| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DRAFT MENTAL INCAPACITY BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
- That the Lords Message of 12th June relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Mental Incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and proposes that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003.
That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any draft Mental Incapacity Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
That Mr John Bercow, Mrs Angela Browning, Mr Paul Burstow, Jim Dowd, Stephen Hesford, Mrs Joan Humble, Huw Irranca-Davies and Laura Moffatt be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
DRAFT CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
- That the Lords Message of 12th June relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Civil Contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Civil Contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and proposes that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003.
That a Select Committee of eleven honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any draft Civil Contingencies Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
That Mr Richard Allan, Mr Adrian Bailey, David Cairns, Mr James Clappison, Mr Kevan Jones, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Patrick Mercer, Chris Mole, Dr Lewis Moonie, Kali Mountford and David Wright be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
- That the Lords Message of 2nd July relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
That Janet Anderson, Mr Tony Banks, Jeff Ennis, Mr John Greenway, Mr Alan Meale, Mr Richard Page, Dr John Pugh and Mr Anthony D Wright be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
PETITIONS
Trade Justice Movement
7 pm
Ian Stewart (Eccles): In recent weeks the Trade Justice Movement has been running a campaign to raise awareness of the issue of trade justice throughout the world. During the campaign Members of Parliament have been asked to participate in what has been an excellent exercise. During the week in which I was involved, I visited Wentworth high school in the city of Salford, in my constituency.
A five-hour session during which the pupils took no prisoners and asked pertinent and pointed questions developed into a dialogue about how young people could take part in the political process. As part of their campaign for trade justice, the pupils at Wentworth high school have asked me to present a petition signed by 586 people.
- The petition of the pupils, teachers and helpers of Wentworth High School declares our concerns about unjust rules that are weighted towards the benefit of rich countries. We would like to see changes made to the trade rules such that instead of "free trade" which keeps countries poor, that we have "trade justice" meaning that rules will benefit the poor people of the planet.
We request the House of Commons to urge the Government to raise our concerns at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting which will take place this September in Mexico and we would request that our concerns are raised with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before this meeting.
As supporters of the Trade Justice Movement which is campaigning for trade justice and not "free trade" we believe that the world leaders should use this vote to:—
Stop forcing poor countries to open their markets and champion their right to manage their own economies.
Regulate big business and their investments to ensure people and the environment come before profits.
Stop rich countries promoting the interest of big business through trade interventions that harm the poor and the environment.
Ensure trade policy is made in a fair, transparent and democratic way.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Further Education (Hemel Hempstead)
7.3 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): I wish to present a petition from 2,132 constituents and people in areas neighbouring Hemel Hempstead, where a further education college was merged with Watford college in 1992 as a cost-saving exercise. Since then there have been successive depredations of the Hemel Hempstead site and the building up of the Watford site, as a result of which many of my constituents now have no access to further education.
- The Petition of West Herts College Students Union and concerned residents and parents of Hemel Hempstead
Declares that West Herts College plans to close the majority of courses for 16-18 year olds at its Hemel Hempstead campus and move them to Watford; that the petitioners oppose this move and contend that there should be a college located in Hemel Hempstead that is large enough to suit the needs of the borough of Dacorum.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Secretary of State for Education to urge the West Herts College Corporation to maintain its current provision for 16-18 year olds at its Hemel Hempstead site,
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Humberstone Village Post Office
7.5 pm
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): I wish to present a petition on behalf of 180 of my constituents who are outraged at the Post Office's decision to close Humberstone village post office. They are particularly outraged at the behaviour of the local official, who refused to meet my constituents and me before the post office was closed. I hope that Mr. Paul Masey will look at this petition in Hansard and recognise that there has not been proper consultation. I present it on my and my constituents' behalf, and particularly on behalf of Cynthia Bunton and Sharon Clarke, who collected the signatures.
- The Petition of the community of Humberstone village declares
That the post office in Main street is vital to the local community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry call on the Post Office to keep open the post office in Main street, Humberstone village.
We believe that the closure would be detrimental to the community of Humberstone village.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Tetra Mobile Communication System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
7.6 pm
Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West): I wondered for a moment whether the Members presenting the petitions were attempting to talk out the Adjournment debate. However, they made valid and valuable contributions to the work of this House.
I am deeply grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to express the concerns that a substantial number of my constituents have about this issue. I should also mention my constituency neighbours—my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)—who are suffering similar problems and doing the best that they can on their constituents' behalf. However, I shall confine my remarks to the issues confronting my constituents as they relate to the Tetra mobile broadcasting system.
This is my first formal opportunity to welcome the Minister to her new post; I am sure that this is just the first of many journeys around Whitehall before she ends up at the Cabinet table. She will readily appreciate that this issue has a deeper resonance across the country because of the nature of the system in question. In fact, a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or from the Department of Health could easily have responded to this debate, because this issue falls into the category of what we in this House have recently come to know as a cross-cutting issue. I am certain that, because of the nature of it, the Minister will be unable to answer all of the several questions that I shall ask, but I hope that she will answer what she can.
Mobile communications was just about the fastest growing sector of British industry in the past decade and a half. Oftel estimates that, from a figure of virtually zero 15 years ago, there are now 50 million mobile phone subscribers in this country. It is obvious that this is an irreversible trend in modern society. There are those who regard mobile communications as the greatest curse of our modern world; equally, many others find it difficult to imagine how we ever got on before we had them on their current scale of availability.
I do not want to talk about the general issue of public mobile phone networks, however, because the Tetra system—it was originally known as the terrestrial trunk radio system—is actually a private network, and it is the specific technology that it employs that is a matter of concern to my constituents and many others. It falls under the public safety radio communications project—now known, more easily, as Airwave. It is a £2.5 billion investment in providing a nationwide digital voice and data communication system for the police. It is a private, closed system, so it is not immediately comparable with the mobile phone networks that most of us use.
Let me say from the outset that I am strong supporter of what the Government have done, both in increasing spending and investment in the police so that their numbers have reached record levels, and the concomitant of giving the police the best equipment to help them in their valiant and valuable fight against
crime in our community. No one in my constituency—or, I suspect, anywhere else in the country—would do anything needlessly to hinder their efforts on behalf of the community.Experience with the contractor for the system—O2 Airwave—in my corner of south-east London has, however, been deeply troubling. In the Metropolitan police area alone, it requires 91 sites for transmitters: I am informed that 60 have been completed and that 28 are, as quaintly described, "in build", leaving only another three sites to find. I do not know whether the experience in my constituency is unusual or atypical. The figures that I have been given show that rapid progress appears to have been made elsewhere. In our part of the world, however, it has been a different story.
A site for the system was identified late last year on a building owned by Lewisham borough council. There is some dispute between the company and Lewisham borough council's planning department as to who said what to whom, and how much public consultation was engaged in. Suffice it to say, the site directly overlooked one primary school and another school was nearby. I shall not go into the dispute between Lewisham council and O2 Airwave, because I was not party to those discussions. However, it is self-evident that O2 Airwave did not follow the code of best practice on mobile phone network development, to which it is a signatory, to any degree at all. The company is not a member of the Mobile Operators Association—even though it is part of the greater O2 empire, it is not signed up to the 10 commitments of the MOA—but it is a signatory to the code of best practice.
If the code of best practice were followed—the traffic-light model is contained in the MOA's 10 commitments—the site would clearly have been revealed as a red zone and the company would have been required to engage in far greater community involvement and far more consultation than it actually achieved. The local community was alarmed at discovering the company's intentions. Following a fairly stormy public meeting and strong local opposition, the company decided to move to a nearby site. In fairness, that site is an existing transmission site for the Metropolitan police—it has been since the second world war—and falls under the permitted development provisions that the company believes apply to it. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong—it is for my learned colleagues to pick the bones out of that—but the second site was chosen not far from the first without consultation, without acknowledgement of the traffic-light model, and without any attempt to establish contact with the local community.
Lest I be accused of special pleading, let me say immediately that I live near the chosen site. However, I am not speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of my constituents. On this occasion, they also happen to be my neighbours. At the first public meeting, O2 Airwave at least had the decency to apologise for its oversight, but made no attempt to clarify how it would deal with it. What is the point of the detailed code of conduct, to which it has freely put its name, if it takes not the slightest notice of it and simply maintains that it has a job to do and will get on with it, regardless of the views of the public in the area?
I call on O2 Airwave to halt all the work that it is doing on its new site, until proper consultation and explanation has taken place with the local community, and in particular with the staff, pupils and parents of Horniman primary school, which is opposite the site. By its own ineptitude or an oversight—I do not wish to impute malice—O2 Airwave has made a delicate and difficult situation much worse.
Some 200 people—from a small community, so they were representative—attended the public meeting when O2 Airwave announced its decision on the new site. The main concern was the health implications of Tetra. The arrogance and incompetence of O2 Airwave was irritating enough, but it was clear that my constituents and neighbours were most concerned about the unique technology used by Tetra, and their perception of it. They readily understood that it met the guidelines published by the National Radiological Protection Board and the fabulously named ICNIRP—or the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection—but they felt that those guidelines did not go far enough.
A few years ago, the then Minister with responsibility for public health—now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—commissioned a report on the concerns about radiation from mobile phones from an independent expert group. It was chaired by Professor Stewart, and the report is known as the Stewart report. However, that report principally addressed the issues of the thermal effects of mobile phone technology. I readily accept that the most dangerous part of the system is the handsets, and that they are a far greater risk than the transmitters. However, my constituents—and those who share their concerns about Tetra—worry about the biological effects. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that, with the time division multiplex access system that Tetra uses, only the handsets pulse at what Stewart perceived to be a dangerous frequency, not the base stations.
According to the Library, 176 Tetra systems are in use across the world in 46 countries. It is not new technology. Those who fear that they are being used as guinea pigs to determine the effects of the system are misled. However, public fears do exist. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for supplying a written answer in which she confirmed that 14 forces in the UK already have the system, and that the Metropolitan police will acquire the full system in October. The answer also directed me to the Home Office Tetra website, which I found helpful.
I have some questions that I hope that the Minister will address in her reply. I note that the Home Office commissioned the NRPB to report on the implications of using the Tetra system. The report was published in July 2001 and made eight recommendations for further testing and examination of the system. By my calculation, the first experiment has been completed, but I do not understand the chronology used in the section of the report headed "Current Status". The website states:
- "The second experiment concerns the behaviour of calcium ions in heart cells . . . measurements will be completed in March."
- "The third and fourth in vitro experiments, on brain slice electrophysiology and epileptiform activity respectively, are expected to be completed in summer."
On the base station audit called for by the NRPB, the site said that tests had already been carried out in Lancashire and that 10 further measurements were planned before the end of March. I am not sure whether I was looking at an old site that had not been updated. Have the tests been carried out, or is the site talking about next year and not this year?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me whatever undertakings she can in respect of her Department's knowledge of future reports and developments, as more science becomes known. What troubles my constituents is the fact that this is a new technology that has burgeoned in a way that no one imagined when we set out on this path a decade and a half ago.
My constituents want to support the police and the systems that they need and rely on for the valuable work that they do on behalf of the community. However, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that there is a specific and considerable public concern about the system. I hope that she can provide the assurance that all our constituents want.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |