Telecommunications
We now move to members' business. I ask those who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly, to allow the start of the debate on S1M-187, in the name of Mr Nick Johnston, on telecommunications. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes. I will ask Mr Johnston to wait while members leave. [Interruption.] I ask members who are leaving to do so quietly, in fairness to the member whose debate this is.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the proliferation of telecommunication masts in mid Scotland and Fife and the recent report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee into mobile phones and telecommunications.
Today sees another first in the Parliament, but not one as grand as the two that we heard about before. I am pleased to have been asked to take part in debating my second members' business motion, and I understand that I am the first member to have been granted two members' business debates.
I chose this subject for debate against the background of a rapid rise in the demand for mobile phones, and as one of the 20 million mobile users in the United Kingdom today—a number that will rise to 30 million by 2001. The UK telecommunications industry employs more than 100,000 people and accounts for £5 billion of UK gross domestic product. Orange alone will invest around £800 million in the next year.
I do not want to give the impression of being anti the telecommunications industry. I fully support the extension of the network with the benefits that it will bring in terms of competition and accessibility. There is considerable unease about the current planning process. There is considerable public unease about the perception of health risks from telecommunications masts and mobile phones. There has been a proliferation of masts in Scotland and the response of the Executive to the considerable public anger at masts appearing in their communities, often without neighbour notification, must be investigated.
There are four issues: planning, health, community and competence. Taking the fourth first, we find another of the many anomalies thrown up by the inadequate drafting of the Scotland Act 1998. Telecommunications per se is a reserved matter under schedule 5 to the act and matters relating to health and safety are also reserved. We are therefore unable to legislate on
the health issues in this Parliament. What we can do, however, is ask the Executive to read carefully the third report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology regarding the health risks associated with the effects of radiation from mobile phones.
I draw the Executive's attention particularly to the evidence of Mr Phil Willis MP, who said that more independent research is required before mobile phones and their transmitting base stations are deemed not to be a risk to public health and that, until independently validated evidence is available, the precautionary principle should be adopted.
The public, of course, have a right to choose whether to use a mobile. However, people who live in close proximity to base stations, or who have them in their children's playgrounds or beamed at their schools, have no such right and no such choice. I had better declare an interest, because not more than 100 m from my house there is a 25.4 m mast. The noise that members can hear from the public gallery comes from my children who, thus far, have not been damaged by the mast, but I am concerned about the health issues.
We look to Governments of every hue to protect the health of their citizens. We should also look to the Government to provide evidence that the risk to health from base stations and from mobile phones is so minimal or non-existent that it does not pose a threat. At this time, the Government can do neither, partly because there is insufficient peer group-validated research.
I welcome the setting up by the UK Government of the independent expert group on mobile phones under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart. However, I am concerned by the fact that the secretariat seems to be provided by the National Radiological Protection Board, a body that has not inspired widespread public confidence so far.
I shall leave health and move back to the other factors that influence the debate, particularly the planning issues. The situation seems to be very confused, particularly when it comes to planning guidelines. I understand that, under the Telecommunications Act 1984, operators have an obligation to provide services to 90 per cent of the population within prescribed time limits. The regulations at present state that, broadly speaking, operators benefit from permitted development rights that allow them to erect free-standing masts and towers up to 15 m without the need to seek planning consent. Class 67 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 deals with that.
Perhaps I can illustrate some of the difficulties with an example from my constituency, one that Mr Crawford knows only too well. Class 67 should not apply in conservation or national scenic areas. I do not want to bore members with tedious details but, in the case of the mast in Kinross, those regulations seem to have been circumvented by the excuse that the mast was a replacement for an existing mast operated by the police, so there was no need for permission.
After much to-ing and fro-ing between the council and one of my constituents, an appeal to the ombudsman produced a sympathetic reply, but it said that, in essence, the issue was a matter for the courts as the case would require a judicial judgment on the interpretation of the guidelines by the relevant planning authority. My constituent is now faced with the prospect of having to take legal action to prove the council to be at fault, and the cost to him has been conservatively estimated at 6,000 quid.
Surely that is not an acceptable situation. It leaves our community with a hideous monstrosity in the midst of the picturesque capital burgh of Kinross-shire, in the middle of a conservation area, replacing a police mast that was slim and discreet with a huge steel latticework festooned with dishes and aerials. I welcome the fact that the Transport and the Environment Committee is to hold an inquiry into telecommunications. I hope that its recommendations put pressure on the Executive to ensure that such ludicrous situations are not allowed to occur in the future.
We need the Executive to give clear and unequivocal guidance to local authorities. I call on it to explain to us how it intends to remedy the situation. How does it intend to protect our children? How does it intend to preserve the heritage of our country? How does it intend to encourage operators to effect the coverage imposed on them under the Telecommunications Act 1984 while minimising environmental damage? In short, how will it prevent another 25.4 m mast appearing in the middle of a town of historic beauty?
We must strike a balance between public good, public amenity, visual beauty and the benefits to communities. I commend my motion to the chamber.
I am pleased to participate in the debate, and I thank Nick Johnston for raising the issue. I also thank members who have shown support for the motion and the one that I lodged on telecommunications developments.
The issue has undoubtedly caused concern to communities throughout Scotland, and certainly to
some in my constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston. The erection of telecommunications masts in residential areas, near schools, nurseries and play areas, has sparked anxiety among parents, communities and society in general. Recent reports have suggested links between the emissions from those masts and serious illnesses, but the NRPB has stated that
"there is no evidence to suggest that these masts or their emissions are dangerous or a threat to public health."
Importantly, the board has not stated categorically that the masts are safe. Its findings and statement do nothing to dispel the fears of our communities. Indeed, they may further fuel the notion that the emissions from those masts are not safe.
Dr Helen Irvine, consultant in public health medicine at Greater Glasgow Health Board, recently called for the implementation of the precautionary principle when it is proposed that masts be erected near schools, play areas, nurseries and residential areas until such time as evidence is found conclusively to determine their safety or otherwise. I hope that that stance will be supported by members and implemented by local authorities throughout Scotland.
It is important, however, to note that local authorities can take action only in respect to their own land and buildings. They have no formal role in any decision-making process regarding proposed masts under 15 m in height on private land—as Nick mentioned. Such masts can appear unannounced and unplanned and have caused a certain amount of visual pollution of the environment.
Authorities are also unclear on their legal ability to reject planning applications solely on the basis of the public perception of danger. Despite receiving about 400 protests to a planning application for the erection of a mast in a small community in my constituency, the local authority felt ill at ease with including public perception as one of the planning considerations in rejecting the application. That was because of the lack of clear, unequivocal guidance on the public perception of danger as a valid planning consideration. I commend the authority on its decision to refuse planning permission for that development.
Such planning factors can and should be addressed by the Parliament. Like Nick, I acknowledge the inquiry recently set up by the Transport and the Environment Committee, into planning and other issues surrounding telecommunications developments. I welcome the Scottish Executive's proposals to address some of the concerns surrounding those developments. However, its proposal to implement a prior approval scheme for masts under 15 m does not fully address the two most important factors that relate to permitted developments: public concern and local authority powers. It is an anomaly in our planning process that the public's concern about those developments, justified or not, cannot be formally raised when dealing with masts under 15 m high and cannot be definitively construed as a valid planning consideration regardless of the height of any proposed mast.
Giving full powers to local authorities to carry out a formal consultation process and to make informed decisions, rather than suggestions, on all such developments would help to ease public anxiety and would allow the authorities better to control the siting of all developments to the areas of least possible impact.
The prior approval scheme will depend too heavily on the good will of developers to make alterations to their proposals. It is likely that any developer submitting a proposal for the erection of a mast at a particular site would have previously investigated other options, and so would be reluctant to make alternative arrangements.
I call on the Executive to rethink the introduction of the scheme, and instead to remove telecommunications developments from the class of permitted developments in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. I ask the Executive to issue guidance to planning authorities on the legality of accepting public perception—on health or any other grounds—as a valid planning consideration.
We are a new legislature and can lead the way in effectively addressing the concerns over the issue. We must take the steps that are necessary to ease the anxiety in our communities throughout Scotland.
I thank Nick Johnston for his motion. It concerns an issue that should be addressed.
I want to reflect on the experience that I have had with a telecommunications mast in Kinross, which is in the constituency that Nick and I share. It has been a dreadful experience. I was the leader of Perth and Kinross Council when the mast was erected. It was erected under permitted development rights, and under powers that were delegated to officials, and so was in the process of being erected before many of us became aware of it, although the people next door to the mast—who happen to be here today—became aware of it sooner than we did.
The mast has been called a number of things, such as Kinross's folly, and I have heard it called Crawford's folly, because I was the leader of the
council at the time. The mast is a hideous abomination and we must find a way to address that, perhaps through legislation. I know that we cannot legislate retrospectively, but a method must be found through a legislative process to get rid of the carbuncles that already exist. I do not know what that process might be, but we must find a way to do it.
In dealing with the issue of masts, I was concerned that we had a dispute between what the planners were saying and what the local people understood the legislation said. Unfortunately, the matter will need to be resolved by the courts. There are extremely grey areas in the legislation around the interpretation of words such as differing and sizes. That must be sorted out.
As we have heard, many local authorities have taken prudent avoidance action with regard to their schools and other places. Many fire brigades are doing the same, and a number of police forces are now waking up to the issue. The mast in Kinross that I referred to is at the back of a police station. I understand that Tayside police are reviewing their policy on telecommunications masts because of the difficulties that have arisen.
As a Parliament, we need to take on board the thrust of the Maastricht guidance on prudent avoidance and on the precautionary principle. Other countries have done that. New Zealand has a safety limit that is 1,000 times less than that which exists in the UK, so we must take on board international evidence when we deal with the issue.
We have seen masts taken down because of public pressure. I hope that because of Nick's actions today, through the work of all-party groups and through all-party pressure, we can have the mast in Kinross removed from our shared constituency. I also hope that through joint action and joint agreement in this Parliament we can introduce proposals that can start to deal in a much more meaningful way not only with future masts, but with the masts that have already been erected, so that we can resite them to much more satisfactory positions.
I could go on and on about the subject, because it has driven me to distraction for a number of years, but other members wish to speak and I will let them do so.
I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I wish to congratulate Nick Johnston on obtaining this members' debate. I also congratulate him on quoting a Liberal Democrat, Phil Willis, who, in the House of
Commons, has been in the vanguard of campaigning on the issues—particularly the health issues—related to mobile phones.
I want to comment on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report. There is no doubt that there are increasing scares about the use of mobile phones. The report makes clear the concerns of the Science and Technology Committee, although it does not say much that is new. However, in response to the report, the Government has set up an expert group on mobile phones, which is due to report early next year. Research must be on-going.
The mobile phone companies—through the charges that they impose on us—have made huge profits in recent years, because of the amazing growth in the use of mobile phones. It is in their interests to allay public fears as soon as possible. I hope that we will get on-going—if not conclusive—research that will ultimately prove that mobile phones are not damaging.
I want to discuss planning, which is an important issue. It has been discussed in terms of Kinross, in particular, but I know that fellow members for Mid Scotland and Fife will be aware that the issue extends beyond Kinross. One of the problems in Scotland is mobile phone coverage. That is increasing all the time. I used to be based in the village of Forgandenny, just south of Perth, where my mobile phone did not work. As soon as I drove over the hill, on the way to Perth, the phone would start ringing to let me know that I had numerous messages.
The operators are keen to extend coverage so that reception is available throughout Scotland. There will be an increasing tendency to put up masts, because of the obvious difficulties in the terrain. Those masts are likely to be erected in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I use that phrase not in the technical and legal sense, but to describe areas whose natural beauty is outstanding, some of which will be protected and others that will not. It is important that the Parliament's committees and the Scottish Executive move on the issue.
Nick Johnston's motion had to be redrafted because, as he and Elaine Smith said, without permission, operators can erect masts up to 15 m high, which is an anomaly. That loophole should be closed as soon as possible. I do not know whether we can act retrospectively, but I do not want to see such masts springing up throughout other parts of the region, particularly in Perthshire and the Highlands, where current mobile phone coverage is poor. In the near future, coverage will be expanded in such areas, and will result in the appearance of those intrusions—or, as they were rightly called, pollutions—in the landscape.
We must move forward on the health and planning issues in tandem. I share concerns about the health issues, which have had increasing publicity in recent years. One of the first people thought to have been a victim of mobile phones was a former chairman of the United States Republican party, who was a regular mobile phone user and who suffered from a brain tumour. That was why the British media first highlighted the health issues surrounding mobile phones. There are increasing concerns about that, which need to be addressed.
I thank Nick Johnston. This is a heated issue for most members, who will have been approached by constituents who have seen a mast being erected close to them—an obvious concern.
An article in The Guardian, from 20 October, examined the recent and rapid development of mobile phones, suggesting that one in four people currently own a mobile phone. As we know only too well, the mobile phone masts are a necessary part of that expansion. No one wants to stand in the way of technological progress and it is a balancing act to keep abreast of developments while taking on board the important issues that have been raised this evening. One such issue is public concern, about which Elaine Smith spoke at length.
I will jump some points, as many of them have been covered already.
Although it has been reported that about half the 32 local authorities in Scotland are adopting precautionary practice policies, half of them are left with no guiding principles, which is quite scandalous. The Scottish Parliament information centre's briefing paper details how many countries, including the USA, Sweden and so on, have taken precautionary steps against the siting of transmitters because of public concerns about the health issues. The Minister for Transport and the Environment has stated that a Scotland-wide code of best practice will be developed; I want to hear from her about the time scale of some of those developments.
As Nick said, we welcome the establishment by the Department of Health of the independent expert group on mobile phones, which will conduct a rigorous assessment. However, I take on board what he said about the involvement of the NRPB. There is a great lack of planning regulations. The suggested proposals seem too ambiguous and ad hoc, and leave it too much to chance whether the local authority will take up a planning issue. I urge the minister to examine seriously how we can put more rigour into the prior planning proposals that have been suggested.
We await the findings of the independent expert group. While some of the issues are being dealt with at Westminster level, we should take some initiatives in Scotland, both at the prior approval stage and by bringing into operation the precautionary principle. I urge the minister not only to consider those issues but to give us a time scale for what will happen in future.
While we are reaching the point where the debate should come to a close, a number of members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate.
I call Elaine Thomson—sorry, I call Elaine Smith; I called the wrong member. [Interruption.] Please put your card in, Elaine.
I move,
That the debate be extended.
I am minded to accept that motion. Can you give me an idea of how much time is required? Thirty minutes, perhaps?
The maximum time would be 6 o'clock.
I will accept the motion, if that is acceptable to members. That does not mean that we must run on until 6 o'clock, but it will give other members an opportunity to speak.
On a point of order. It is my understanding that the Presiding Officer said the other day that there would be no extensions to adjournment debates and that the domestic violence debate that was extended was, if you like, an exception. Is not that correct, or are we going back on that policy?
I am not aware of that having been said in that exact way. My understanding is that the standing orders allow a member to move a motion to extend. For that reason, I will accept the motion. However, we shall double-check the position, just to be on the safe side.
The question is, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
I too congratulate Nick on securing this debate. I do not disagree with what has been said so far, but Sylvia, in particular,
picked through the subject in a wise manner.
From the slightly different perspective of the northern Highlands rather than that of Kinross, on a positive note, the good news is that we welcome the increase in the use of telephones because they provide much-needed, vital jobs in Thurso and Alness in my constituency. Indeed, the improved reception in parts of Sutherland is welcomed locally. On a more fearful note, we must be careful not to scaremonger about this issue. I see that Dr Simpson is here and I share his fears.
I do not know how many members remember the repeat of the programme about Alan Clark, which was recorded a year or two before he died. In the programme, he said, "I am not going to use this damned thing and give myself a brain tumour". My own children, who are at secondary school, say to me, "Dad, can I have a mobile phone?" I fall about laughing, but they say, "But our classmates have them". Mobile phones are found throughout our schools and, quite frankly, they are a curse. It is a joke that kids use mobile phones and pagers, but it is a chilling thought to consider the possible health risks. I stress that they are only possible.
I would like to add my support to what Keith said. Let us dig into the health issue as deep as we can and as soon as we can. I think that Sylvia got it right when she said that, although many of these matters lie with another place, it behoves us, as the Scottish Parliament, to take a Scottish initiative, as Sylvia put it, and to recommend that the minister take as good a look as she can at the issues and, if necessary, make representations to Westminster.
I can bring good news to this debate. If members have followed the work of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which I have the pleasure of chairing, they will see that we have already had a pre-briefing on the subject. I have arranged for our next four meetings to be on the subject of mobile phone masts and their effects. For members' information, we have received 102 responses from the general public, organisations, community groups, health bodies, local councils and other bodies regarding our investigation. I have sent a proposed list for giving oral evidence to the committee.
Our colleagues from Kinross are with us today. I have seen the photographs and I understand their concerns on the local issues. Their submission was a very good one. We intend to take a broad view of whom we will invite to give evidence to us. Obviously, we will invite representatives of the industry, the mobile phone operators, as well as local planning authorities, community organisations and individuals.
I hope that we get a broad view of what is going on, because there is genuine concern. I first came across the situation when a member of a residents association from Lister tower in East Kilbride approached me and said, "We've got this thing on our roof. What does it mean for us? What is the effect on us?" We need to deal with such matters. We can deal with them in the powerful committees of this powerful Parliament. That is what the Transport and the Environment Committee will be doing over the next month or so.
That is a good example of dealing with an issue which has come to members through postbags or surgeries. We can drive it into our system, a committee can pick the matter up, draw together the best brains, I hope, in the country and bring in the Executive, who have, from my discussions with Sarah, always been open to what the committee is trying to achieve. I hope that we can come to a solution which will benefit communities, but which will also address the balancing act that is required when taking into account the technological development that mobile phones represent. We need to ensure that we benefit from the technology.
The bottom line is safety and confidence in the planning regime. The Transport and the Environment Committee will examine this issue with great thoroughness, will take on board the views that it receives and will draw its own conclusions on the Executive's position, as the committees are allowed to do in this Parliament. We will bring our view back to the chamber. The committee is working effectively on the issue, and I hope to bring good news back here.
I want to address a couple of issues. First, I want to give some examples from my and Dr Jackson's constituencies. We had a telecommunication mast, a base mast, erected by the M9 motorway, near Lecropt church. Anyone who has driven up that motorway, towards the Keir roundabout, will remember this excrescence being placed in front of what was a listed building.
Fortunately, the rules that were created said that if the mast caused problems with a listed building, it was possible to do something about it. The campaign resulted in the mast being removed. It is not always impossible, with local support, to run a successful campaign. More important than the removal of the mast was the consequence. In conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage, the masts were replaced with synthetic pine trees at the Keir roundabout. I would invite members to look at that. They are a nice addition to the
arboreal scenery in the area.
I cannot understand why, if it is possible to do that in rural areas, it has not been possible elsewhere. Driving down the motorway from the Keir roundabout towards where the Edinburgh and Glasgow motorways divide at Pirnhall, motorists will see a positive plethora of masts. Even at the time, the original guidance, formulated under the Conservative Administration, when the development of this technology was, quite rightly, encouraged, said that the masts should not be clustered in such a way and that companies should co-operate to make the masts joint or whatever. There is no evidence that that has happened. It seems to me that there should be an opportunity for local authorities to say, "We will have a mast, but the masts should be together in an area." That is the second example.
The third example, which has been mentioned already, has been raised with me by a number of constituents. That is the Kinross issue. Nick Johnston, whom I congratulate on this motion, is one of my constituents. He may well complain to me about this mast which, I am glad to say, Bruce Crawford said is a disgrace. It represents the real problem, as the local authority had to interpret the planning consents in a particular way. That mast was a replacement mast and the way that the legislation is written means that an existing mast can apparently be replaced without any great planning consent or restrictions. This is not a 15 m mast. It is much taller than that and it looks appalling. All those aspects of the legislation must be addressed, and I hope that they will be.
The other public concern is about health. We must divide the issue of mobile phones from that of base masts. The thermal radiation from mobile phones, which are held close to the head, is close to the skull and the brain. For children, I strongly advocate to parents that the precautionary principle should apply. We should not encourage children to use mobile phones. However much it is the cool thing to do, it may not be cool, it may be rather hot and may cause significant problems.
On the base masts, we do not know exactly what the situation is because low-intensity radiation may have significant effects of which we are not aware. The NRPB, in defining the current regulations, has considered only one part of the safety regulations. It has dealt with that appropriately, but there are other areas that this new expert committee will address. I welcome the fact that, to my knowledge, 12—Sylvia says 16— authorities have adopted a principle whereby, for the moment, no more masts should be erected within 200 m of schools. That is a reasonable precaution until the results are produced. We must be cautious around schools, play areas and other areas where there are large numbers of children.
I welcome this debate and hope that the minister will respond to some of the points that have been raised.
I, too, also welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate Nick Johnston on bringing the issue forward.
The current spread of telecommunication masts is undoubtedly causing people concern. It is not just in Mid Scotland and Fife that radio masts are springing up. In my constituency, Aberdeen North, the residents of Bridge of Don now have two masts that cause them concern. One is under 15 m, so it did not require planning permission and appeared at the bottom of their gardens one morning without advance consultation. The second mast has been in place for more than 20 years. It originally had only a couple of dishes on it, but over the last year it has blossomed—if that is the right word—with new dishes and transmitters. Extra buildings and generators are also being built around its base. The current extension will apparently make it one of the biggest Cellnet transmitters in Scotland.
I welcome the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee is doing in this area. Some of my constituents have contributed to the consultation that is being carried out by that committee.
The use of mobile phones is exploding. As was mentioned, one in four of the population now has one. Given some of the other technological changes, such as access to the internet via mobile phones, this market will continue to grow. It grew by 54 per cent in 1998 and the UK is now the third largest wireless market in Europe. We will soon all carry a mobile phone or an equivalent communication device. That will undoubtedly mean the erection and expansion of more telecommunication masts.
We must ask what the risks are. People are concerned about the risks of the use of mobile phones and about living close to these masts. There is uncertainty, which must be dealt with. As has also been mentioned, many local authorities no longer permit the erection of masts and transmitters near or on schools. That underlines their belief that there are health risks, although those risks might or might not exist. More research must be done so that people can be reassured. That certainly applies to those who live close to masts. As a result of the current planning regulations they, as I outlined earlier, often have little or no control over the extension or erection of masts close to them.
There are other questions, some of which
Richard referred to. All sorts of bodies, including the Royal Society of Canada, have said that the evidence is unclear on the neurological effects— headaches, nausea, tiredness, sleep problems and memory loss—of using mobile phones, and that further research is justified. I sometimes suffer from those problems but, so far, I have put them down to my life as an MSP rather than to use of my mobile phone.
Like many people I wonder what the risks are. I also welcome the creation of the independent expert group on mobile phones and I look forward to hearing its conclusions. We need to know—for our own sakes and for the sake of everybody in Scotland—what the risks are of using mobile phones or living close to radio masts. We need to know whether there are genuine health risks or whether we can allay people's fears.
I am very grateful to Nick Johnston for initiating this debate and, given his success rate with members' business so far, I am tempted to take a tour of his area of the world to see what else is lying around there that he is likely to bring up in the future.
The debate has been useful. Members' contributions have been informed and thoughtful and that has been useful to the debate. It is important that we discuss this issue, and I am grateful to the Transport and the Environment Committee for the fact that it is conducting an inquiry. It seems to me that that is a classic way for a committee to make a distinctive contribution to the work of our Parliament. It enables us to have a debate such as this in the open and to focus on the issue.
I am also happy to be able to explain the Executive's position on the matters that have been raised as quite a few detailed questions asked about what we intend to do. I am happy to take the opportunity to outline what we will do regarding some of the issues.
It is clear—and Nick Johnston was absolutely right in his opening remarks—that some of the issues that we are discussing are within the competence of our Parliament. Other issues—for example, those that are to do with health and safety, telecommunications and wireless telegraphy—are reserved to Westminster. We need to take that on board, but it should not prevent us discussing those issues. On the other hand, the planning system and health matters in Scotland are either wholly or partly devolved, so there are particular issues on which we can act.
In Scotland we do not gather statistics about the level of growth that there has been in mobile phone installations, but we are all aware that there has been a proliferation of them. That is not, in itself, a problem. The issue of health matters that Nick mentioned, the fact, which Elaine Thomson mentioned, that mobile phone masts seem to appear without notice in some circumstances, and the issue of people not being clear about the planning process are issues that I would like to address in my remarks.
First, I will clarify what is meant by permitted development rights, which confuses many people. Permitted development rights were granted through the Telecommunications Act 1984. That meant that telecommunications operators did not need to get planning permission for relatively minor developments. Masts that did not exceed 15 m were allowed permitted development, which meant that in certain areas the developers were able to go ahead without the involvement of the planning authority.
The purpose of that exemption was to enable the telecommunications industry to expand. It has certainly done that. Many of the comments made by members this afternoon have been about the balance that must be struck between the expansion of the industry and issues of amenity that must be taken on board.
We know that there has been expansion and that the Westminster Government, through Calum Macdonald, conducted a consultation process last year. A range of measures resulted from that consultation and I am keen to introduce them as soon as possible. I do not want to go into the detail of the proposals, but direct questions have been asked today and clarification would be useful.
For masts under 15 m, we intend to introduce a 42-day prior approval procedure, which would require telephone operators to notify local authorities that they intend to construct a ground- based mast that is under 15 m in height—masts higher than 15 m already require planning permission. Our proposal would extend the current 28-day procedure by 14 days, which would enable the local authority to consult on the development and inform people about it. Notification would be at the operator's expense and would be done through an advert in the local newspaper.
For other equipment that is under 15 m in height—radio housing equipment and so on—a 28-day procedure is proposed. That would require the operator to apply to the planning authority for a decision on whether prior approval is needed for the siting of the development. That would let issues such as amenity to be considered and enable the planning authority to judge what it wanted to say to the operators. Sylvia Jackson suggested that there is a degree of ambiguity. It is important, however, that local authorities are given the opportunity to discuss with the operators what
is acceptable in their area.
We intend to add sites of special scientific interest to the list of areas where permitted development rights are restricted. That list includes conservation areas and national scenic areas and I, like Keith Raffan, am keen that local authorities should be able to control planning issues in such areas.
We want to ensure that the public has more information on the issues involved and that the local authorities can engage in constructive discussions with the operators. The majority of proposals are likely to be acceptable but the public should be able to do something about cases that cause particular concern locally. The onus is on the planning authority and the 28-day and 42-day periods are critical.
Am I correct that if the planning authority fails to meet the time scales, the operator would have the right to carry out the development anyway?
That is right. That is why I said that the onus is on the local authorities.
We will issue local authorities with a proposed code that will clarify some of the matters that have been raised today. We need the local authorities to establish procedures whereby these things can be dealt with effectively. We want to enable mobile phone operations to go ahead, but we also want more control over the process and we want the process to be more transparent and accountable. I think that we will be able to deliver that.
There have been a number of comments about the impact of mobile phone installations on health. One of the problems is that the planning system was not designed to deal with those matters specifically. We need to re-examine the planning process and health and safety legislation. We should consider the report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee and the independent research that was initiated by Tessa Jowell. The report stated:
"Validated scientific evidence supports the conclusion that neither mobile phones nor their associated base stations, if they comply with current maximum exposure guidelines—as they appear to do—present a health hazard."
Those comments appeared at the end of that report.
We must examine closely the results of the independent research that is being carried out. I understand that all members of the Scottish Parliament were notified that that was going to take place. We will follow those results with great interest. In the meantime, our new procedures will help the process. They will bring transparency and more clarity to the process, and will, I hope, allay many of the concerns that members have expressed this afternoon.
Thank you very much. That brings the debate to a close for this evening. I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 17:50.