequency emissions from TETRA. That research focused on the effects of radio-frequency emissions on calcium loss from brain tissue.
The expert group noted contradictory results from the research, with specific reference to the frequency of 16 cycles per second that was mentioned earlier. However, the report stressed that the observation of such biological effects did not necessarily mean that health was affected adversely. The potential significance of those findings in the current context is that the TETRA system is known to involve pulsing at 17.6 cycles per second.
The Home Office asked the National Radiological Protection Board to provide advice on the implications of the findings for the health of TETRA users and others who may be exposed to TETRA signals. Iain Smith has already addressed some of the concerns that Mark Ruskell raised about the effects of TETRA signals on health and about the survey that was carried out in Lancashire. The problems that accompanied the roll-out of TETRA in Lancashire were associated with a phenomenon called spiking—a loud burst of sound into the ear. That technical problem was resolved. From the information that Iain Smith and I have provided, it is clear that we must see such problems in context.
Research was also commissioned from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. The NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation, chaired by Sir Richard Doll, carried out that research. The advisory group's report, entitled "Possible Health Effects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)", was published on its website on 31 July 2001 and has also been published in the documents of the NRPB.
The advisory group's report noted that the radio-frequency signals transmitted by TETRA base stations are not pulsed but continuous. The signals that are pulsed are those from mobile terminals and repeaters. The advisory group stated that there was no reason to believe that signals from TETRA base stations should be treated differently from those from other mobile phone base stations. The group went on to conclude that the exposure of the public to signals from TETRA base stations was taking place at a small fraction of international guidelines and that
"current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health."
The advisory group made a number of recommendations for further research that are being progressed by the link mobile telecommunications and health research programme to which the Scottish Executive is contributing—as has been mentioned—and by the Home Office.
The expert group also recommended the adoption of exposure guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection on public exposure to radio- frequency radiation. That recommendation was accepted, as was the recommendation that an audit of base stations should be carried out. The international commission's guidelines refer to exposure of people and not to emissions from specific items of equipment.
It has been suggested that the guidelines do not take account of non-thermal effects on body tissues and that they are inappropriately applied to signals from TETRA. That is not true. The commission considered pulsed and amplitude-modulated waveforms when it drew up its guidance. Its view was consistent with that of the NRPB and is similar to conclusions reached by the expert group.
There is a great deal more information that I will not have time to discuss. However, I will touch on the planning issues that have been raised. National planning policy guideline 19, on radio telecommunications, contains the Executive's planning guidance on the roll-out of such infrastructure, including the issue of health concerns. The guideline encourages the use of existing infrastructure. Members should note that O2 has indicated that, where possible, it will place TETRA aerials on existing masts, to minimise the number of new masts.
Planning of masts is a matter for local authorities. It is the responsibility of local authorities to consider relevant information. As Iain Smith has indicated, Fife Council has deferred a decision on the applications in north-east Fife. Clear guidelines are given to planning authorities, indicating what they can and cannot consider. Planning authorities can consider a number of aspects, including health aspects. In drawing together our conclusions, we had regard to the findings of the Stewart report and the NRPB, regarding health effects. Our guidelines require a declaration of compliance with ICNIRP exposure guidelines. Local authorities have the responsibility and the authority to consider issues if they think that that is justified.
A number of competing claims have been made.
Will the minister give way?
No, unfortunately I am just finishing.
Problems have been caused by a combination of myth and lack of scientific evidence. One of the difficulties that we have with many such issues, including health issues, is that sometimes people latch on to one or two aspects and extrapolate from there, causing wider concern that is not always based on evidence. If evidence and facts exist to justify delays or decisions, it should be presented. However, to date, no evidence has been produced and in the absence of such evidence, it would be difficult for those concerned to take any decision other than those that they are taking.
Meeting closed at 17:46.