Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 11 May 2000

11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Telecommunications

Boyack, Sarah Lab Edinburgh Central Watch on SPTV

I listened with interest to the many excellent contributions throughout the debate. The debate has been marked by the consistently high quality of those contributions. I suspect that that is because members have read the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendations and the Executive's interim response. I suspect that it is also because they have received a large number of letters over the first year of the Scottish Parliament. I am aware of the extent to which the issue has attracted significant public interest. Many members have written to me directly, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, so I know that there is strong interest in the subject.

I wish to take this opportunity to do three things: to give some insight into the thinking behind the Executive's response; to elaborate on some of those points; and to focus on where we go next—what the next steps are.

We will make a full response in due course. However, as I am sure everyone is aware, the related report from Sir William Stewart's independent expert group on mobile phones is extremely relevant to the issues that we are discussing. I want to ensure that, before we come to our final conclusions, we not only consider carefully the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, but consider in detail the Stewart report.

I do not propose to discuss each and every recommendation of both those reports—I do not have time. However, I wish to focus on the key issues that many members mentioned this morning.

A number of recommendations in the report of the Transport and the Environment Committee relate to extending planning controls over telecommunications installations and equipment. I acknowledge at the outset that there was limited support for the Executive's prior approval proposals from those who gave evidence to the committee. Andy Kerr made that point in his opening remarks. However, there was strong support for the introduction of full planning control from most of those who gave evidence to the committee. I understand the strong views of local communities and parents on the need for more advance warning of developments, more effective regulation and more accountability. Against that background, the Executive intends to move towards the committee's recommendations on that central issue, particularly in relation to planning controls over ground-based masts.

I wish to make it clear that it is not our intention severely to impede the industry from continuing to provide the people of Scotland and the Scottish economy with the undoubted benefits that mobile telecommunications offer in terms of business growth, e-commerce and economic efficiency. I have detected strong support across the chamber for an approach that supports the Scottish economy in an increasingly competitive global market.

Having said that, I stress that we will expect the industry to be more sensitive than it has sometimes appeared to be in the past. I will return to that point later, but there are obvious issues about mast sharing and providing information to local communities. Nick Johnston, Euan Robson, Elaine Smith and Bruce Crawford all spoke eloquently about those issues.

Not just the central belt and other large population centres will benefit from this fast-developing technology. It is particularly important for rural Scotland. Telecommunications infrastructure can help overcome many of the disadvantages associated with distance and remoteness. It can provide valuable opportunities for development in rural Scotland, which is an important priority for the Executive. I note the Transport and the Environment Committee's support for the extension of mobile coverage across Scotland. That point was addressed by Tavish Scott.

I wish to make it clear that, as we move towards the committee's recommendations, not every item of telecommunications equipment will be made subject to a specific application for planning permission. There is some equipment for which permitted development status might remain appropriate. However, before I announce any details on what will or will not require full planning control, or what will or will not be permitted development, I wish to ensure that we take the appropriate steps.

I wish to clarify a point made by David Mundell and Sylvia Jackson. If we extend planning control, it will cover road verges.

We want to liaise with the industry so that we are clear about its future development proposals; in fact, it will be in its interests to be more forthcoming about such proposals now that the recent licensing auction has been concluded. We need to know the nature and scale of the roll-out of new investment in telecommunications. Factors such as the number of sites, which areas are involved, whether there is more scope for mast sharing and future improvements in technology and design will be critical in shaping the future regulatory regime.

Furthermore, we also want to liaise with planning authorities on what they can do to prepare development plans and alterations to those plans, to provide a sound basis for the development of the industry while addressing environmental, amenity and other concerns. That will also enable input from communities.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 11 May 2000

In the same item of business