To ask the Scottish Executive why its inquiry reporter ruled inadmissible the evidence into the heath effects of electromagnetic fields at the public local inquiry into the expansion of the Wester Balblair substation and whether it will place a copy of that ruling in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre.
In order to expedite very lengthy inquiry proceedings, the reporters ensured that repetitive evidence was not permitted. In particular, evidence given at the strategy session was not permitted to be brought forward again at the subsequent local sessions. In addition to this it had previously been indicated to parties that consideration of health matters would be in the context of government policy and advice.
Circular 17-1998, Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992: Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order Inquiries and Hearings: Procedures and Good Practice, points out that reporters will make full use of their powers to refuse to permit the giving or production of any evidence which they consider to be irrelevant or repetitious or which is directed to the merits of government policy.
In the opinion of the reporter, the content of Mr Coghill’s evidence, in effect, repeated the nature of the evidence which was the subject of thorough consideration during the course of the strategy session of the Beauly Denny inquiry. The reporter accepted that science is dynamic. Accordingly, it must be expected that during the course of an inquiry such as the Beauly Denny case, which from announcement to decision will extend over several years, there will be advances in many aspects of science and technology. However, there must be a closure to the gathering of evidence and he believed a suitable point in that respect was the ending of the Beauly Denny public inquiry sessions during December 2007. Clearly matters of exceptional significance which might subsequently arise cannot be ignored but he could see nothing in Mr Coghill’s evidence that would fall into such a category.
Insofar as it is clear that, whilst the appeal inquiry and the Beauly Denny inquiry are subject to separate legislation, the overall position is to be considered jointly by the Scottish ministers. The reporter was therefore satisfied that any relevant evidence on health and EMFs arising from evidence given to the Beauly Denny inquiry could be properly applied to the substation proposal.
With regard to Mr Coghill’s conclusions, the reporter noted that he recommended that the substation should be relocated to a more distant site and the entire line undergrounded. He also made reference, inter alia, to criminal and civil class actions. These matters are quite unrelated to the purpose of the appeal inquiry, the terms of which are clearly set out in the minute of appointment issued to the Reporter by the Scottish ministers. The reporter therefore accepted the submission by the appellant that the evidence was inherently irrelevant in the context of the planning appeal.
In his questioning of the current guidelines, a point which Mr Coghill emphasised in his response to the appellant’s submissions, the reporter perceived evidence which was directed to the merits of government policy.
Overall, the reporter concluded that Mr Coghill’s evidence was (a) repetitious, and did not add to the evidence presented to the Beauly Denny inquiry, b) irrelevant insofar as it dealt with matters unrelated to the particular subject matter of the inquiry, and (c) was directed to questioning government policy.
A copy of the reporter’s ruling will be placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 45922).