| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jim Sheridan: With the leave of the House, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support, especially those who made such powerful and eloquent contributions to the debate, not only in the Chamber today but throughout the parliamentary process. In particular, I thank those people who gave me the benefit of their advice and experience, which was extremely helpful.
Again, I express my gratitude to the Minister and his officials, not only for their hard work, but for the receptive way in which they accepted the changes that we proposed and for the expeditious manner in which they responded to those suggestions. I must say, however, that I was somewhat surprised when the Minister referred to "Bob-a-job". I had not thought that he was of an age to be able to feel nostalgic about that worthwhile experience. Finally, I also want to thank the broad coalition that has supported the Bill every step of the way.
We are all too aware that, today, politicians have a less than glowing reputation. Election turnouts are at an all-time low, voters are disengaged and opinion polls rank us somewhere between estate agents and loan sharks in the popularity stakes. That is little wonder in an age when the public perception is that politicians would rather trade insults at the Dispatch Box than work together to solve problems and that politics is more about delivering memorable soundbites than about developing workable policies. It is therefore very easy to be cynical about what we, as MPs, can achieve during our time on these Benches, but today we can achieve something—we can effect real, lasting and positive change. Today, we have a rare chance to do what we were elected to do: to make a difference.
The Bill represents a different kind of politics. It is not the product of political point scoring; instead, it has been born out of partnership, consensus and reasoned debate between workers and employers, between Government and industry and between Members from every party in the House. At this point I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), who has worked tirelessly alongside the rest of us on the Bill and should be congratulated on
21 May 2004 : Column 1243
that. Perhaps most importantly of all, the Bill is not driven by slogans and spin; instead, it is inspired by ideas and motivated by principles.
It has been said on a number of occasions that the Bill is not a panacea, and I have never said that it will cure every ill or right every wrong, but it will make a difference. It will serve and protect those who, by electing us to this House, give us not only their votes but their trust. So, yes, the Bill may be only one small step towards ending worker exploitation, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is a step on a journey that social justice and workplace dignity demand we take. Good law can do great things, and this Bill makes for good law. I therefore thank the House for its indulgence and ask for its support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
21 May 2004 : Column 1244
Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications Masts) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
12.8 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The measures in the Bill are of significance to many people in my constituency and other constituencies up and down the country. At the outset I should like to put on record my appreciation for the overwhelming cross-party support that I have received and the enormous encouragement from outside the House. Since the Bill's First Reading, my postbag has been filled with letters from the four corners of the country expressing support.
In particular, I would like to thank the pressure groups Planning Sanity and Mast Sanity, which have been a constant source of encouragement and assistance. I would also like to thank Mr. Mike Bell, chairman of the Radiation Research Trust, and his team, whose support has been invaluable. Finally, Mrs. Sarah Webster of Bridgetown in Devon deserves, in particular, to be thanked in this debate. She is a dedicated and passionate campaigner on the issue of transmission masts who has helped me to understand in the clearest possible terms the impact it has had on the lives of so many people. She has put me in contact with people across the United Kingdom who are suffering from serious ill health that they attribute to transmission masts and base stations.
I have the fullest support of the two local councils in my constituency, Forest Heath district council and St. Edmundsbury borough council. I have consulted and have the fullest support of the Local Government Association, which is backing the Bill having canvassed the views of the local authorities it represents. I make no party political point when I say that many people in this country feel that the power to influence their lives and their local communities has slipped away from them over the years. It is extraordinary that the construction of masts that are so visible and so intrusive is a matter over which, in practice, local people have no control.
Far too many Members of Parliament have sent e-mails and letters of support to name each individually; none the less, I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who has campaigned for greater regulation in this area for several years—indeed, she preceded many in her calls for the effects of transmission masts on health to be researched much more rigorously. Many other Members have discussed the subject and their constituency concerns with me, not least my right hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), as well as many others across the political divide, most notably, my fellow Suffolk Members of Parliament.
In the past few years, there have been several Adjournment debates on the impact of transmission masts on health and on the environment, including one
21 May 2004 : Column 1245
that I introduced last March. I should be surprised if any Member of Parliament has not at some point received correspondence on the issue from a constituent. Action to defuse a national groundswell of public anxiety is long overdue, and I want action to be taken on three fronts in particular.
First, the Government should accept the need for more research to investigate the genuine cases of ill health and the health concerns felt by sensible, rational people. Secondly, the precautionary principle advocated by Sir William Stewart when he was a Government senior advisor should mean that, in most cases, masts should not be placed too close to people's homes, schools and hospitals. The Government might wish to draw up new guidelines to put that into practice. Thirdly, a change should be made to paragraph 40 of policy planning guidance note 8 to enable the councillors who have to make planning decisions to take the views of those whom they represent into account in a balanced and objective way.
I note that, earlier this year, the National Radiological Protection Board published research that broadly confirms what Sir William Stewart stated four years previously:
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . . We conclude . . . that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation,"—
"even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
With such uncertainty continuing to hang over transmission masts, there is a clear need for more specific research.
My Bill addresses the other two calls for action. If it is enacted, every application for planning permission for a mast must be accompanied by a certificate that sets out the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity. If that falls on part of any premises or land occupied by an education or medical facility, or a residential property, planning permission will not be granted. Furthermore, every application must also be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement. If the statement indicates that there is a threat of serious damage to heath or to the environment, the fact that there is no full scientific certainty about the health impact of mast radiation shall not constitute a reason to ignore the precautionary statement and grant planning permission. Those measures are significant and will place the power to accept or reject applications clearly in the hands of local authorities. I shall return to those points later in my speech, for I now want to concentrate on why I feel that those measures are necessary.
My interest in this matter was provoked by constituents of mine who wrote to me on numerous occasions to relay their fears that mobile phone masts have a detrimental effect on their health. Nausea, dizziness and headaches are just some of the symptoms that a number of my constituents tell me have affected them since a transmission mast was erected near their homes. One notable, specific case is that of Mark Wheal, who first brought this to my attention on behalf of himself and his anxious neighbours. Elsewhere,
21 May 2004 : Column 1246
schoolchildren have suffered from nosebleeds, insomnia and, indeed, behavioural changes allegedly because a mast has been erected near their school.
When a cluster of transmission masts was placed on a water tower at Haverhill in my constituency, there were some curious consequences. Almost immediately, the squirrels and birds disappeared. Doris Barnes, who lived with her nephew, John Insole, began to have a series of what appeared to be strokes. Dementia began quickly to set in, and she needed 24-hour care. Her bedroom had been in the path of the beam of greatest intensity of the transmitter. As the Insoles inevitably found it difficult to cope, and on their GP's advice, she was put in a care home in a village nearby. Almost immediately, her health substantially recovered, and there was no apparent explanation. Those constituents of mine are rational individuals. I find it difficult to reject out of hand their belief that radiation from masts is responsible for their ill health. I also find it difficult to believe that there has been some sort of outbreak of mass hysteria in many parts of the country in relation to concerns about such masts.
I have led grass-roots campaigns in Newmarket and Haverhill—two towns in my constituency—against mobile phone masts that were near schools, residential property and centres of population. In one instance, the behaviour of the mobile telecommunications company involved was literally underhand and unscrupulous. A TETRA mast was erected on a block of flats in Newmarket. After a strong campaign, agreement was reached that the mast should be moved. I thought that I had brokered an agreement for its removal to a location on a hill just outside the town. Then, one morning, we all woke up to find that it had been erected in another part of the town—technically, not in Suffolk, but in neighbouring Cambridgeshire. Townspeople were understandably outraged. Indeed, the Suffolk constabulary were deeply embarrassed as well. The local district council sought to have the mast removed, but lost on appeal. The company was simply not interested in discussing alternative sites for a compromise, despite assurances having been given to me.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |