Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 11 May 2000

11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Telecommunications

Robson, Euan LD Roxburgh and Berwickshire Watch on SPTV

I, too, welcome this report, with the important development that it proposes, and the Stewart report that was published today. There will be widespread agreement on the key recommendations of both reports that masts should be subject to full planning controls. Tavish Scott mentioned the Stewart report's recommendation 1.36, that

"for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process".

I can hear the cheers reverberating throughout the country. In the Borders, it is a common experience that masts are erected without the public being informed. Most have been erected without neighbouring householders being consulted. If my colleague Ian Jenkins catches your eye, Deputy Presiding Officer, he will give you a few examples.

Coldstream, a small town in my constituency, is now graced by three masts. The latest is less than 15 m high, but it is on top of the Eildon Centre, which is the tallest building in the town. I was particularly pleased to read recommendation 8 in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, on mast sharing. I sincerely hope that that can be achieved, as the company whose mast stands on top of the Eildon Centre owns one of the companies that operates one of the two masts outside the town. I hope that we will not be flat-footed about this, but that we will pick up the impetus of these reports and try to encourage a rationalisation of existing masts, as Sylvia Jackson suggested.

I also noted recommendation 6 of the committee's report, on the early involvement of the companies in discussions with the planning authorities. That is particularly important, as are the further recommendations that flow from it, on planning controls. I was pleased with the balance in that report, and noted recommendation 5, on an obligation to cover all of Scotland. Tavish Scott mentioned parts of Shetland that are not covered, and parts of Roxburgh and Berwickshire are not covered. Newcastleton, in the south of my constituency, near the English border, suffers not only from a lack of TV reception, but from the fact that people are unable to use mobile phones there.

Equally, it is important to bear in mind recommendation 9 of the committee's report, on roaming agreements. A roaming facility would be especially welcome in Berwickshire, where Vodafone coverage has historically been poor, although Cellnet coverage has been good—a position that is reversed in other parts of the Borders. I hope that the minister will pursue that recommendation.

I agree that there should be continuous monitoring of existing masts such as that in Kelso. I went to see that mast, which looks like the top of a battleship. It is a great, tall thing in battleship grey, but it emits a very small electromagnetic field. It has only one base station on it at present, but that is the point. If there is a development of telecommunications, which is an important objective, there must be continuous monitoring of the effect of that on individual masts, and an audit is an extremely welcome proposal in the committee's report.

This is a significant day. It is important that the impetus of these reports is continued, and I look forward to the minister assuring the Parliament that that will happen in the weeks to come.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 11 May 2000

In the same item of business