Chamber
Plenary, 11 May 2000
11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Telecommunications
I should be happy to acknowledge that the Conservatives are learning from the past, although I would not go beyond that.
The most important issue is to decide where we go from here. There is a general acceptance that the report is to be welcomed. There are three clear principles: first, full planning permission; secondly, the precautionary principle, which has been added to by the Stewart report; and thirdly, openness and transparency. Thankfully, the need for a register is also mentioned in the Stewart report. It is important that the Executive takes that on board and acts speedily.
Sylvia Jackson and Dr Richard Simpson mentioned two important factors. If we do not move with speed and alacrity, we might face problems. I worry that a plethora of companies might attempt to move in before the window of opportunity closes and local authorities have the ability to regulate matters. Therefore, a moratorium is a constructive idea. We also have a relevant power in the Parliament, if we make speedy progress on a bill. As I understand it, it is possible to specify the relevant date as the one on which the bill is lodged. Adam Ingram, who is lodging a member's bill on leasehold casualties along with Pauline McNeill, told me that. It might take some time for a bill to go through Parliament, but the date that matters would be the date on which the bill was lodged.
I want the Executive to take on board the principles recommended by the Transport and the Environment Committee, which I expect to be supported by Parliament today. The Executive must also take on board the additional benefits of the research by Professor Stewart and move speedily. The legislation that the Executive introduces must make it clear that the relevant date is the date on which the bill is lodged. The phone companies must not think that they will have a window of opportunity of six months or a year in which to put up masts around the country and avoid any local authority controls or input from individuals. I ask the minister to consider that. If the Executive were happy to accept the proposal of a moratorium, I should be happy for us to use that method. If it does not accept that proposal, we must use the powers that exist in the parliamentary framework.
Richard Simpson touched on the fact that a substantial bounty is available to Gordon Brown. I appreciate that the £18 billion is to be paid over several years, yet it is a considerable amount. We must use that to help society; we might consider the provision of some recompense. There will be additional costs for local government—we must ensure that additional income is provided so that it does not have to cut back on other services.
As Richard Simpson suggested, we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide incentives to encourage operators to relocate their masts. I would prefer it if operators were to move their masts voluntarily and, as the third-generation technology is rolled out, to accept that they should move equipment to better sites. However, if push comes to shove and the only way to shift operators is to pay them, perhaps we should provide some financial incentives. My researcher provided the initial response from the telecommunications industry and the industry appears to be happy to go 50:50. However, with that offer, the 50 per cent commitment from the Government must come out of Gordon Brown's bounty.
The jury is out and the committee has not been able to show that many people who claim to suffer ill health as a result of the installation of masts and related technology have suffered for that reason. However, when canvassing in a recent by-election, I heard the complaints of people living in the Oxgangs and Firhill area. It was pointed out to me that two young women—in their 30s and 40s—had contracted cancer within a year of two masts being erected opposite their homes.
If it can be shown that there is a link, I ask the chancellor to consider whether those people can have some recompense for the misery and injury that has been inflicted upon them. After all, we recompense people who suffer criminal injuries. Can we not use the bounty available to recompense those who have suffered from the actions of the telecommunications industry? I support the report.
The most important issue is to decide where we go from here. There is a general acceptance that the report is to be welcomed. There are three clear principles: first, full planning permission; secondly, the precautionary principle, which has been added to by the Stewart report; and thirdly, openness and transparency. Thankfully, the need for a register is also mentioned in the Stewart report. It is important that the Executive takes that on board and acts speedily.
Sylvia Jackson and Dr Richard Simpson mentioned two important factors. If we do not move with speed and alacrity, we might face problems. I worry that a plethora of companies might attempt to move in before the window of opportunity closes and local authorities have the ability to regulate matters. Therefore, a moratorium is a constructive idea. We also have a relevant power in the Parliament, if we make speedy progress on a bill. As I understand it, it is possible to specify the relevant date as the one on which the bill is lodged. Adam Ingram, who is lodging a member's bill on leasehold casualties along with Pauline McNeill, told me that. It might take some time for a bill to go through Parliament, but the date that matters would be the date on which the bill was lodged.
I want the Executive to take on board the principles recommended by the Transport and the Environment Committee, which I expect to be supported by Parliament today. The Executive must also take on board the additional benefits of the research by Professor Stewart and move speedily. The legislation that the Executive introduces must make it clear that the relevant date is the date on which the bill is lodged. The phone companies must not think that they will have a window of opportunity of six months or a year in which to put up masts around the country and avoid any local authority controls or input from individuals. I ask the minister to consider that. If the Executive were happy to accept the proposal of a moratorium, I should be happy for us to use that method. If it does not accept that proposal, we must use the powers that exist in the parliamentary framework.
Richard Simpson touched on the fact that a substantial bounty is available to Gordon Brown. I appreciate that the £18 billion is to be paid over several years, yet it is a considerable amount. We must use that to help society; we might consider the provision of some recompense. There will be additional costs for local government—we must ensure that additional income is provided so that it does not have to cut back on other services.
As Richard Simpson suggested, we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide incentives to encourage operators to relocate their masts. I would prefer it if operators were to move their masts voluntarily and, as the third-generation technology is rolled out, to accept that they should move equipment to better sites. However, if push comes to shove and the only way to shift operators is to pay them, perhaps we should provide some financial incentives. My researcher provided the initial response from the telecommunications industry and the industry appears to be happy to go 50:50. However, with that offer, the 50 per cent commitment from the Government must come out of Gordon Brown's bounty.
The jury is out and the committee has not been able to show that many people who claim to suffer ill health as a result of the installation of masts and related technology have suffered for that reason. However, when canvassing in a recent by-election, I heard the complaints of people living in the Oxgangs and Firhill area. It was pointed out to me that two young women—in their 30s and 40s—had contracted cancer within a year of two masts being erected opposite their homes.
If it can be shown that there is a link, I ask the chancellor to consider whether those people can have some recompense for the misery and injury that has been inflicted upon them. After all, we recompense people who suffer criminal injuries. Can we not use the bounty available to recompense those who have suffered from the actions of the telecommunications industry? I support the report.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-803, in the name of Mr Andy Kerr, on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, on that commi...
Mr Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):
Lab
I am delighted to open this debate on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I thank my colleagues for their hard work in producing a thought...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am pleased to speak in this debate. The first report of the Transport and the Environment Committee is the result of a great deal of investigation. Committ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
I call Nick Johnston to open for the Conservatives. You have eight minutes, Mr Johnston.
Nick Johnston (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I will try to keep to my time.I stand here this morning as a warning to every young researcher or putative candidate to Parliament—never lodge a members' bus...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
LD
I am grateful to Nick Johnston for clarifying the Conservative front-bench situation. For a terrible moment, those of us who enjoy transport and the environm...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
We move to the open part of the debate. Members will have four minutes.
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate, as I have been rather vocal on the subject of telecommunications developments since about June last ye...
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I would like to begin by congratulating the Transport and the Environment Committee on its work and on its report. I think that Andy Kerr did a good job of p...
Dr Sylvia Jackson (Stirling) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome constituents who have travelled to the Parliament from Strathblane and who have been going through an ordeal with a mast in their area. I thank the...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
I, too, welcome this report, with the important development that it proposes, and the Stewart report that was published today. There will be widespread agree...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I thank my fellow committee members and the staff of the committee for the tremendous amount of w...
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):
Lab
I wonder if Des McNulty would agree that particular attention should be paid to masts near schools. Bruce Crawford shares my concern about the situation in K...
Des McNulty:
Lab
I am sympathetic to that view and that some of the income coming to local authorities in site rental should be used in that way.Monitoring health risks is a ...
Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I associate myself with all the positive remarks that have been made about the work of the staff on the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I congra...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the Stewart committee's report, which was published today, and I am pleased to see that it vindicates many of the recommendations in the Transport ...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
First, I apologise to the chamber because I must leave this debate early. I have a ceremony to attend at the University of Edinburgh in which I am playing a ...
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab):
Lab
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. I congratulate the Transport and the Environment Committee on a thorough and well-considered report. Telecom m...
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
Carlops, in my constituency, is one of the most famous of the mobile phone mast episodes, but I do not wish to go into the details of that today as we are in...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
I appreciate what the member is going through. Perhaps I can offer some help. A mast was erected in my constituency. Fortunately, it was close to a B-listed ...
Ian Jenkins:
LD
I really do not want to go into the details because there are aspects of our discussions that might involve trees, or whatever.It seems totally unacceptable ...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I join other members in thanking sincerely the support team led by Lynn Tullis and all those who briefed us in the Transport and the Environment Committee an...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I would like to echo the gratitude of my colleagues to the staff who have helped us through the i...
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I do not hold myself out to have the same expertise in these matters as my colleague Nick Johnston, but I was previously employed by British Telecommunicatio...
Mr Tosh:
Con
In the light of what Mr Mundell has just said, will he comment on the recommendation in the Stewart report that no one should be encouraged to use mobile tel...
David Mundell:
Con
Mr Tosh raises a very interesting point. If regulations are introduced, they should also apply to the use of car radios, as operating a car radio has been id...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
As others such as Des McNulty have done, I put on record my thanks to the members of staff of the Transport and the Environment Committee. In many instances,...
Nick Johnston:
Con
Would Mr MacAskill be gracious enough—in the spirit of consensus that has evolved in the debate—to acknowledge that we are learning from experience, whereas ...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
I should be happy to acknowledge that the Conservatives are learning from the past, although I would not go beyond that.The most important issue is to decide...
The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
I listened with interest to the many excellent contributions throughout the debate. The debate has been marked by the consistently high quality of those cont...