Hansard

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 thoughtful and thorough report. I also thank the clerking and research staff, who have contributed greatly to the report.

I believe that the report is a vindication of the committee system of the Scottish Parliament. Cross-party representation and people's ability to contribute their views have resulted in a consensual report, without any divisions, but with plenty decisions. As I have said on many occasions, the experience of the Transport and the Environment Committee in this inquiry has been yet another good example of how this Parliament works best.

The issue covered by the report was first raised with me by the community living in Lister Tower in East Kilbride, who came to me with some searching questions that I could not answer. Those questions were repeated by the high-rise flats residents association, which represents people in other high-rise flats in East Kilbride. I was asked: "What are these masts? How did they get here? Why was I not told about it? Is there a health problem?"

When I shared those concerns with members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, we were all able to relate them to our own areas, where communities were coming up with similar questions. We did not have clear answers. When we started our investigation, many other MSPs told me similar stories. Local newspapers are running campaigns all over the country. In my constituency, the East Kilbride News is running articles and asking questions on this issue. Again, answers are not to hand.

The strength of this Parliament and its committee system lies in the fact that we were able to take up the issue, agree a remit, take action and reach a conclusion. I hope that the minister will take the issue to its ultimate conclusion and, in due course, adopt our recommendations in full.

Since the report was released, it has received a warm welcome from many people inside and outside the Parliament, including organisations and individuals in communities. I have been genuinely surprised by the impact that it has had and the attention that it has received. The response to the report has only added to our desire to see the matter resolved in the manner advocated by the committee.

The Transport and the Environment Committee recognises the importance and the social and economic benefits of modern telecommunications systems. We also recognise that this is an emergent technology and that exciting developments offer us the third generation of mobile telephony, wireless application protocol, and the possibility of using the internet from the handset of a mobile phone. However, all that is counterbalanced by the genuine concerns of the public and of planning authorities over the perceived lack of planning controls and over telecommunications developments and their related impacts.

The economic contribution of the technology is immense. I am sure that the Parliament recognises that. We can all imagine how it would affect our lives if we were unable to use our pagers and mobile phones. Commerce and society as a whole are aware of the necessity of this technology.

At its meeting on 22 September 1999, the Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence from the Scottish Executive on the process for considering telecommunications developments in Scotland and on its proposals for revising the planning regimes for those developments. We also took evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Not entirely convinced by what we heard, the committee decided to undertake further inquiries into the appropriate process for considering telecommunications developments.

The committee was concerned that the Executive's proposed approach of bringing telecommunications developments under a system of prior approval could be insufficient in terms of the control required in the planning system. As in all things that the committee undertook, we were meticulous. We ensured that the inquiry was sufficiently wide to enable us to draw conclusions, and yet not so wide that we would have either been swamped by the issues or crossed into the remits of other committees, something that we were keen to avoid.

It is important to stress that, for the Transport and the Environment Committee, this was an issue about the environment. Although we looked at health issues, we considered a number of other issues. We were clear that, if we were to examine health issues, we would do so in the context of the planning process.

As members are aware, the Stewart committee will report today at 10.30 am; I understand that a summary is available at the back of the chamber. The report deals with many of the health matters. Members will also have seen the health concerns expressed in today's newspapers.

The committee sought views on the proposed planning procedure and on the policy framework for the consideration of telecommunications developments. The terms of reference to which witnesses were invited to respond were: whether telecommunications developments should be subject to full planning controls; what factors—such as health, amenity and the precautionary principle—should be taken into account in forming policy on telecommunications developments; and what the published guidance from the Scottish Executive should contain. I am pleased to report that the committee received many written responses and supplementary papers.

The committee met on a number of occasions on this subject and heard oral evidence from 20 organisations and individuals. I believe that the strength of the committee structure in the Scottish Parliament lies in the fact that we could harness the best information on the subject from Government, local government, elected members and officials, the industry—in the form of the phone companies and professional bodies and organisations—pressure groups and, crucially, community groups and campaign groups that are dealing with mobile phone masts literally in their own back yard.

On the evidence that we received in writing and from organisations that attended the committee, we came to the following conclusions. Under the current planning framework for telecommunications, developers and operators enjoy permitted development rights. The majority of planning authorities that responded to the inquiry sought enhanced planning control over telecommunications. In particular, they expressed concerns about the speed, quality and effectiveness of the current process, which they said lacked local democracy and local accountability. In its oral evidence, COSLA stated that the common ground between the Scottish Executive and the operators was that the present system was inadequate and should be changed. The committee concurred with that view.

At the time of our report, the Scottish Executive proposed the introduction of a prior approval procedure to give planning authorities greater control. It was believed that the system, which incorporates licence conditions, permitted development rights and planning guidance, would provide adequate planning control and would be consistent with the Government's policy. However, the committee came to the conclusion that there were significant weaknesses with regard to prior approval. The system will need to be reassessed in the light of the Stewart committee. I am pleased to say that the Stewart committee—I have had a quick look at its report—concurs with our views that prior approval is not satisfactory in terms of control.

The committee's report notes that the Department of Trade and Industry and the telecommunications developers suggest that the introduction of full planning control would not be a preferred option. However, that view contrasts with the position of COSLA, the planning authorities, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland and others, which support the introduction of full planning control, which they suggest would have a number of advantages over the system of prior approval.

The committee recognises the social and economic benefits arising from modern telecommunications systems. However, having carefully considered the evidence, the committee is not convinced that the introduction of full planning control will significantly slow down the roll-out of telecommunications developments and concludes that the benefits of the introduction of full planning control outweigh the potential disadvantages. The committee therefore supports the introduction of full planning control for telecommunications developments. I am, again, pleased to say that the Stewart committee concurs with our view on that matter.

At the start of the inquiry, the committee sought views on the factors that may require to be taken into account in informing policy. The key factors relate to amenity, health and a precautionary approach.

The committee is of the view that a number of steps should be taken to minimise the environmental impact of telecommunications developments, including: early discussion with telecommunications developers, operators and planning authorities on strategic network requirements; site sharing; mast sharing; design and disguise of masts; and the introduction of a requirement on telecommunications developers to conclude national roaming arrangements.

The committee considered that some areas might be more environmentally sensitive than others—for example, areas subject to existing designations and areas that local authorities and other bodies identify as sensitive. The siting of telecommunications infrastructure in those areas would not necessarily be precluded. The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should, allowing for local flexibility, develop guidance on the treatment of environmentally sensitive areas to minimise the impact of telecommunications development. We take the view that, beyond that, it is for individual planning authorities to determine the designation of environmentally sensitive areas with regard to the characteristics of their localities.

On health, the committee recognises that there is no conclusive scientific evidence on non-thermal effects and the risk to the public. The report from the Stewart committee, which we now have, states:

"We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases".

Based on that judgment and the committee's judgment—which in turn is based on the evidence that we received—and recognising the complex issues of public health, including information on the perceived effects, the committee considers that there is reasonable doubt about the health risks. We therefore recommend that health should be viewed as a material planning consideration and that a precautionary approach should be adopted at a national level, allowing for local flexibility.

The committee thinks that sites such as schools, nurseries, hospitals and residential areas should be considered sensitive for environmental health reasons. We recommend that, in taking the precautionary approach, local authorities should refer to a hierarchy of preferred locations for telecommunications developments. Where possible, densely populated areas should be avoided in favour of areas that are more sparsely populated. However, the committee does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support a recommendation for the implementation of mechanisms such as a cordon sanitaire. The Stewart report has much more to say on health; and other members may raise the issue in this debate.

The inquiry received evidence, particularly from local authorities, that supported the need for clear and firm Government guidance on a range of matters within a national policy framework. The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should develop a national plan incorporating telecommunications developments and co-ordinating the plans of other agencies. The committee recommends that in the interim there should be speedy preparation of national planning guidance on telecommunications development, which should be supported by a planning advice note setting out best practice.

Within that framework, local authorities should be encouraged to develop their policies on telecommunications developments speedily and, if necessary, through amendments to existing plans. The committee recommends that the process of developing the policy framework and guidance should allow full consultation with interested bodies, including telecommunications developers and operators.

Several requirements for guidance were identified during the inquiry. The committee recommends that guidance should be based on a precautionary approach. Guidance should cover health and safety; planning and development control; obligations on operators and information that is required from them; the role and responsibilities of different parts of the Scottish Executive and other bodies; monitoring and reporting; and good practice for local planning authorities and telecommunications developers.

I am now aware of the contents of the report of the Stewart inquiry and am pleased that it has echoed many of our proposals. It is interesting to note that our report is one of the four references in the Stewart report; that is a measure of the committee's work. I am particularly pleased that the Stewart group supported our view that there should be full planning powers.

I thank the Minister for Transport and the Environment for her positive response, which has been widely trailed and was issued to committee members. There are matters of detail on which we may differ, but I am sure that we will soon be able to resolve those differences. However, I will stick to the substantive point on full planning. I acknowledge the warm response that there has been to many of our proposals.

I hope that the minister will tell us when she will make a full response to the committee report and the Stewart report, stating what action will be taken and in what time scale it will be taken. She can rest assured that the Transport and the Environment Committee will remain on the case until that response has been received.

I urge members to examine the facts that we have gathered and the conclusions that we have drawn. The issue is complex and multifaceted, but that reflects the society that has brought us to this debate and the communities throughout Scotland for which its outcome matters. Everyone is involved, even if they do not look intently at the signal strength on their phone or live close to a mast. Some people rely on mobile phones and others do not. It was the need to balance difficult factors that led the committee to adopt the approach that it did. I hope that the Parliament will support our report.

In a sense, we are here to reflect the views and concerns of our communities; I believe that our report does that. I believe that Scotland is leading the way in changing the structures for telecommunications developments. I commend the report to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report, 2000 of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Report on the Inquiry into Proposals to Introduce New Planning Procedures for Telecommunications Developments (SP Paper 90), and commends the recommendations to the Scottish Executive.