Our next petition is PE811, which is on permitted development rights for Network Rail in respect of communication masts. The petition, which is by Mark Mulholland on behalf of Parents and Residents against Masts, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the permitted development rights that Network Rail enjoys in respect of the erection of 96ft-tall global system for mobile communications railway—GSM-R—masts in residential areas. Before being lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitioner website, where it gathered 1,343 signatures from 23 November 2004 to 10 January 2005.Mark Mulholland is here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition. He is accompanied by Ken McInnes and William Galloway. I welcome you all to the committee. You have time for an initial comment, after which members will ask questions and we will debate the issues that you raise.
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
GSM-R Communication Masts (Planning Permission) (PE811)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Ken McInnes Parents and Residents against Masts 16
- Mike Watson Ind 12
- Michael McMahon Lab 10
- William Galloway Parents and Residents against Masts 8
- Sandra White SNP 6
- Jackie Baillie Lab 4
- John Scott Con 4
- Mark Mulholland Parents and Residents against Masts 2
- Janis Hughes Lab 2
- Rosie Kane SSP 1
- Robert Brown LD 1
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
The record
69 contributionsI thank the committee for inviting us. We make it clear from the outset that Parents and Residents against Masts is 100 per cent behind the principle of safe railways. We have no problem with that. We are here to highlight planning issues and not any health risks that are perceived to be associated with Network Rail masts, which are fine.We have actively campaigned for a review of Network Rail's permitted development rights since August 2004. Network Rail needs planning consent to build new stations, bridges and tracks. However, no planning permission is required for masts of nearly 100ft in residential areas. We taxpayers fund the system, yet we can do nothing to protect our areas, which such constructions are ruining.Local residents receive no warning that masts will be erected and no meaningful consultation takes place on the proposals. That is in clear violation of Scottish Development Department guidance note 18/1985 on permitted development rights. We have tried to obtain more information from Network Rail, but we do not have all the answers that we want. We have a note that Network Rail is not even subject to freedom of information legislation, so we are struggling against it.Network Rail's permitted development rights mean that it does not require planning permission to erect masts. That is contrary to the situation whereby similar mobile telephone network masts, which are run by commercial operators, require planning permission, which gives the public a chance to protest and comment. In our case, the local authority rejects sites on the basis of visual amenity. Planning law has a clear loophole and we are campaigning for that loophole to be closed.In response to a parliamentary question from Donald Gorrie on 23 December, Malcolm Chisholm said that the correct way for people to make representations to Network Rail was through their local planning authority. We in South Lanarkshire have done that strenuously. In fact, we even met the council at chief executive level. At present, we are not 100 per cent sure, but its response is not altogether positive.Without a change in the current planning law relative to Network Rail's permitted development rights, the public have no protection whatsoever. Network Rail has shown that it is happy to build the masts next to houses, and it is likely that that trend will continue throughout Scotland unless the Scottish Parliament acts quickly to close the loophole that is created by the permitted development provisions. We therefore ask that the Parliament review Network Rail's permitted development rights for masts in residential areas as a matter of urgency, in order for other communities in Scotland to be spared the anguish that many in Strathclyde have endured to date. We simply ask that Network Rail be required to go through the planning process like all commercial telecoms operators.We have had the e-petition and motions from two MSPs who are here today. We have support from 52 members of the Scottish Parliament for those motions. Communities throughout Scotland need your help to defend them from Network Rail causing this appalling blight. It is hard to express the anxiety that we and our families have felt since the mast in Burnside was erected. The key question is, do you believe that it is appropriate that a 100ft telecommunications mast can be sited 15m from people's houses without the need for planning permission to be obtained?
Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
link
It is nice to put faces to names. I think that I have been e-mailed at various times by all of these gentlemen, as have other members. I declare a parochial interest, because the same 96ft masts have appeared in Helensburgh and along the line through Dumbarton. While safety is paramount—I am glad that you acknowledge that—it is not an excuse for bad practice.Could you share your experience of dealing with Network Rail? Is it easy to deal with? Does it respond to questions? What was the consultation like, or did you, as has been the experience in some of my communities, wake up one morning to find a mast at the bottom of your garden? You talk about planning permission, but would an appeal mechanism sit better with what you are looking for? I do not know; I am looking for your view.
I will pick up on your first point. The first of our realising that our mast was being built—some of you may have seen photos of it; we have them if you would like to see them—was when Network Rail started building it. Network Rail did not notify us. In fairness, it wrote to us in the middle of August and said, among other things, "We're sorry. We've learnt our lesson." People in Jackie Baillie's constituency got the same letter more than a month later. A month after that, a mast was built in Finnieston, and people there did not seem to know about it. Prior notification does not appear to be happening. So the first answer is, we got no notification whatever. Indeed, we phoned our council and it did not know anything about the mast, although it transpired that it had received a package of information in April 2003, which unfortunately was not responded to.On your other point, I am not sure that it is a matter of appeals. I believe strongly that the masts should be subject to planning consent, particularly in residential areas. They are not small constructions. In our case, the mast is built on top of a railway embankment, so it is probably about 125ft up in the air. It is not like a normal mobile phone mast by Vodaphone or Orange, or like a lamppost. It is huge. That is the only way to describe it.Strathclyde is a pilot, after which the scheme will be rolled out throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom. We hope that the Scottish Parliament will at least debate the issue or consider it further, because there is a clear loophole in the planning legislation. We should at least examine whether Network Rail should be asked to obtain planning consent for masts, so that normal public consultation takes place.You asked whether Network Rail was easy to deal with. The people there were very polite and courteous, but if I am being honest they have a standard answer. They answer letters, but their answers do not address the key worries of local residents.
I want to ask about consultation and Network Rail, because if you say the words "Network Rail" in the Scottish Parliament you get an e-mail from it within about three hours. Network Rail is very prompt at that point.In the Strathbungo area of Glasgow, the problem is not just masts. The witnesses will know—and I think that some members of the Scottish Parliament are aware—that when Network Rail grabs land, it not only erects masts but clears trees, which compromises health and safety along the route. That has happened without consultation in the Strathbungo area, where residents had no opportunity to be involved in the process, although they knew that if trees were removed there would be a danger of flooding. We will wait and see whether problems emerge in the future.If I wanted to knock down a wall in my house to put in a shower I would need planning permission, so it strikes me as bizarre that masts that attack a community's environment can be erected without planning permission. The planning process would allow consultation and enable people to consider the impact of masts on landscaping and health.You have told me what I wanted to know about consultation and Network Rail's response. I want to put on the record that the Scottish Parliament needs to consider carefully how communities are being treated. What will happen next as Network Rail and other organisations buy up land and do whatever they want without consulting communities? The petition gives us a perfect opportunity to bring the matter to the Parliament, to seek a better response and, I hope, to secure some justice and democracy for communities.
Do the witnesses want to respond?
Network Rail has permitted development rights so that it does not have to deal with many planning applications that would probably be granted. However, we have stressed as much as we can do that there is no way that the mast at Burnside would satisfy the requirements of normal planning legislation. Network Rail is abusing powers that are meant to make the system easier for the organisation. There is no way that a 100ft mast on top of an embankment that is 25m on one side would be granted planning permission. A small percentage of PDR should be removed. We have no rights or protection: there is nothing to prevent Network Rail from erecting such masts. Network Rail would probably get planning permission for 90 per cent of their projects, but we are in the category of the remaining 10 per cent.
I am interested in some of the points that you made. I also want to consider a matter that you mentioned in the additional information that you supplied to the committee. You say that 2,000 masts are to be erected in the UK, of which 200 will be in Scotland, and you say:"The system is currently being piloted in Strathclyde".Is that still the case? Has the system gone beyond the pilot stage?
It is still a pilot. Masts are going up throughout the UK, but the pilot scheme for—
The pilot scheme for Scotland is in Strathclyde, so masts are not currently being erected anywhere else in Scotland.
That is correct.
Your submission describes the GSM-R system as:"a European radio telecommunications standard which is being adopted by rail infrastructure companies to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC."Does that mean that similar systems are being used throughout the European Union?
They are being used in 32 countries.
So the system is being used beyond the EU.
We are not sure whether the systems elsewhere are being delivered by 100ft masts. There are other ways of delivering the system, such as by underground cable or—dare I say—by satellite, or via smaller masts. That is the key issue.
That is helpful, because my next question is whether you have made contact with campaign groups in the UK or other European countries. You could exert pressure at European level by linking with other organisations.
We have links with groups in the UK, but not with groups elsewhere in the EU.
The GSM-R masts are 29m high. I understand that mobile telephone masts that are less than 15m high do not require planning permission, which explains why some of them are just under 15m high. The GSM-R masts are twice the height of mobile telephone masts.
I might have to stand corrected on this matter, but I think that I am right in saying that, even if Vodafone wanted to pay rent to put an antenna on the Scottish Parliament building, it would still need planning consent. The 15m issue is either historic or misleading; I think that any commercial mobile or phone mast of any size requires planning consent.
Does Parents and Residents against Masts campaign against telephone masts as well?
We have not done so yet, but we might start. Laughter. We needed an identity, so we threw a lot of names around and came up with that one. After all, we were prompted into action because someone had built a 100ft mast right next to our houses. It has since struck me that PRAM might not have been the smartest name that we could have chosen.
I suggest that the name is quite smart, because it would enable you to campaign on other issues without having to change anything.
I think that we have got enough on our plate.
Have all the Network Rail masts that you are aware of, including any outside Scotland, been constructed on its own property? Have any masts been established on other property?
Yes. We are aware of a mast at Douglas Park golf course in Milngavie on the north side of Glasgow. Presumably, Network Rail has leased ground from the golf club, but that is only hearsay. The vast majority of masts appear to be right next to the railway tracks.
Yes, Network Rail would have a lot of ground of its own. I just wondered whether different regulations would apply if it were trying to establish masts on other people's land.
I think that permitted development rights would not apply in that case. I would assume that, at that point, the organisation would be required to submit a planning application.
Do you know whether Network Rail submitted an application for the mast on the golf course?
To be honest, I do not know that, but I will try to find out.
link
It might be helpful if I point out that planning does not take any notice of land ownership. Network Rail might have required planning permission in that context, but no doubt someone will write in and tell us.
I think that we can find that out.
I congratulate Mark Mulholland and the other members of PRAM on submitting the petition. I offer apologies on behalf of my colleague Bill Aitken, who would have been here today if he had not been convening another committee. Bill Aitken has made me aware of the problem by showing me photographs of the masts and I agree that they are an abomination.Mike Watson drew from you the fact that this is the start of a Scotland-wide problem. At the moment, it is a problem in the Glasgow area, which after London is the biggest area of such activity in Britain.You mentioned the anguish of the residents in your communities, but we also have to remember the anguish of the bereaved. After all, these masts are going up because of past rail disasters. That said, I am very much persuaded by your argument that planning permission should be sought and I am convinced that that balance needs to be struck. I am inclined to agree with Mr Galloway's view that 10 per cent of the erections are unreasonably sited. Do you agree that a balance needs to be struck on this matter?
I agree with that 100 per cent. We have looked at many sites and masts and, to be honest, I believe that 90 per cent of them are in ideal locations. However, we are not happy with the 10 per cent of masts that look absolutely appalling.At the very start, I mentioned that we should put safety first. We agree that the masts have to be erected for safety reasons, but we think that Network Rail should try harder and not simply put them up in the most convenient location simply to allow its workers, for example, to jump over a wall and get to them. The requirement to seek planning permission would at least allow local authorities to consider the siting of the masts, sit down with Network Rail and make recommendations.
From your investigations, are you aware of any potential for what might be described as mast minimisation? If planning permission were required, that might encourage Network Rail to find other engineering solutions that would deliver the same result without having such an intrusive effect on the visual amenity. Do you know whether that is possible from a technical point of view?
Yes, it is. We are not engineers or telecoms experts, but we have done a lot of reading on the subject and it seems that there are other systems that could work. I suspect that the answer is that, for Network Rail, building GSM-R masts is the easy solution. The examples in Jackie Baillie's constituency and in Finnieston and Burnside are appalling. I suspect that all MSPs will face the problem over coming years, because the system is being rolled out. We are not talking about a wee Glasgow problem; all members will come across it at some point. Network Rail's plans to erect masts in residential areas should be made subject to planning consent and it should perhaps even be asked to redesign the masts. The scheme is only a pilot and my feeling is that Network Rail is wrong—the masts do not work in residential areas, because they stand out. There are two opportunities to address that.You mentioned safety. I concur—safety is paramount. It is a while since I read the Cullen report, which was produced after the Ladbroke Grove train crash, but I think that I am right in saying that in that case there was a communication system on board the train; it just was not working. We can have all the systems that we want, but they do not guarantee safety. That said, we are here principally to ask about the planning side. Masts might be the most cost-effective solution for the taxpayer, but there has to be some control so that similar communities throughout Scotland are not decimated in the coming years. Surely there must be some check.
I agree. Thank you for the moderate way in which you have presented your arguments.
There is always a great danger when any organisation—especially Network Rail—is not accountable. That has been the case recently, not just with the masts, but in other situations.You mentioned that you had talks with the local authority and that you discovered that it had been sent a memo in 2003. Although Network Rail did not inform anyone in the area that masts were to be erected, it wrote to the council, but the council did not reply. Will you clarify when Network Rail wrote to the council?
On 1 April 2003. The council must have thought that it was an April fool joke.
We understand that a pack was sent to South Lanarkshire Council, so we presume that all other councils received it, too. Our knowledge is mainly about South Lanarkshire Council. Like many other councils, it forgot to respond. At the moment, there is a dispute about whether reminders were sent. Our council says that no reminders were sent, but Network Rail says that that is not true. Frankly, that is an administrative issue.
Before we write to anyone, I want to find out what the council said in its reply to Network Rail and whether it thought that Network Rail should have to get planning permission.
At the time, the council did not reply. The subsequent response came from chief executive level at South Lanarkshire Council. A summary of its position is that it forgot to respond, but that there was nothing it could have done anyway.
Are you referring to the meeting that you had with the chief executive?
Yes—and to various letters.
I am in favour of democracy and having a third-party right of appeal, but we are not going down that road yet. One of the witnesses spoke about a two-pronged approach. We are talking about a pilot scheme that people are unhappy about. It should be necessary to obtain planning permission to build the masts. Given that the scheme is not working, I would have assumed that the permitted development rights could be withdrawn. Can we get that information? It might be helpful to know that if we decide that we want to write to Network Rail.
It depends on which side of the fence the system is not working. One would hope that that might be possible, but I am sure that Network Rail will think that the system is working perfectly well.
You spoke about alternatives to the masts, such as cables. I think that you said that you had corresponded with an organisation down south on that. Have masts been used exclusively there? Have cables been used anywhere?
The west coast line is the only other place where the masts have been used. There are more than 188 of them on the west coast line that were meant to be used in some other new system. Although some of them have been up for two or three years, they have not been switched on yet. The masts in Strathclyde will be switched on, but the 200 or so that have already been erected on the west coast line will not be switched on.
The committee is joined by the local MSP, Janis Hughes, and the Glasgow list MSP, Robert Brown. They have an interest in this matter because of the location that is being talked about by the petitioners. Do you wish to make any comments in respect of that?
Yes, thank you. I am here to support the petition that has been submitted by PRAM. I have worked with the petitioners for some time, since a mast appeared virtually overnight. Rosie Kane mentioned vegetation being cut down in Strathbungo. That coincided with vegetation being cut down on the railway embankment that Mr McInnes talked about, which meant that the mast has even more visual impact than it would have had.As the committee has heard, there is a programme to roll out 2,500 of these masts nationwide, starting with the pilot project of about 40 masts in Strathclyde. Several of those masts are already up and have caused concerns in various communities, as they will do in the future. The difficulty is that Network Rail, with which I have been in discussion from the outset, has not learnt lessons. Its communication strategy has not worked, and it has not learned from the impact of the mast in Burnside and people's experiences there. Other people have woken up—as my constituents did—to find masts near to their properties, having been given absolutely no prior warning. That is why we are here today.It is important to remember that the petition concerns the planning issue only with regard to the masts—it is concerned not with Network Rail's general permitted development rights, but with its development rights in respect of the masts. As has been discussed, GSM-R masts are only one way of providing the links that are vital to ensure rail safety in the future. There are other ways of doing that, but I understand that Network Rail has chosen the masts for its pilot project because the other ways are more expensive and labour intensive. It may be that a mixture of masts and other methods could be considered, especially for areas in which the visual impact of masts would be of particular concern because the masts would be as close to residential areas as the mast in Burnside is.There are many issues to bear in mind, but it is important to reiterate the fact that the petition is concerned with permitted development rights only in respect of the masts. I urge the committee to look at the pictures that it has been sent. The masts are very close to properties, and the pictures will enable members to understand the visual impact that they have when they can be seen from people's windows.
I agree with everything that has been said by Janis Hughes and the petitioners. The issue is of interest to me not only because of my constituency interest, but because the mast is fairly close to my house. I, too, live in Burnside. The mast is not visible from my house—it does not bother me in that respect—but the structure dominates the view of the locality from a series of directions and makes a considerable difference to the features of the landscape.The important issue is planning. There are several potential ways of doing the same thing. Janis Hughes and I, along with the petitioners, have had discussions with the Network Rail people about the possibility of erecting smaller masts and about other ways of tackling the problem, although there are expense implications and questions about whether the masts could be sited in other locations. What has struck me most is the unfair balance of power. Network Rail has the legalities on its side and does not need to bother too much about the views of local communities. It gives the impression—if I can put it this strongly—of going through a public relations exercise on this, under some pressure from local representatives. It was difficult to get representatives of Network Rail out to meetings, and there were problems in getting them to respond to things. It has been difficult to get information out of Network Rail on matters such as the location of the masts. The big deficiency lies in the fact that, legally speaking, Network Rail does not need to bother, which gives rise to an attitude problem, and that underlies the difficulties that the petitioners have experienced as they have tried to do something about the situation. Had there been early consultation and proper contact between Network Rail, which otherwise would have been the applicant, and the local community so as to work out a satisfactory solution in a less residential location, that would have done the trick. Unfortunately, such an opportunity was not offered. The issue involving the local council might be linked to that, but the council is essentially incidental to the whole thing. The result is that people feel frustrated, dissatisfied and annoyed with the deficiencies of the system—legitimately so, I think. I do not think that anybody has the slightest objection to people changing a traffic signal on the railway line or something minor of that sort—such things happen all the time and nobody makes the slightest objection. A 96ft mast, in anybody's view, is a different kettle of fish.My strong view is that, although this would not be an issue in many instances, it would be appropriate and helpful to the whole procedure if Network Rail were required to go through a planning procedure of some sort to identify issues with the local community and, practically speaking, if it had some pressure on it to do something to satisfy legitimate local demands. I am in no doubt that the local demands that have been put forward to members this morning—in a modest and reasonable fashion, if I may say so—are legitimate. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on the subject.
We have a 96ft, or 28m to 29m, mast next to us. Some masts, in hillier areas, will be 150ft tall. The point is that there could have been a 300ft mast outside my door, and I would be in the same position now. There are no limitations on what may be built, and that needs to be sorted.
I invite suggestions on how we deal with the petition.
I have listened with a great deal of interest, and a number of issues have emerged from this morning's discussion. I was very much persuaded by one of the points that Janis Hughes made, which chimed with my own experience. Despite my interest in rail matters, I do not recall Network Rail representatives having ever come to us, giving us an early warning that such plans were in the offing. That is symptomatic of the approach that has been taken over many years. Network Rail always seems to be firefighting; it never seems to take advance action or to hold discussions with the community at large or with us, as elected representatives. Network Rail ought to have been sharing its plans with us.I am alarmed to learn that, over the time ahead, we will be confronted by the same issues in my area; that is why I will whole-heartedly support the petition, the petitioners and the MSPs who have spoken to us. I urge the committee, through the convener, to write to the Scottish Executive to get its views on the matter, as well as writing to Network Rail. In writing to Network Rail, we should emphasise how unhappy parliamentarians are about its communications strategy. Something has to be done about that. We could also write to the Office of Rail Regulation, the Office of Communications and the National Radiological Protection Board, seeking comments on all the issues that have been raised in this debate and enclosing a copy of the Official Report. There is one other relevant organisation—I think that it is still in existence, and I have met its representatives in the past to discuss the roll-out of a different sort of mast in communities in my constituency, where equal concern has been expressed. The subject of masts has been a hot potato from the time of the Scottish Parliament's establishment. Janis Hughes and I were on the Transport and the Environment Committee when it examined the issue of mobile phone masts. I am speaking about SACOT: the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. At one point, its members were advocating that we should sit down with all the decision makers and work out a roll-out programme in advance of things happening, so that we could iron out difficulties that communities and their elected representatives might have.I wish the petitioners well. I will keep a close eye on developments and I hope that we get answers, because that will be vital for the whole of Scotland. That is not to diminish how important it is to get the technology for the reasons that John Scott outlined, which we all acknowledge.
link
I do not dissent from anything that has been said. We need to do two specific things. First, we have to get information from Network Rail on its consultation and notification process. Letters have been exchanged and there have been meetings with ministers, but we want to know what specific action it is taking and what changes in its process will ensure that people do not wake up to find a 96ft mast outside their door. Secondly, I want to know what alternative systems Network Rail has considered and why they were rejected. We should write to the Minister for Communities about permitted development rights for masts alone, given their obtrusive nature.
Jackie Baillie has covered the point that I was going to make—that we should add the Executive to the list of organisations that Helen Eadie mentioned. When the issue was raised in a parliamentary question five months ago, the then Deputy Minister for Communities said that the Executive had no plans to pursue changes to the arrangements for permitted development rights. Five months on, given that the issues that we are discussing have been well aired, we should ask whether that is still the position and, if so, why.
Are members happy for us to follow that course of action?
I have a suggestion to add on the back of Jackie Baillie's comments about asking what other arrangements have been considered. One of the issues of concern is that Network Rail has never said what alternatives it considered where a site was obviously potentially sensitive. It would be helpful if that question could be asked.
I do not have any difficulty with that. I think members would be happy to do that.
I do not want to add to the big list of organisations to which we are writing, but I am concerned about councils. As Janis Hughes said, surely to goodness one would think that they would have a plan marked out instead of having people say to them, "I'd like to build a mast here." Perhaps we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ask about its input and what it thinks about the issue.
Generally, I take Janis Hughes's point. We cannot ask which individual sites have been considered, but we need to find out Network Rail's policy on the issue—if indeed it has a policy. Jackie Baillie asked whether it had considered alternative systems and, if so, why they had been discarded. I suspect that we might find that there was no such consideration, but that is for Network Rail to tell us. I look forward to hearing from it.
I have a final, brief point to make. There has been a lot of discussion this morning about Network Rail's lack of administrative procedures. That is appalling, but the issue is more important. The masts are being built right now and we have to review the planning permission system. If you want to stop the masts appearing in your constituency, you need to review the planning legislation. I know that it is naïve of me to say that, because there is a lot involved, but we do not need just to ensure that people know about masts—we need to stop them. I live 25m from a 100ft tower. I have accepted that and I have to live with it, but we have to prevent other people in Scotland from having to go through that. The issue is about more than Network Rail's procedures and consultation, because, with respect, if Network Rail had told me that it was going to site a mast near my house three weeks before it did so, I would not have felt any better about it. The fact is that our area is now blighted. That is the key issue.
Absolutely. It is certainly not naïve of you to raise the issue. You made a valid point well in your presentation. Thank you.
link
The issues are not mutually exclusive. Getting Network Rail to address the problem is not a negation of what we need to do in planning terms. Had you had the opportunity to object along with your community, perhaps the council would have become alive to the issues and might have taken a slightly different view of what would be acceptable in the circumstances.
I know that 52 MSPs have signed one of the motions, so I hope that the issue can be taken up.
Several councils in England, such as Wigan Council, responded to the pack that they received and entered negotiations and shifted the masts from the proposed sites. When the councils respond to their mail, there can be a bit of shifting here and there. If that had happened in our case, the mast would certainly not be where it is.
We will find out COSLA's position in that respect. We will keep you updated about the responses that we receive.If members want a break, I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
In this meeting
Everything on 2 Feb 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 2 February 2005 Petitions · 1
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 69
- New Petitions Petitions · 53
- New Petitions Petitions · 69
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 34
- New Petitions Petitions · 9
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
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.