Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
5G Technology (Roll-out) (PE1753)
The next agenda item is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1753, by William Mercer, on a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G technology. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the recommendation for a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation of telecommunications technology until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been independently reviewed.
Our paper on the petition explains that 5G mobile networks have launched in some cities in the United Kingdom, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, and that 5G technology is also being trialled in the Orkney Islands. It also makes reference to the Scottish Government’s “5G and public health: position statement”, published in August this year, which sets out the Scottish Government’s current advice on 5G in relation to public health. The position statement concludes by stating:
“On the basis of sustained evidence-based research from around the world, ICNIRP”,
which is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,
“concludes that exposure to EMF”—
electromagnetic fields—
“below the recommended threshold is unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects in either adults or children. This view is fully supported by PHE”,
which is Public Health England.
“However PHE continues to monitor the full breadth of health-related evidence applicable to radio waves, including in relation to base stations, and is committed to updating its advice as required. The advice provided by PHE is fully endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland.”
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we should write to stakeholders and the Scottish Government to gather more information.
If we were to write to the Scottish Government, what would it tell us, other than that the position that I have just read out is its position at the moment? I am working on the assumption that the Scottish Government will be involved in an on-going conversation with stakeholders. I am mindful of the issue of duplicating work. I quoted the Scottish Government’s conclusion. The point that I am putting to you is that we know what the position of the identified stakeholders is.
Yes, but it is an on-going issue, so I think that we should get an update on where the Government is.
In a written answer, the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands, Paul Wheelhouse, stated:
“Legislative and regulatory powers regarding telecommunications are currently reserved to the UK Government”.—[Written Answers, 8 May 2019; S5W-22710.]
My response to that is that the issue that the petition raises is a public health issue, not a telecommunications issue, so a certain amount of the responsibility for dealing with it lies with the Scottish Parliament. I do not know whether that changes what action we might take; I just wanted to highlight the fact that it is a public health issue.
That said, a significant amount of evidence has been gathered on the dangers of exposure to electromagnetic fields—
To be clear, the petition would not have been admissible if it had not focused on public health issues. Even if we were closing the petition, it would be perfectly fair to write to the Scottish Government to say that we have received the petition, we recognise the on-going concerns indicated in the Government’s statement and we acknowledge that the issues raised in the petition are within the Scottish Government’s remit.
We understand that, as the petition has highlighted, there can be issues with any new technology. The petitioner seeks reassurance that the technology is being monitored, and the statement by the Government indicates that it is doing so, based on evidence. However, the petitioner could revisit the matter at a later stage if they felt that that commitment was not being followed through.
My view is that the statement shows that the Government has recognised and tested concerns about the technology and that although it believes that there is no risk from it, it will continue to monitor the full breadth of health-related evidence. The Scottish Government is therefore not closing down the discussion through its statement. The question is whether we are satisfied with the statement, which has not been lying in the stocks for long but was made in August 2019.
I understand what you are saying, but the community is conveying concern to me about 5G, so I am not comfortable about closing the petition on the basis that you have outlined. I think that we should wait, because technology moves extremely fast.
The Government states that it understands that and is continuing to monitor the issue, but the Public Petitions Committee keeping the petition open will not improve that monitoring. However, we could write to the Government and underline that the petitioner has sought reassurance that the monitoring is going on, which would not preclude us from closing the petition. The Government report took a lot of work to produce and came out only in August, so it reflects current work. What we will get back from the Government will be exactly what it has already said.
If there are still concerns in a year’s time and it seems like nobody is bothering to look at the issue, the petitioner could come back to us on it. If that petition was admissible, we would obviously look at the issue again.
So we will write to the petitioner in those terms.
We can write to the petitioner saying that we have written to the Scottish Government to highlight the monitoring issue and that it is the petitioner’s right to produce another petition in a year’s time, but that we recognise how up to date the Government’s statement is and that any work that we did at this stage would just duplicate that.
I will go with that.
I struggle to see where we could go otherwise with the petition.
In our letter to the Government, we could also say that although certain issues are reserved, the issue of public health has made the petition admissible.
We will therefore close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders and will write to the petitioner in the terms that we have highlighted, emphasising that we acknowledge the issues and that they are being monitored, and that there is the opportunity for the petitioner to bring a similar petition back in a year’s time. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Constitutional Change (Referendum) (PE1754)
The next new petition for consideration is PE1754, lodged by Mark Openshaw, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that any referendum advocating constitutional change should have at least a two-thirds majority for it to succeed. Through its consideration of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill, the Finance and Constitution Committee considered the action called for in the petition and its stage 1 report on the bill was published last week. The report concludes that, based on the evidence that it has heard, the committee does not support the use of thresholds other than a simple majority. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I have huge sympathy for the petition, given that any significant change to the constitution of a business would require approval by 75 per cent of its shareholders. However, given the fact that the Finance and Constitution Committee has already considered the matter and not acceded to the petitioner’s request, the likelihood that we could get such a change voted through is as close to nil as we could possibly get. As much as I have great sympathy for the petitioner, I cannot see any way forward other than to close the petition.
I go along with that. Reluctantly, I agree with Brian Whittle’s points and I think that we should follow his suggestion. The Finance and Constitution Committee has obviously considered what the petition calls for and its report reflects cross-party views. I am prepared to go along with that committee’s view.
I agree.
As Brian Whittle has said, there is an issue about supermajorities. There is a feeling that referendums more generally divide people. When decisions are made on the basis of 50 per cent plus one, how do we build in consent?
There is an interesting debate about that. The Citizens Assembly of Scotland might have looked at the extent to which referendums can be used at all to resolve complicated issues. However, given that the Parliament has recently looked at the issue and come to a view, I do not think that, at this point, the matter is something that the Public Petitions Committee could pursue. That said, we are aware that there is a conversation across—and far beyond—Scotland about how big decisions are managed through referendums. I am slightly going off at a tangent, but the issue is about in what set of circumstances referendums should be contemplated. As a country, we have not routinely had referendums, but other parts of the world use them more often.
Clearly, there is an issue, but I think that the consensus is that the Finance and Constitution Committee has looked at the matter recently and the action called for in the petition has not been agreed to. In the light of that, do we agree to close the petition? Of course, it is the right of the petitioner to bring back this petition, or a petition on some other aspect of this issue, after a year.
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner. We hope that they would acknowledge that the issue is one that has been tested in the parliamentary process elsewhere.
Single-use Plastics (PE1755)
The final new petition for consideration is PE1755, on banning all single-use plastics across Scotland, which was lodged by Stephen Henry.
Our briefing on the petition explains that in 2018, the Scottish Government appointed an expert panel on environmental charging and other measures to provide advice to ministers on measures that may be adopted to help us move towards a circular economy. It focuses on single-use items and was initially tasked with looking at disposable cups.
The panel’s initial report in July 2019 recommended a mandatory charge for single-use disposable beverage cups in combination with ambitious targets for reducing their consumption and concerted action at national and local level to tackle Scotland’s throwaway culture, including social marketing measures to raise awareness.
The briefing also highlights that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is considering PE1636, which calls on the Scottish Government to introduce legislation requiring that all single-use drinks cups be 100 per cent biodegradable, and that it will take into account the report of the expert panel on environmental charging and other measures.
I understand that when it considered PE1636 last month, the ECCLR Committee agreed to keep it open and to use the petitioner’s asks to inform its scrutiny of the proposed circular economy bill, which is intended to encourage the reuse of products and reduce waste.
I am encouraged that another committee has looked at that petition ahead of our consideration of this one. That is an interesting and useful step in ensuring that petitions are fully considered—and not just by this committee. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Of all the petitions, this is the one of biggest concern, as is reflected in the amount of parliamentary time that we spend discussing the environment and how we progress climate change issues. I am really happy to see PE1755. As you have alluded to, the ECCLR Committee is doing a significant amount of work on the issue and has looked at petition PE1636. The work sits predominantly with that committee, and I think that we should refer the petition to it.
Do we agree to refer PE1775 to the ECCLR Committee under rule 15.6.2 of the standing orders? In doing so, we should express our thanks to the committee for being proactive on the issue and for its reassurances that it will keep in mind the issues that are highlighted in the petition as it scrutinises the relevant legislation.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner. We will see the influence of the petition in the ECCLR Committee’s work. I thank everyone for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:30.Previous
Continued Petitions