Official Report · Committee
link
Your petition calls for the revocation of the permitted development rights for all mobile phone base stations in sensitive areas. What do you mean by "sensitive areas"? Does that refer to residential areas or do you mean something more than that?
The Transport and the Environment Committee report identified sensitive areas. Those areas include what are called "other areas", such as residential areas, hospitals and schools. The planning guidance note that will accompany the legislation makes no reference to residential areas, householders or even people. That is a shortcoming.
You will be aware that councils take different views on the erection of mobile phone masts. Have you petitioned Glasgow City Council on its approach?
One of the problems is that much of the development takes place under the general development order of permitted development, which effectively precludes the council planning authorities from dealing with such matters. The Scottish Executive policy is based on moving the threshold, so that masts at least will require full planning consideration. There is some dubiety about whether aerials on the rooftops of buildings will get the same treatment. We believe that the erection of such structures in residential areas should get the same treatment and be subject to the full planning process.
How much difference is there between the draft national planning policy guidelines on radio telecommunications and the findings of the Transport and the Environment Committee?
The main difference is that the committee was able to be specific and could define what it meant by sensitive areas, whereas the NPPG has a 16-page guidance note, which talks generally about wetlands, moorlands, open areas, sites of special scientific interest and so on. However, there is no mention of residential areas, which is where I suspect the main problems have occurred.
You said that you wanted our support in alerting the minister to the problems. Would you prefer the committee to approach the minister rather than the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is producing its own report and would be concerned about the matter?
The issue is open to consultation until 21 February. The matter is practical but the submission refers to my working experience. A convenient excuse at the end of the consultation process would be to say that it is too late for fresh ideas. I saw such a practice used when I was involved with the then Scottish Office and the department that dealt with transport in England. It would be appropriate to make representations now, so that whoever advises the ministerial team can start thinking effectively about the matter at the beginning, rather than the end, of the process.
Are you suggesting that by the time the Transport and the Environment Committee got round to discussing the petition, it would be too late to take action?
Yes. The committee must go straight to the minister, because practical considerations are involved. The root of the policy statement seems to be that the neighbour notification process will assist public debate. That will not work for a telecommunications site, because only the neighbours in contiguous property or within 4 m of the boundary of the application site are notified under the existing procedure. That is nonsense when one is considering facilities that have a catchment of 150 m to 250 m. The sooner the practical suggestions are brought to people's notice, the sooner they may be heeded.
link
Are you saying that, ideally, you would like legislation to specify that steps must be taken before the erection of any mast?
The Stewart group suggested that any mast that had permitted development status should be reviewed. I do not think that we want things to go that far. We say simply that any mast that would be categorised as sensitive and that will continue to exist—because the permitted development status is the key—should be reviewed. There must be several that cause real problems for people.
link
Do you have any idea how many masts are being erected at the moment? I think that a lot are going up now. What is the scale of the problem?
I do not know the number. The issue is how close a mast is to somebody's house or garden—that is a personal issue. However, it is a potential problem and there is injustice in the situation. I have not dwelt on compensation, but we must bear it in mind that we are dealing with statutory code operators. If they fail to secure an agreement for a site, they can—and do—go to the courts to obtain a measure that is similar to compulsory powers. If the property of neighbours is diminished as a result of a development on a site, there should be provision for payment for injurious affection, as exists for other statutory undertakers. That would all be part of a balanced policy. People could take issue with nothing that is in the paper that has been produced in terms of practice or implementation.
Thank you very much. The committee will now consider the petition.The original recommendation was that we should pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its consideration of the points that the petition raises, especially those about the Executive consultation document's treatment of the recommendations of that committee's report on telecommunications developments. The evidence from the petitioner suggests that it might be an idea to pass the petition directly to the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture and copy it to the Transport and the Environment Committee, asking for its comments.
I have a feeling that the Transport and the Environment Committee has already made its recommendations to the minister. It is now up to him to put the necessary laws in place. The Stewart inquiry reached firm conclusions, as did the Transport and the Environment Committee. Dare one say that this is a wake-up call to the minister: "Please get on with the job that you have been asked to do."
I accept that, but the Transport and the Environment Committee would be interested to see this petition, because it highlights the gap between what it recommended and what has been included. It is up to that committee to decide what it wants to do about that.We will send the petition to the minister, as recommended, and ask for it to be included as part of the consultation process. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
That is the last of the petitions for which there are witnesses. We now move to the petitions for which the petitioners are not present. The first, PE287, is from Mr Frank Harvey, on organ retention. It calls on Parliament to oppose the suggestion that there should be an opt-out policy in relation to organ retention, where persons who do not wish to donate their organs after death must carry a card stating their objection.Members will be aware that recently we issued revised guidance on the submission of public petitions. Petitioners are expected to take action to resolve issues of concern before submitting petitions to Parliament. It is clear from Mr Harvey's petition that he has not done that and it is suggested that the committee ask the clerk to write to him to bring to his attention the new section in the guidance notes and to suggest that he raises those issues in some other way before petitioning the Scottish Parliament. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE288 is also from Mr Harvey. It concerns roll-on-roll-off ferries and calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Ministry of Defence to explain why its contract to build four such ferries was awarded to a German shipbuilder. It is suggested that we note the petition and take no further action, although we could pass the petition to the relevant UK Government minister. However, as with the previous petition, Mr Harvey must understand that he must pursue other avenues before coming to the Public Petitions Committee.
I agree with your suggestion, convener. The matter has been debated in Parliament by members anyway.
Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition, PE289, is also from Mr Harvey. It concerns British Army uniforms and calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek an explanation from the Ministry of Defence of why it awarded a contract for manufacture of the uniforms to a German firm. The contract was subsequently withdrawn because of poor workmanship. Like the previous two petitions, it is suggested that we note the petition and take no further action.Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is—again—from Mr Harvey. Petition PE290 concerns amphibious vehicles on the Clyde and calls on the Scottish Parliament to ban such vehicles from transporting passengers, especially children, on that or any other river in Scotland.Initially, we thought that—as with the other petitions——it should be drawn to Mr Harvey's attention that he should raise the issue elsewhere. However, because there are health and safety implications, we could write for reassurance on the safety of the amphibious vehicles that use the Clyde. We could draw the petition to the attention of Glasgow City Council, which might be the responsible authority.Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is also from Mr Harvey. Petition PE296, on the Cairngorm funicular railway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to recommend suspension of construction of the railway until the completion of the inquiry into the Austrian ski train accident that occurred on 11 November. Like the previous petitions, it is suggested that we agree to note the petition and take no further action. Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE298 is from Mrs Avril McKen. In light of the proposal to relocate the Forres ambulance unit to Elgin, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to recommend that the unit should remain at Leanchoil hospital, Forres, and that it should be upgraded to a 24-hour service. The petitioner is concerned that, because of delayed response times, the decision to move the unit to Elgin will endanger lives, especially during extreme weather conditions. A list of people have been approached by the petitioners, including MP and MSP Margaret Ewing, MSPs Mary Scanlon and Rhoda Grant and a number of councillors, among others.A letter has been sent to Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust, seeking its comments on the issues that are raised in the petition. We have received a response, a copy of which is attached. Members will note that the trust states that there has been consultation with interested parties on its proposals to redesign the ambulance service. It is the trust's understanding that there will be improved ambulance cover for Forres and the surrounding areas. The trust has been advised that direct deployment from Elgin will improve response times in the Forres area.The issues that are raised in the petition are a matter for the NHS trust—we do not have any locus to intervene in the operation of that local service. However, we may wish to consider whether we should copy the NHS trust's response to the petitioners and take no further action, or whether we would like to obtain additional views on the proposals for revising the ambulance service.
I do not live in the area, so I do not know a great deal about the distances between Forres, Elgin and so on. Once again, we are dealing with a petition relating to a health board.
Perhaps we should have a petition on health boards.
I am considering that seriously. I might not be able to produce one, but somebody else might want to take up the cudgels. The trust's reply should be copied to the petitioner, but I do not want the committee simply to note it. Who would we ask for additional views? Perhaps the clerks could give us some guidance.
We could ask the MSPs who have indicated that they support the petition.
We should copy the trust's response to the petitioners and ask them whether they agree that the claimed improvement in service will take place. If so, the petition will have been successful. The petitioners—not we—are the best people to judge that. If they tell us that they do not agree with Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust's assessment of the situation and that they are still unhappy, we will have to write to the trust.
That sounds like common sense to me. We will pass the trust's response to the petitioners and ask them to comment on the trust's claims of improved service. Well done, John. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE299, from Tricia Donegan, on dangerous driving. It calls on Parliament to investigate whether the additional driver offences of failure to possess the correct licence, MOT or insurance documentation should be taken into consideration at court hearings concerning fatalities that are caused by dangerous driving.Earlier this year, we received petitions from Ms Donegan and other sources on that topic. We know that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has been awaiting responses from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from the Lord Advocate before considering those petitions further. This petition deals with an additional aspect of the problem. It is suggested that we might wish to consider writing to the Lord Advocate to request his comments on the specific issues that the petition raises. A copy of the petition could also be sent to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—for its information only at this stage—as it is already dealing with related petitions. Alternatively, we could simply refer the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to be discussed together with the previous petitions. However, this petition seems to raise a separate issue.
The petitioner makes a very valid point. If people knowingly break the law by driving, without not only one document, but all the required documents, that should make their situation more difficult when they come before the courts after commission of another crime. The petitioner is right to say that the courts should respond differently in such circumstances. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee might want to consider instigating legislation, or the Lord Advocate might be able to instruct procurators fiscal to give greater weight to drivers' failure to produce the correct documentation. However, I doubt that he has the powers to instruct courts or procurators fiscal to take that into account.
Pauline McNeill is a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
link
I have seen the petition previously and I am concerned that the petitioner is attempting to get the committee to consider an issue that it has already addressed. We do not consider individual cases unless they deal with an issue of a general nature. Before we refer the petition anywhere, I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether road traffic legislation contains any provision that the courts can use in aggravated situations. I refer to cases in which not only is there drunk driving, but the driver does not have a valid MOT certificate, for example. The fact that the court did not make use of such provision in the case that is cited does not mean that it is not available.At the end of the day, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee must determine whether there is a failure in the law or in procedure. We can only kick that question around, although perhaps we should raise it with the Lord Advocate. Could we ask if there are provisions in road traffic legislation for cases such as the one cited in the petition? If the answer is no, that would give us a reason to refer the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, because we would be able to say, "There seems to be a gap in the law. Would you look at it from that point of view?"
Are you suggesting that we should write to the Lord Advocate without bothering to copy that letter to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for information?
link
I do not think that that would be necessary at the moment.
So, we should write to the Lord Advocate to ask whether there are provisions under road traffic legislation to deal with other aggravations.
I assumed that no such provisions existed, but if they do, then that is a fair suggestion.
Do members agree?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE305 from Mrs Dorothy McIlwraith, on behalf of the county federations of the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes. The petition calls on Parliament to ensure that proposed changes to the current benefits payment system will not lead to the closure of rural post offices.We have received a whole series of similar petitions and it was agreed at previous meetings that petitions that are identical to petitions that the committee has already received will be forwarded automatically to the relevant committee to be dealt with in the same way as earlier petitions.This is such a case. The inquiry by the Rural Affairs Committee is almost complete—the clerks have passed the petition directly to the Rural Affairs Committee so that it can be included in its report as a supporting document. Are members agreed?Members indicated agreement.
The final petition is from Mr Dougal Carnegie on behalf of the Scottish traditional music lobbying group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to provide the necessary support and funding to promote traditional arts and culture in Scotland through their inclusion in the mainstream educational curriculum and the establishment of regional arts centres throughout Scotland.The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will consider presently its work programme for the next year and it is possible that it might examine traditional arts and culture. In that context, it is suggested that the petition should be passed to that committee for consideration.
link
I agree. Is it in order to send it to the proposed cross-party group on traditional arts, for members' information?
We could certainly do that.Members indicated agreement.
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.