Welcome to Mast Sanity

We are the primary national organisation opposing the insensitive siting of mobile phone and Tetra masts in the UK. Read more...

Phone Mast News Feeds

News Now News Now
Google News Google News Feed
Powerwatch Powerwatch News Feed
** New** ES-UK ES-UK News Feed
MS Research Mast Sanity Research News Feed
MS News Mast Sanity News Feed

Donate

Please consider supporting our efforts.

Amount: 

Or Send Donations by post to:

Mast Sanity
c/o Highfields
Brantham Hill,
Manningtree, Essex
CO11 1SD

Libraries

Libraries
01/03/06

11th Hour release of watered-down report from ODPM — 50

01/03/06

Anger Grows as the health of the nation is threatened… — 49

10/01/06

Hard Hitting Report suppressed by Government? — 48

30/12/05

Church Court Renounces Bible Teachings for Financial Gain — 47

11/10/05

Is the Council Tax Payer Subsidising Mobile Phone Multinationals? — 46

19/09/05

The True Cost of Mobile Phones — 45

01/09/05

A false reassurance for mobile phone users — 43

01/09/05

What the researchers didn't tell you about mobile phones — 42

20/07/05

WHO does U-turn on mobile phone safety — 41

18/07/05

Mast Sanity Reaches Mile Stone As MPs set to debate Mast Concerns — 40

12/07/05

Police Turn out in Force in Winchester — 39

16/06/05

Money Before Children's Health — 38

05/06/05

Open Letter to Orange Fiction Prize Candidates — 37

03/06/05

Further Proof About Deadly Powerlines And Worthless Safety Guidelines — 36

17/05/05

Greek School Children Play Truant To Protect Their Health — 35

10/05/05

A Phone Mast in the Bedroom — 34

28/04/05

TETRA Masts a Marginal Issue? — 33

28/04/05

Leeds Phone Mast Protest At Football Ground — 32

25/04/05

Ken Livingstone On Mast Sanity London Agenda — 31

20/04/05

Mast Sanity Targets London — 30

13/04/05

Children Seek Audience With Chief Constable — 29

11/04/05

Richard Of Cornwall Leads Tetra Resistance — 28

31/03/05

Leeds Residents Bombarded By Phone Masts — 27

26/03/05

German Students Shame British Government — 26

17/03/05

MP Presents Bill On Masts - Again! — 25

14/03/05

Battling Mums In Pop Song Mast Protest — 24

10/03/05

Planning Minister Broke The Rules Say Mast Campaigners — 23

10/02/05

Is it a corporate wolf in sheep's clothing? — 22

01/02/05

Government Must Act On Phone Mast Health Risk — 21

12/01/05

Landmark Mobile Mast Court Case — 20

6/01/05

“We’re still here !” say Winchester phone mast campaigners — 19 | word | pdf

12/01/05

Government must act immediately — 18 | word | pdf

12/04

Lord’s ignorance shocks parents — 17 | word | pdf

10/10/04

Red faces at OFCOM as tetra masts vanish — 16 | word | pdf

18/10/04

Orange chief with egg on his face — 15 | word | pdf

30/09/04

Mast Sanity calls for resignation of PTA chief exec — 14 | word | pdf

27/09/04

Mast campaigners rise to the operators’ challenge — 13 | word | pdf

09/04

The Way Forward – uniting to force change — 12 | word | pdf

09/04

Global Sanity – Mast Groups unite across the globe — 11 | word | pdf

28/09/04

Michael Howard – Phone mast campaigner? — 10 | word | pdf

09/04

Telecoms target children — 9 | word | pdf

26/08/04

Expert On The Risks Of Mobile Phones To Give Talk In London — 8 | word | pdf

08/04

Network Rail's masts “not needed for safety” — 7 | word | pdf

07/04

Police to investigate attack by Lib Dems — 6 | word | pdf

07/04

Lib Dem calls for revolt against lib dems — 5 | word | pdf

07/04

Public inquiry demanded after police death — 4 | word | pdf

/07/04

NRPB "Protect" public by redefining the word Safe — 3 | word | pdf

/04/04

NRPB admit - precautionery approach needed for phone masts — 2 | word | pdf

/03/04

Bardsey Mast Action - anti mast campaigners launch 56 day legal action against T-Mobile — 1 | word | pdf

19/05/04

Network Rail flout planning laws with giant microwave masts -Even ODPM unaware of Network Rail’s ‘rights’

10/05/04

The Home Office is unable to prove safety of its own TETRA police communications system, on grounds of research ethics.

26/01/04

Police cond airwave tetra taemnctics

29/04/03

Phone mast political policy questionnaire results labour no reply - Tories no reply - Lib Dems no reply

03/04/03

Planning minister agrees changes must happen

17/03/03

Pixies destroy phone mast

12/03/03

Mast campaign warns phone operators over health fears

12/03/03

Mast rally considered huge success

08/03/03

Mast sanity statement to the Prime Minister

28/02/03

Interest grows in national phone mast rally

20/02/03

Mast campaign accuses government of deliberately misleading public

14/02/03

High court decision could make 1000's of phone masts unlawful

14/02/03

 Crown break law with impunity

08/02/03

Rail track flout planning law by slight of hand

04/02/03

Government hide phone mast payback

24/01/03

Mobile phones the new porn 'shop'

16/01/03

Childrens hospital mast shocks local community

15/01/03

Protesters chalk up major victory as police force puts tetra on hold

20/12/02

Government public finance committee slam cost of 'Tetra' (airwave)

18/12/02

Glasgow mums in brazier phone mast protest

11/12/02

Shell to take mast down after residents boycott garage

14/11/02

180 plus doctors and medical professionals sign 'freiburger appeal'which raises health concerns suffered by their patients as a result of mobile phone technology

12/11/02

Mast Sanity slams 'new' guidance as a golden opportunity lost

09/11/02

Have courts opened doors tophone mast health challenge?

03/11/02

Hidden masts further revelations

28/10/02

Tetra comments taken to home secretary

24/10/02

Police radio's 'v' officers health the big 'tetra' debate campaign demands home office apology

25/10/02

Italian research shows 'dna' altered by mobile phones

13/10/02

Campaign seeks urgent minister level talks on phone masts

07/10/02

The hidden phone masts

23/09/02

Top uk phone mast activists meet in manchester

03/08/02

Sir William Stewart expresses continued concerns on health

08/07/02

New radio system sees police drop in droves

08/05/02

Campaign celebrates mast win asphone operator gives high court undertaking not to erect phone mast

11/03/02

Phone masts - double debate

Mast Sanity has attended a number of meetings and presentations over the last 2 years.  Because the reporting of this information is new to the website some of those meetings prior to Dec 2003 will not be detailed.

If you wish to let others know about your public and local or area meetings please send minutes and details to us and we will let put the information on this page.  It would be good to have decumentations showing the repetetitive PR jobs that the operators are all doing on you!

London Rally - what happened and the pictures

Minutes from meeting with Lord Rooker (planning minister) April 2003

AllL Party Committee on Mobile Telecommunications  - meetings

Others available soon

Your letters maybe useful to other campaigns.. please send them to us so that they can appear on this page. All letters sent by you and your campaign regardless of who they are to, will be useful to someone

Let us know what politicians are receiving and how they are dealing with this situation. We want to know who's ignoring it and who is truly representing their constituents.

Letters to planning

letters for planning appeals

notice letters/landowners letters

letters donated by local campaigns

letters to politicians

letters from mast sanity to politicians

letters received from politicians

letters received from Govt ministers

letters to industry

letters from industry

letters to press

additional letters

 

 

 

Planning

note those marked with ** can be sent by Mast Sanity or Planning Sanity (on headed paper) on your behalf, tailored to your particular situation.

Please email us with your requirements

Please not do not send any letters with Mast Sanity or Planning Sanity headed paper without prior permission. People have sent numerous letters with our headed paper to local authorities, landowners etc where we would not normally recommend sending a letter .. in particular where there is NO application and also where multiple letters have been sent seemingly from Mast Sanity for the same application!!

Short Standard Letter

Full Standard Letter

Standard Letter for Use in a Schedule 2 Objection

Temporary Masts **

Letter to Local Planning Authorities setting out the legal position on health - not available yet **

Letter to Local Planning Authorities On Rail Track Installations **

Letter to Local Planning Authorities Enforcement action for Prior Approval Masts over 15 Metres not yet available **

Standard Letter on the A.2(4)(b) loophole

Standard Letter on Small Antenna

Standard Letter for Masts on Church Land not yet available

Letter Suitable for Sending to Ombudsman - not available yet

Standard Letter for Sending to Operators on the Traffic Light scheme - not available yet

Letter to DTI requesting prosecution for failing to affix Sch2 notice Still being compiled

Letter requesting that the Council discontinue the use of a site for a phone mast

Letter requesting that the Council revoke planning/prior approval permission for a phone mast

Another standard letter **

Letter questioning validity of prior approval decision when lease of building does not allow commercial use **

Letter to local authority who were reluctant to let local community comment on a prior approval application

Letter to local authority setting out that a policy decision not to take health into account would be unlawful

Letter setting out the legal position of temporary installations

Letter to council requesting that a permission be revoked due to the closeness of the mast to a childrens play area

Letter to local authority on a specific complaint of maladministration, forewarning of a complaint to the Ombudsman

Letter to Property Department of Council on aspects relating to the lease on council owned land, and the failure of a sports club to first obtain permission from council to grant lease to phone operator.

Letter to LPAs setting out that as a consequence of the Yasmin Skelt case ICNIRP certificates should NOT be used to bar consideration of the public health concerns **

letter to planning

notice letters/landowners letters

note we can personalise these to your requirements. Though you are willing to use the content of these letters for your campaign please do not send with our logo or names on. We need to know exactly where our letters are going and to who!

This is the main letter of objection to operators, add your local details, and send to ALL the operators with phone masts in your community

This is the main letter to be sent to landowners who allow installations on their property

This is the letter to send to local Curches, and Church Commisions when they are allowing the siting of Masts on church property.

This is the letter to send to local authorities when they are the owners of the land that a mast is being sited on

This is a specific letter to be sent to Shell, both the local garage and their headquarters, when an installation is sited on their property

This is a specific letter to be sent to McDonalds, both the local restaurant and their headquarters, when an installation is sited on their property

This is a specific letter to be sent to 02 (Airwave) TETRA

letters donated by local campaigns

Letter to the Planning Inspectorate for an Appeal Against an Orange Mast

Letter from a resident to other residents asking them to object to an installation

Letter from local resident to schhool requesting they support objection to mast

Letter from 'PACT' (local group) to local authority (Tetra - and temp installation)

Sch 2 letter of objection from local resident of the effect on his property of the installation

First Draft of Statement of Case by Bardsey Mast Action to Public Inquiry

Letter of objection to Planning Inspectorate from member of the public

Letter for general distribution where antenna, but not equipment cabin comes within remit of A.2(4)(b) loophole

Letter objecting to extention by 5 metres of an existing mast

Letter of objection to Planning Inspectorate from group objecting to temporary tetra installation

letters to politicians (local campaigners)

Letter from local resident to MP requesting support

letters/lobbies from mast sanity to politicians

(note a number of our lobbies are not included due to lack of documentation kept. In future all lobbies will be reported and parliamentary reactions - if any - reported)

August 03

We would like to bring to your attention that thousands of people across the country are very concerned and angry about the issue of the siting of masts.

A mass movement of ordinary families, a grass roots community response to a major public health issue that affects them personally and where they see

no recognition of the major health concerns, which have now been shown by independent international research to be completely realistic. People fighting the dangerous siting of TETRA masts find that what is supposed to be a neutral planning process being manipulated and distorted to ensure that the masts go up on sites very close to homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive locations. The health guidelines constantly quoted by all mast operators and the Government are nothing of the sort. The ICNIRP guidelines are shockingly deficient. They cover one effect only on the human system of the low level microwave radiation absorbed from TETRA base stations 24 hours a day. This is a major public health scandal which for the last three years has attracted and is currently attracting constant publicity on regional and national TV, radio stations and press. The one serious omission is a real awareness leading to action to protect the health, notably of children, the sick and the elderly by our elected representatives at all levels.

Everyone who has received the attached briefing has now to be aware of how critical the situation is countrywide. Mast Sanity is receiving weekly reports from ordinary residents near TETRA masts of how their lives are being disrupted by the health effects from absorbing the radiation - their sleep is interrupted up to 10 times a night, they have severe and repeated migraine headaches, they are suffering from nose bleeds, they have developed in some cases all over skin rashes. None of these has been experienced previously by the people reporting the effects of TETRA. The speed with which these symptoms occurred - within days of TETRA trials starting - has surprised even the independent British scientists expert in this field who warned that they would be experienced. This calls into question their 10 year forecast of the emergence of tumours, cancers and cataracts as a result of this intensive absorption of low level microwave radiation by thousands of ordinary people across the country. These extreme effects could well appear much sooner.

Rank and file members of the Police are increasingly alarmed at the growing number among them reporting previously unknown ill health symptoms - similar to the above but including deafness from using TETRA handsets and in-vehicle equipment.

What are you going to do to protect your constituents and your local police from this serious harm?

Regards, Pamela Chapman (Mrs) Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.

Mast Sanity - National Campaign for the sensible siting of phone masts.

Tel: 0161-278 3355. Advice Line: 08704 322 377.

www.mastsanity.org

Nov 02

FYI

All MPs on the list, a large percentage of MEPs and all Welsh Assembly members have been lobbied via e-mail re. the Freiburger documentation.

Regards

Pamela

Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.

June 2002

 

May I take this opportunity of drawing to your attention the following and urge that you contribute to the motion.

Kind Regards

Pamela Chapman

Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator

EDM 1408

  MOBILE PHONE MASTS ON SCHOOL SITES 11.06.02
    14 signatures
  That this House calls on the Government to strengthen its precautionary approach to the siting of mobile phone masts by introducing a moratorium on sites on or near to schools and by re-drafting PPG8 to make it clear that planning authorities can reject applications on the grounds of local public health concerns.

 

Mr Mark Oaten    
Mr Colin Breed Dr Vincent Cable Mrs Ann Cryer
Mr Terry Davis Mr David Drew Mr Mike Hancock
Mr Nigel Jones Mr Paul Keetch Mr Elfyn Llwyd
Mr Andrew MacKay Bob Russell Mr Gerry Steinberg
Derek Wyatt    

June 2002

RE: TELECOMMUNICATION INSTALLATIONS ON BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT EXCEED 4 METRES IN HEIGHT

Mast Sanity is the sister organisation to the Campaign for Planning Sanity a national organisation offering free advice to local communities concerned with adverse and inappropriate development. Mast Sanity is dealing with the increasing concerns over the installation of inappropriately sited telecommunication installations.

An issue that is increasingly being brought to our attention through the CfPS helpline is the procedure that Telecommunication Operators use to erect installations on buildings and other structures, where the installation is 4 metres or less in height. This problem is now accounting for about 10% of our inquiries, and the numbers of people with concerns relating to these specific installations is increasing. Instances are coming to our attention where permission has been refused by local planning authorities, only to find that minor alterations to the proposals are made, and then the Operators erect the installation, without any reference to the local authority.

A.2(4)(b) of Part 24 of The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 implies that installation of antenna on a building or other structures (other than a mast) that does not exceed 4 metres requires NO permission what so ever.

This flies in the face of other sections of Part 24, and therefore clarity is required as to whether these installations can be installed with no permission, and if they can, what is the exact criteria that should be applied. In order to clarify the situation the issue should be raised through a question in the House. We set out below what we consider to be the correct position, and what we believe some local authorities are accepting as being correct. There is a similar but separate concern relating to lamp posts which we outline at the end of this letter, and which could potentially see 10,000s of antenna being installed in every borough, without any permission being sought.

Part 24 A. sets out that permission is approved by the General Permitted Development Order subject to a list of exclusions which are set out in A.1(a) to (o). A.4 sets out the interpretations of Class A installations. This includes "small antenna" which is set out as meaning:

(i) is for the use in connection with a telephone system operating on a point to fixed multi-point basis;

(ii) does not exceed 50 centimetres in any linear measurement; and

(iii) does not, in any two-dimensional profile, have an area exceeding 1,591 square centimetres,

 

and any calculation for the purposes of (ii) and (iii) shall exclude any feed element, reinforcing rim mounting and brackets.

A.1(M) through to (o) sets out the exclusions relating to small antenna. We are concerned only with those under Clause (o) which states:

(o) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of a small antenna on a building which is not a dwelling house or within the curtilage of a dwelling house - *

(i) the building is on article 1(5) land;

(ii) the building is less than 15 metres in height, and the development would result in the presence on that building of more than one such antenna; or *

(iii) the building is 15 metres or more in height, and the development would result in the presence on that building of more than two such antennas. *

We are concerned with both (ii) and (iii), which clearly indicates that small antenna on a building or structure are not excluded installations, providing that there is not more than one on a building of 15 metres or less, and two on a building over 15 metres in height. The clear intention of this is to cater for the minor installations such as those used for the reception of satellite TV reception.

Section A.2 is headed conditions, and A.2(4) states:

(4) Class A development -

(a) on article 1(5) land or land which is, or is within, a site of special scientific interest, or

(b) on any other land and consisting of the construction, installation, alteration or replacement of a mast; or of an antenna on a building or structure (other than a mast) where the antenna (including any supporting structure) would exceed the height of the building or structure at the point where it is installed or to be installed by 4 metres or more; or of a public call box;* or of radio equipment housing with a volume in excess of 2.5 cubic metres; or of development ancillary to radio equipment housing

is permitted subject, except in case of emergency, to the conditions set out in A.3.

(*BT has already announced its intention to put additional equipment in call boxes to allow internet access)

The operators argue that this section overrides all the other exclusions set out in A.1, providing the antenna and structure (mast) does not exceed the height of the building by 4metres. If this was true it would make a mockery of those conditions clearly intended to control installations on buildings, which goes into detail as to the size of the installation to be placed on buildings, and beggars believe that a clause relating to this type of installation would not have been included within A.1, when the full range of other exclusions are considered, illustrations being A.1(c) and (d):

(c) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of apparatus on a building or other structure, the height of the apparatus (taken by itself) would exceed -

(i) 15 metres, where it is installed, or is to be installed, on a building or other structure which is 30 metres or more in height; or

(ii) 10 metres in any other case;

(d) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of apparatus on a building or other structure, the highest part of the apparatus when installed, altered or replaced would exceed the height of the highest part of the building or structure by more than -

(i) 10 metres, in the case of a building or structure which is 30 metres or more in height;

(ii) 8 metres, in the case of a building or structure which is more than 15 metres but less than 30 metres in height; or
(iii) 6 metres in any other case;

Therefore our case is that A.2(4) cannot be applied as the operators maintain that they do not need to apply to the local planning authority for determination whether prior approval is required. Which may very well have been the case if it was not for Clause A.1(o). If the installation was a small antenna, then under A.1(o) they could only erect one or two antenna, but if it was not a small antenna (in other words a normal size antenna) then they could erect as many as they like under A.2(4), providing that the installation was not more than 4 metres higher than the building or structure, in both cases without applying for any permission what so ever.

Put into practice that would mean that three small antenna, would not be allowed, but that three large antenna would be allowed without applying for a determination as to whether prior approval was required. The situation is that many installations are being constructed, on buildings, and structures such as water towers, without applying for permitted development. Paragraphs 43 and 44 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications, refers to minor installations, and the de minimus principle. Which broadly put refers to small developments of an insignificant nature, and which do not alter the external appearance of a building. A 4 metre high structure could not be said in any way to come within that remit.

We therefore conclude one of two things either there is a major loop hole being allowed to Operators, or they are being allowed to be economical with the wording of the Development order, in either case the matter requires clarification. If this is a deliberate loop hole to allow installations to proceed without any control whatsoever then it makes a mockery of the whole system, which causes stress to local communities, who have NO opportunity to object, or even challenge the installation, even if that installation is in a sensitive location.

We would therefore be grateful if you could raise this issue in the House in order that the matter can be clarified. And if it is found that it is a deliberate loop hole, that you will join with us in condemning this provision within the system, and campaign for its removal without delay.

A further concern we are facing is that of the installation of antenna on street furniture, in particular street lamps. Whilst at present these account for only a few of the thousands of applications, a worrying alteration is developing in at least one local authority, which we believe is only the tip of the potential iceberg. In the case of Stoke on Trent the local authority have put out to tender 25,000 lamp posts for renewal, and amongst the tenderers are those wanting to place antennas within the lamp posts. As the law stands, they would be entitled to place one antenna on each lamppost without any reference to anyone. They would not even require the need to seek permitted development.

Naturally we view these developments with real concern, not only from the arguments relating to phone masts, but from the viewpoint of credibility of the entire planning system. If controversial developments are allowed without any reference to the planning authority, and the public are not allowed to comment, then the public will become very concerned. If we multiply this by the numbers that are potentially possible in the Stoke case, and we shall see major revolts. It is the view of CfPS that for the planing system to be acceptable to the public, then it must be transparent in its dealings, the public must feel that their views are being taken on board, and that the LPA are working in the interests of the wider community, that will not happen when the system allows for wholesale provision of controversial developments to place without any permission being sought or granted.

Again we would be grateful for any clarity you could bring to this situation through questions being asked in the house.

Should you wish to discuss this issue further please do not hesitate in contacting us.

Yours sincerely,

Pamela Chapman (Mrs)

Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.

NB This includes blocks of flats

May 2002

May I take this opportunity of introducing to you the Campaign for Planning Sanity. This is an established national organisation, advising campaign groups on how to fight adverse planning applications. We have now opened a new branch of this organisation called Mast Sanity, and I have been appointed their Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.

Mast Sanity is in the process of uniting hundreds of campaign groups across the country in order that they can join together in a common cause and resist the telecommunication companies. Mast Sanity advise and represent both campaign groups and local councils on how to appropriately refuse applications for masts. We are not against masts and base stations, but only their “insensitive siting and location”. Our work also includes advice to individual councillors, local authorities and other NGOs, as well as preparing cases and representing local communities at planning inquiries. We also organise specialist training events aimed at giving local communities the tools and expertise needed to best present their cases.

The reason we have chosen to contact you is because some of your constituents have told us of your interest in the mobile phone mast problem. They may have expressed to you their grave concerns about the potential adverse health effects of these installations. Therefore, our principle objective is to request that you offer your support to the Bill being promoted by Mr. Frank Field (MP, Birkenhead) and due for its second reading on Friday, 21st June, 2002. (There is a possibility that this might not get a hearing; please could you use your influence to ensure that the Bill is discussed by the House?)

We also request that you give consideration to supporting the following amendment to that Bill, which is required to prevent the loophole of those applications being decided by the permitted development procedure from escaping the thrust of the Bill which is to outlaw the excessive use of the twin tracking process.

In 1(2)(1) before the words “for the development” add the following:

A local planning authority may decline to determine an application for planning permission or permitted development

After 1(2)(1) at the following passage:

(a) For the avoidance of doubt where such permitted development is declined to be determined under this Act then such none determination shall be deemed to be a determination that prior approval is first required, and that such prior approval is refused.

We are urging all MPs to consider joining the growing ranks of the all-party ‘Phone Mast Group’ in order that your constituents’ views can be better expressed through the united force this group offers to parliamentarians. (For more information, contact Phil Willis, MP, Lib. Dem., Harrogate)

I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your time taken in reading this note, and would hope that we can develop a partnership with a view to promoting residents’ rights against commercial interests.

Kind Regards, Pamela Chapman (Mrs)

Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator

letters/responses to lobbies received from politicians to Mast Sanity

As this is new section we have not kept all responses from politicians. for now we can report we have had postive responses to lobbies from the following politicians

Andrew Hunter, MP, Chris Pond, MP , Andrew Selous, MP ,Paul Truswell, MP , Angela Browning, MP , Phil Willis, MP , Frank Cook, MP , Kali Mountford, MP, Peter Bottomley, MP, Win Griffiths, MP , David Amess, MP, Mark Francois, MP , Mrs Marion Roe, MP , Harry Barnes, MP , Dr Howard Stoate, MP , Bill Tynan, MP , Mark Oaten, MP , Brian Gibbons, AM, Dafydd Wigley AM, Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey, AM, Leanne Wood, AM, Peter Black, AM , Leighton Andrews, AM, Tom McCabe, MSP, Margaret Mitchell, MSP, Carolyn Leckie, MSP, Kenneth Macintosh, MSP, Eleanor Scott, MSP, James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP, Mark Russell, MSP, Andrew Welsh, MSP, Caroline Lucas, MEP, Roy Perry, MEP,

in future responses will be posted as well.

letters received from Govt ministers

letters to industry

letters from industry

letters to press

additional letters