Hansard

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 inquiry. I would also like to thank the committee's convener, Andy Kerr, for helping us through what I hope will be the first of many inquiries in which we will be able to listen to the concerns of our communities and act on them by producing reports such as this one.

Last month, in the chamber, I praised the Scottish Executive for adopting the precautionary principle in its approach to the development of genetically modified foods in Scotland. Today, I urge the minister to show the same level of care regarding the future of telecommunications. It is vital that the Executive show consistency in its approach to areas that could have wide-ranging effects on health. I have argued that we should proceed with caution on GM crops; I argue for a similar approach on telecommunications today.

In many respects, it is even more important that the Executive adopt a safety-first attitude on the erection of telecommunications masts. People have a choice about whether to eat GM foods, but it is a bit more stressful to have to move house every time somebody erects a mast at the bottom of your garden.

Like other members, I have received a lot of information from telecommunications companies this week outlining the benefits of expansion in the industry. I do not dispute the fact that there are benefits. There are great benefits to be had from expanding the availability of mobile telecommunications, including clear economic benefits. As Elaine Thomson said, telecommunications has been one of the highest growth sectors in the Scottish economy. There are also social advantages. The technology allows people—especially in rural areas—to keep in touch with the outside world. It has a safety element, especially for women travelling alone.

However, those benefits cannot be regarded as more important than the potential dangers of irresponsible, unregulated erection of masts. The Scottish people certainly do not think that they are more important; it is surely the Government's duty to reflect those concerns.

During our evidence taking, the phone companies argued that business in Scotland would be damaged if the development of communications were hampered by a requirement for full planning control. They said that the Scottish economy would struggle in comparison with the English economy if we imposed stricter regulations. We did not find that to be the case. We remain utterly unconvinced that the introduction of full planning control will seriously damage this, or any other, industry in Scotland.

We must be clear about one thing: the Transport and the Environment Committee is not saying that mobile phones are definitely dangerous. Indeed, during our consultation process not one person or organisation provided us with any proof that they are. We are saying that the effects are unclear. Would it be good government to take the risk of continuing with unregulated planning of mobile phone masts? Would it be good government to allow masts to continue to be erected in sensitive areas? Would it be good government to be seen to be putting the interests of private companies ahead of the health of the nation? I do not believe that it would. That is why I fervently hope that the minister will listen to the concerns of the committee and the Scottish people on this issue.

As I argued in relation to GM crops, we must learn from the mistakes of the past. With asbestos and tobacco, successive Governments proceeded without considering the potential dangers and ended up paying a heavy price. The benefits of mobile telecommunications are considerably more tangible than those of asbestos or tobacco but, none the less, we must be cautious. We should not put the health of the country at risk in any way.

Yesterday, the Transport and the Environment Committee considered nitrate-vulnerable zones. In her submission, the Minister for Transport and the Environment extolled the virtues of adopting the precautionary principle with regard to those zones. I sincerely hope that the Executive will show consistency in its approach to matters of public health. I have been encouraged by the minister's statements in recent days. I would like to think that they are a clear sign of the Executive's support for the committee's report. We must accept that prevention is better than cure in the interests of public health.

We listened to many organisations in our evidence taking; some have been mentioned today. The committee has not come to the Parliament with this report lightly. We deliberated about it long and hard. I sincerely hope that we can demonstrate today that this is another example of how the Scottish Parliament is supposed to work. I commend the report to the Executive and hope that it will enjoy its full support.