Hansard

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 year.

First, I congratulate the Transport and the Environment Committee on the work it has conducted in its inquiry into the issues surrounding telecommunications developments. I submitted comments to the committee and I am pleased that the committee's recommendations have addressed my main concerns.

Many of my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston have expressed particular anxiety about the siting of masts and base stations in residential areas and close to schools, nurseries, play areas and hospitals. Although the National Radiological Protection Board has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that masts or their emissions are dangerous or are a threat to public health, neither is there concrete evidence to suggest that such masts are safe. Only time will tell.

We have a responsibility to protect our citizens, particularly our children, from unnecessary exposure, which means not siting masts in residential areas or near to children's facilities or hospitals. Last year, Dr Helen Irvine, consultant in public health medicine at Greater Glasgow Health Board, called for the precautionary principle to be applied to developments in such areas until conclusive evidence was produced to determine developments' safety or otherwise.

Many local authorities have imposed moratoriums on telecommunications developments on their own land and buildings. I commend authorities that have taken such action, in particular North Lanarkshire Council. However, as we know, local authorities have no powers over the siting of masts under 15 m on private land.

The lack of a requirement for neighbour notification and the lack of control that planning authorities have in making decisions on such developments means that there is no obligation for public consultation. It is not surprising that the general public see an anomaly in our planning process when a 15 m mast can appear unannounced on an individual's doorstep, yet he or she is notified when a neighbour wants to build a small extension.

The plight of my constituents in the village of Glenboig highlights the problem. They discovered by chance that a day had been set to begin work on the installation of a telecommunications development on private land and under 15 m close to their homes. No consultation had taken place with the local community, despite the fact that the company involved produced information leaflets highlighting its commitment to communities.

The leaflet stated that the company seeks to work closely with councils and local communities to achieve mutually acceptable locations for its base stations and masts. The company states further its commitment to discuss requirements with local councils and community representatives, to have regard for their views and concerns and to address those through open, honest and frank communication. The company failed to do any of that in Glenboig.

In desperation, the villagers took matters into their own hands and put up a barricade at the end of the road to stop construction traffic. After that, I facilitated a meeting with company representatives, who seemed quite keen at that stage to attend a meeting. The villagers at the meeting asked that a site further from their homes be considered. They were not being unreasonable in doing that.

The company agreed to look again at the siting of the development and to attend a further meeting. The next anybody heard, however, was that the planning authority had received notification that development was going ahead. I wrote to the company, expressing my concern and disappointment at the matter, and received a short note that merely stated the start date of development.

Such a cavalier attitude to local communities perfectly illustrates the need for a proper planning control system. The introduction of full planning control would make the system more accountable, would ensure consultation and would make provision for community input from the outset.

I welcome the recent indication from the Minister for Transport and the Environment that she will respond positively to the committee's inquiry, and that the protection of public health will be at the heart of any action taken by the Executive. I also welcome the Stewart report. I accept the fact that there are benefits to modern communications systems, but they must not be to the detriment of our communities. Devolution means that we can implement a system to suit Scotland. This Parliament can lead the way in easing public anxiety, and I urge the Executive to implement the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendations as soon as possible.