| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Mar 2005 : Column 213WH—continued
1 Mar 2005 : Column 214WH
Police Tetra Masts (Sussex)
2.5 pm
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I am delighted to have at long last secured this debate on the operation of police Tetra masts in Sussex, having applied fairly consistently since November. I am also delighted to see many of my hon. Friends from West Sussex here today, whom I know will all try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so as to raise their own constituency problems on the issue.
I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who is something of an expert on the subject and will be speaking from the Conservative Front Bench. I am particularly delighted, although slightly bemused, to welcome also the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. One always gets one's money's worth when he replies to a debate.
This subject has been raised in assorted Adjournment debates over the past few years. For the uninitiated, Tetra is terrestrial trunked radio—the emergency services communication system that is being rolled out across the United Kingdom. About 3,000 masts are commissioned and operational, with another 300 or so under construction. It is anticipated that the network will be completed shortly, with about 3,300 masts in total, and that it will go live at some stage in the next year. It has so far been costed at £2.9 billion, and as such it will be the biggest IT overhaul that the police have ever had to manage.
It is reasonable to suggest that the Tetra system should therefore have been subject to the most rigorous consultation with our constituents, whom the system aims to protect more efficiently and who will ultimately, of course, pay the bills. In the case of the masts in Sussex, especially in West Sussex, the consultation and the sensitivities to the concerns of local people have been deafening by their silence.
I do not pretend to be a scientist and I do not know whether the Tetra system is the best possible system available or whether it will do the job that the police need it to do to justify the £2.9 billion bill. People have said that an alternative system such as Tetrapol, which is used on the continent, would be more efficient and would require only 21 base stations in the whole south-east region whereas the Tetra system requires many more masts—in excess of 150 more than the whole Tetrapol system would require across the country.
As I say, I am not a scientist. I rely on the Home Office and the knowledge of the commissioning police authority to ensure that the right decisions are taken.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Regarding the technical spec, as this is obviously a national system, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Home Office conducted a survey on the efficiency of the system? The police in my part of the world are far from happy with the coverage of Tetra and they have many of the same problems as with the previous system. They are rather disappointed, to put it mildly.
Tim Loughton : I certainly welcome the extension of the debate to the wilds of Gloucestershire. The hon. Gentleman's contribution, with which I wholeheartedly
1 Mar 2005 : Column 215WH
agree, is welcome. The problem is that we do not have the definitive information that we are entitled to so as to make informed decisions on behalf of our constituents, and neither do they. A study of the sort that he mentions has not been forthcoming, and certainly not in such a form that we can respond to with value judgments.
I do not know whether the emissions from the masts or the handsets pose any threat to health. Is this really not a pulsed system, as some have claimed, and what would it mean for health if it were? I am not particularly reassured when supposed experts admit that they could not guarantee the safety of the system and that it would be at least five to six years into operation before we had sufficient evidence to make a proper judgment. Experts are seeking additional funding of some £300,000 from the Government to conduct research on the likely effect of Tetra on children, some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): To extend the debate to Wales, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a key concern among constituents in Montgomeryshire—I imagine that the same is true of his constituents—is the unknown variable of health? As he said, the cost of the project comes to almost £3 billion, so would it not have been reasonable to expect exacting and meticulous research to have been conducted before the Tetra mast system was set up?
Tim Loughton : The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, as the debate travels ever further westwards, although I hope that, in terms of substance, it will not go west. I was in his constituency a little while ago, and certain people expressed to me the fears that he outlines. Interestingly, I saw more masts than police officers in his constituency.
To bring the debate back to the south coast, I see that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) wants to intervene.
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op): The hon. Gentleman mentioned health concerns. Five years ago, the Stewart report dealt with health issues related to mobile phone masts generally. Given the advances in technology, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments expressed in an early-day motion that is on the Order Paper? Among other things, it suggests that it is perhaps time for the Government to commission a reconvened Stewart inquiry or something similar to consider the health issues in the light of those technological changes over the past five years.
Tim Loughton : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He, too, makes a valid point: the Stewart report was indeed produced some years ago and it suggested adopting the precautionary principle, although it dealt with conventional mobile phone masts and certainly did not concentrate on Tetra masts, which are the subject of the debate. As I shall discuss in a moment, there is a plethora of different supposed studies, which may or may not have been commissioned by the Government. They are confusing, conflicting and, in any case, incomplete. We need a definitive study to reassure our constituents and to give them back the confidence to believe that the issue is being properly considered and that conclusions will be acted on. The hon. Gentleman's point is therefore absolutely right.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 216WH
I am concerned when I hear that residents in several parts of Wales, although not necessarily in Montgomeryshire, are being asked to keep health diaries and fill in questionnaires about the perceived effect of mast transmissions on their health. I am concerned when certain local authorities are worried enough to use local council tax payers' money to commission local studies on the possible dangers of masts.
I am also concerned when I hear that Birmingham city council is particularly worried about the proliferation of Tetra masts and is, quite rightly, considering hardening its policy on the siting of masts. I am concerned when I read of surveys commissioned by police constabularies whose work forces use Tetra and which are raising cases of illness among users. Again, we do not get the definitive link between the radios, the masts and the work force, but if there is sufficient concern to warrant these studies there may be some basis to that concern.
All that is partly anecdotal and third hand, but when I see the results of a survey carried out in my constituency by residents living within 250 m of an operating Tetra mast, I tend to take a rather closer interest and become more anxious. Out of a sample of 448 people surveyed by residents since a mast was switched on in a residential area, 58.5 per cent. responded that they had recorded symptoms ranging from sleep disorders to headaches and nausea, all of which were contemporaneous with the operation of the mast. Of those people, 40 per cent. identified with having sleep disorders, 38 per cent. with having headaches and 16 per cent. with having rashes or itchy skin. We also have anecdotal evidence of pharmacies in areas affected by masts increasing their sales of painkillers and other remedies associated with some symptoms that I have mentioned.
I remain very concerned when questions posed to the Department of Health simply elicit references to the advice in the Stewart report, which is several years old. We are told that we have nothing to worry about, but when we get advice from the Home Office in response to parliamentary questions, it is rather inconclusive. Any research has barely started. A response from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), said that
"Universities of Birmingham and Manchester are looking at patterns of use of Airwave among police users."
The reply also mentions work under way on the specific absorption rate in vehicles and states that, in addition, the Home Office is
"funding research on TETRA as an adjunct to the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research . . . programme."—[Official Report, 8 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 649W.]
Those studies are all under way. They are not finished studies that have produced results that can be given as reassurance or to raise worries. They are all ongoing.
Despite that, the system is up and running in many parts of the country. In the mean time, in my constituency and other hon. Members' constituencies, the masts continue to operate. Appeals to the mast operators to find alternative, more suitable locations go
1 Mar 2005 : Column 217WH
unheeded. My appeals to Sussex police authority to intervene on behalf of the Sussex council tax payers who fund them also go completely unheeded.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): With respect to the health issues that my hon. Friend spoke about a moment ago, is it not particularly invidious that although local authorities are told by the Minister that health considerations may be material in determining planning consent applications, attempts to rely on such considerations are overturned on appeal, and that it turns out that the environmental concerns relate to aesthetics only, rather than to the health considerations involved in erecting a Tetra mast?
Tim Loughton : My hon. Friend makes some good points. I am sure that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will elaborate on them, particularly mast sites in his constituency. I have come across just those problems, which have received very inadequate responses.
I have at least four Tetra masts in my constituency. I say "at least" because I am not entirely sure. The mast companies are not very forthcoming on the location of all the sites. I do not at this stage challenge Tetra's effectiveness as a system, because I do not know and am not qualified to know, but I am challenging the way that those responsible site the masts, oblivious to the concerns of local people.
A mast that is causing much fuss in my constituency has been put in one of the most densely populated parts of Worthing—a town of more than 100,000 people—on the gantry of floodlights at a football stadium, surrounded by houses on all four sides and with many young families and schools close by. The first that most residents knew of it was when engineers from O2 Airwave, which is responsible for installing the masts, began to erect a new mast aerial on a gantry that had been used for conventional mobile phones since 1989 under an agreement with the football club.
The football club itself was unaware of the implications. The president of the club, Morty Hollis, who is a pillar of the local community and always keen that the football stadium should be a good neighbour of the residents nearby, is horrified at the concerns that the mast has created among his neighbours and customers. However, he is tied into an agreement that was signed many years ago and would be subject to financial penalties if he were to reject the Tetra mast.
Planning permission was not applied for on the basis that, technically, the mast came within the 15 m exemptions. It was subsequently pointed out that it breached the 15 m limit, but, rather than reassess the site, O2 has simply reconfigured it to make the antenna integral to the supporting pole, so that, on technicalities, it comes back within the exemptions. That is a fairly commonplace solution to the problem of having to do something about such a matter.
Residents are understandably worried and they have sought help from councillors and from me. In particular, the ward councillor, Kenny Brady, was very supportive. When the mast was turned on to begin the testing period, many people simultaneously reported
1 Mar 2005 : Column 218WH
headaches and sleeplessness, which led to the survey that I mentioned. Later, when the mast was rendered non-operational after sabotage, people noticed an improvement—contemporaneous with when it was not on.
The most tangible effect of the mast emissions, however, has been the chaos that it has brought to TV signals on televisions within a quite wide radius that rely on conventional aerials. The effect is not uniform because many houses have cable, and it does not affect those, so one cannot say that a whole street suddenly lost ITV, for example. Residents complained to O2, which simply said that under Ofcom rules it is not responsible, even though it has admitted how its masts directly dilute the TV signals on some older receivers and are therefore causing havoc with the signals.
The only advice that O2 has offered to residents so affected is to call in a local professional TV repair firm to fit a new booster, which often costs as much as £150. It has not offered any compensation to people who have been watching their televisions problem free for many years, since before Tetra was even invented. Clearly, the television effect has made people more aware of the power and presence of mast emissions, but that cannot account for the simultaneous health implications.
Mr. Drew : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton : In a moment. Is it fair that people should not be compensated for the loss of such amenities as a direct result of the masts? We sought legal advice from West Sussex county council, which has been supportive in this matter and which said that there are grounds for an action against the police authority or the O2 operators because those people have clearly suffered a loss of amenities. I shall give way again to Gloucestershire.
Mr. Drew : I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I might bring good news. There was a similar set of events in my neck of the woods and we were able to get compensation. Airwave kindly informed those people who had called in the friendly TV repairman that the only way to get compensation was through the office of their local MP, so I was pleased to receive 50 to 60 requests for compensation, which I told Airwave it could pay. Eventually, it paid the compensation, so the hon. Gentleman might want to follow that up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I suspect that I am the only person here who is technically qualified to intervene on that point, but I cannot, which is rather frustrating.
Tim Loughton : Perhaps we can have a chat afterwards, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You could write to my constituents, passing on the information that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned, so that I will not have to receive 50 or 60 such letters asking for my help. Certainly, we have so far singularly failed to get any gesture of good will, let alone financial compensation, from O2 in that respect.
Over a year ago, I met several local residents and summoned O2 Airwave to a small meeting, to which it was reluctant to come, as it is reluctant to attend any
1 Mar 2005 : Column 219WH
public meeting. Eventually, its representatives attended a meeting with a small group of residents and some planning officers from Worthing district council. The planning department was helpful, suggesting at least seven possible alternative sites in Worthing that would be far less harmful, given their distance from residential areas.
Mr. Lepper : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton : One moment; I must make a bit of progress.
The officers even offered to drive the O2 representatives around the area to point out other possible sites. I suggested that instead of having one mast in the middle of a residential area, we might have two masts on the edge of town to achieve the same coverage with masts well away from houses. We tried to be helpful, practical and constructive. Back to Brighton, Pavilion.
Mr. Lepper : I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for returning to Sussex. Will he comment on my proposal to the Highways Agency some years ago that it might wish to co-operate with mobile phone companies in considering locations within its remit away from built-up areas of the kind we are discussing? There might be a great deal of scope in such a proposal.
Tim Loughton : That is another possibility, but it should be up to local planning departments, working with local councillors in such a way that they are answerable to local people, to decide where they would be most comfortable with these things if they had to have them. Everybody wants to be able to use a mobile phone and wants the police and other emergency services to have the best radio system with which to protect them, but that does not mean that we have to have these masts being plonked wherever the mobile phone companies dictate on the ground of efficiency of the system rather than consideration of the fact that people, including young children and the elderly, live in those areas.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Tim Loughton : I shall give way to Worthing, West.
Peter Bottomley : I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on how he is introducing it. Does he agree that if it were possible to reassure people on health grounds, mobile operators could then have a more open consultation with local community groups and achieve the best environmental solution?
Tim Loughton : The problem is that people do not know what to believe. When masts are sited in what I can only describe as a surreptitious way, or, in the case of the mast in Worthing, without anyone knowing, and with minimal consultation and a dismal public relations offensive—a company effort to win hearts and minds—people get suspicious and expect the worst. I will come
1 Mar 2005 : Column 220WH
to that if I get the opportunity, as we have undertaken a tour d'horizon around the south coast, Gloucestershire and Wales.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have to tell the House that the Tetra system was piloted in my area by Northumbria police.
Tim Loughton : Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a greater contribution than any other Deputy Speaker has made during debates in which I have participated, but it is all good information.
When I made my suggestions to O2, it went through the motions of having a half-hearted look at other potential sites. It told me that only one site would fit the criteria, knowing full well that it was not available. It was right in the middle of town anyway, on top of the building housing the Environment Agency, whose staff are the last people who would have such a mast on their building.
O2 agreed to go through the motions on the face of it, but it turns out that that was all for appearances and its interest soon fizzled out. It would cost several hundred thousand pounds to resite those masts; of course, this company wants to maximise its profits. I do not dispute that, but should it not be more sensitive to the concerns of the local people paying the bills—the taxpayers? This is a £2.9 billion contract: surely within its profit margin there is leeway for resiting some masts or putting in additional ones to compensate for lower coverage.
If O2 is challenged and a planning authority takes it to court or tries to take enforcement action so the matter ends up in a court case, it will use expensive lawyers to overturn cases brought by private individuals or local authorities. Those authorities are obviously hamstrung by having to make difficult decisions as to whether they should risk a great deal of local council tax payers' money to seek expensive legal counsel while being accountable to those council tax payers.
O2 Airwave has shown complete disregard for the concerns of local people. It did not consult them, it kept the mast sites quiet and it clearly had no serious intention to consider alternative sites. It has shown no concern for the damage caused to TV signals or any health implications, and it is one of the few mobile phone companies that has not signed up to the 10 commitments. It is rather good at producing a lot of reassuring leaflets with glossy pictures, but those leaflets do not convince my constituents.
People have raised problems about the effect of mast transmissions on digital cordless phones, lawnmowers, computers, police speed cameras and even pacemakers, but the Department of Health has declined to refer queries regarding pacemakers to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That might sound fanciful, but in the absence of a serious attempt by anyone in a position of authority to address health concerns, people will obviously suspect the worst.
We have had a number of very well-attended public meetings in Worthing. An action group has been formed, piloted by residents such as Tony Malone and Andy Davidson, who have worked tirelessly in this area. Residents are concerned about the effect on the value of their properties, and many are trying to move. That does not help the confidence of local communities.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 221WH
Having failed with O2, I approached the Sussex police authority. After all, it is commissioning O2 Airwave to install Tetra masts. It may claim that it has been strong-armed by the Home Office so that we have a national system, but it will be carrying out the commissioning. It had been helpful in sending the police expert to meetings to explain how the system worked and what it was all about.
Sussex council tax payers have experienced big rises in the Sussex police precept in recent years, and we would expect the unelected police authority to be rather more responsive when there are concerns about the activity for which those taxes have been paid. However, I have been fobbed off with a lot of technical guff about how the whole system is safe. I was told that an equivalent system has been used for almost 100 years and no one has been harmed by it, and that everyone is talking nonsense and being a bunch of whingers with psychosomatic symptoms.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): Although unelected, is not Sussex police authority Conservative led? In fact, the majority of its members are elected Tory councillors.
Tim Loughton : There are Labour councillors on the authority and it has previously been led by Labour councillors, but I do not seek to make any political point in this debate and I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced that note.
If a police authority is as unresponsive as this one has been, it deserves a good kick up the proverbial from any of us, whatever party we represent and whatever the leadership of the police authority. That is why that authority should be rather more accountable to the people who pay the taxes and expect to be protected and treated with respect. This does not have anything to do with politics. I hope that point has been made loud and clear to the hon. Gentleman.
When I expressed my concerns to one of the senior policemen involved in this project in an exchange of e-mails, he replied:
"I think your point about O2 needing to look for an alternative site in Worthing is a good practical suggestion in relation to Worthing".
He also said that I had his assurance that he would do all that he believed possible to avoid such a situation in Worthing, or elsewhere for that matter. A fat lot of good that was. All the authority has done subsequently is accuse the detractors of the system of not wanting to install a system that will adequately protect our constituents. It claims that it has no power over O2 Airwave. It promised to have a look at the controversial site in particular, but absolutely nothing has happened.
All the undertakings from the police authority have proved worthless. Its complete complacency towards the local residents it aims to protect has been appalling. Despite the representations, Tetra was not even mentioned in the last police authority minutes of 10 February. Its PR has been lamentable. I have to say that this situation makes a good case for elected police authority members who can be made more accountable if they show such complacency. It is a shame, because
1 Mar 2005 : Column 222WH
Sussex police authority has done many good things up to now, under whatever political leadership it might have been at the time. However, in the case of Tetra masts in Sussex, it has failed, and failed badly.
Residents in the area of that mast really are desperate. They have just sent out a letter from the campaigning action group, after all its hard work, showing their frustration. They issued a plea to people in a position of responsibility to help to address their concerns. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from the letter:
"Cynics may say that those reporting ill-effects are hypochondriacs; subject to autosuggestion or just mistaken. This mast is right in the midst of one of the most densely populated areas of Worthing. Most of the homes in the surrounding areas are not the 'socially-deprived' classes—they are established family homes—young working couples raising families; mature couples still living in the homes where they brought up their children; professional, skilled and retired people. They are honest-to-goodness, down to earth, 'Middle England' and they certainly aren't fanatics, activists or extremists. Looking at this dispassionately, of the 400-plus local people who took the trouble to respond to the survey—can you honestly believe that all of them have imagined—or are lying about—their (and their children's) headaches; nausea; rashes; nose-bleeds; sleep problems etc.? . . .
Someone—somewhere—must take responsibility for any ill-effects that Tetra (and of course other) masts may, in future, be proved to have caused. We have yet to find anyone so convinced of the safety of these masts that they will stand up and say 'Yes—I am totally confident that these masts are harmless and I can be held accountable if proved wrong'. Everyone approached on the subject has very quickly played 'pass the parcel'. That doesn't inspire confidence does it?"
I wholeheartedly identify with the sentiments of that letter. I am completely exasperated and feel that in some way I have let my constituents down because those masts still operate as they were intended to operate, in the places they were put, without any changes whatever. Yet again the wishes of local people and local councils are being ignored, bulldozed and treated with contempt by a Department—the Home Office—and by a multinational big business, O2 Airwave, which stands to make millions from the contract, as well as by a police authority that seems to have forgotten that its role is to protect local people and that a good start in that endeavour is usually to listen and respond to those people first.
As I said, I am not a scientist, nor do I have resources available to me in the form of Government medical advisers, but I know that many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members are very unhappy. Without being against the whole project, there are serious questions that still need and deserve to be answered.
The Government, or the local authorities responsible, need to investigate the possible cumulative effect of multiple masts. The mast in question is one of five mobile masts on that football stadium. There are four conventional masts, which are being upgraded for 3G, and a Tetra mast. There is a school of thought that suggests that the cumulative effect of so many masts in a tight, confined area, topped up with Tetra rays, might have a different effect from what one might expect from a single mast placed anywhere else.
That is a legitimate line of questioning, so I raised it with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). I asked her what research has been
1 Mar 2005 : Column 223WH
"commissioned on the cumulative effects of multiple mobile phone/Tetra masts on the health of people living nearby."
"The mobile telecommunications and health research programme supports about 30 studies of the potential effects of mobile phone telecommunications. Many of these are generic and accordingly relevant to TETRA. Some studies include a specific examination of the effects of TETRA. The programme is described on the web site".—[Official Report, 13 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 951W]
Blah, blah, blah—so it continues. There is not a single attempt in a great long paragraph even remotely to address the question of the cumulative effects of various phone masts, although that is a question that needs to be answered.
Another question involves the feasibility of having two masts on the edge of town, rather than one in the middle of a densely populated part of town. Those questions need to be answered, but O2 has not answered them. How closely are guidelines to prevent masts from being built close to schools, on top of police stations or close to hospitals being followed? What, in practice, does the precautionary approach mean for the siting of masts?
Mr. Lepper : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton : I will do so for the last time, as I am almost finished.
Mr. Lepper : Has the hon. Gentleman's local authority taken the same view as mine, Brighton and Hove city council? If the local authority owns the premises on which the mast is to be erected, there are situations in which, rather than using the planning regime, landlord consent could be a useful tool in safeguarding the interests of local residents. Is his local authority pursuing that approach?
Tim Loughton : The hon. Gentleman may know that a number of larger landowners in the county of West Sussex have stated categorically that they will not allow masts on their property. I applaud those landowners for having taken that decision, which helps. However, they do not account for 100 per cent. of the county, no matter how much he and his party claim that the assets of rural England are in the hands of a few nobs.
Last week, I was delighted that the strategic environment and public protection committee of West Sussex county council, under the chairmanship of Councillor Louise Goldsmith, organised a public committee hearing on the issue of Tetra. A meeting was held in my constituency. The committee heard submissions from police, technical experts, local residents and anti-mast campaigners, which shows that West Sussex is taking the problems seriously. As I said, it has been supportive with regard to the concerns of West Sussex Conservative Members, many of whom are present. That committee is not going to let the situation go and will take the matter forward. Ultimately, of course, its powers are limited, except in the case of land that it owns, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper).
This matter has been handled exceedingly badly. It raises the need for an overhaul of our planning laws in respect of how masts get, or rather do not get,
1 Mar 2005 : Column 224WH
permission before they are sited. I am delighted that the policy of my party, which will, I am sure, be restated from the Front Bench, is to give far more powers back to local people and locally elected representatives to make decisions based on what is sustainable for local people. Such matters make people even more cynical about the ability and preparedness of people in authority to address their fears.
I hope that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will give a steer that the Government share my concerns about the lack of confidence that my constituents understandably feel. I also hope that he and his Government will do everything they can to encourage the police authorities that commission masts and the companies that install them to take more account of the local sensitivities of local people, whose confidence has understandably been completely undermined by a system that should be there to protect the public, not to engender fear among them, as it has in my constituency and the constituencies of many other Members.
2.40 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): My contribution will be very brief, because I appreciate that I did not give notice beforehand. I just want to make one or two comments from the eastern end of the county.
It is important that we do not take a Luddite view of an important development in the protection of the citizen and the solving of crime. I want to explain the position from Hastings. The Tetra system came into effect in the Rother area of my constituency only a couple of weeks ago. When speaking to the chief inspector, I was told that the effect has been phenomenal. Whereas in the past, areas of the county were unable to receive any radio contact, the new system is making it possible for officers to be in touch and they can more ably do the job for which they are employed.
I would not go so far as to say that this debate masks the success Sussex police have had recently, but it is worth putting on record that in Hastings crime was down 10 per cent. last year and is also down 10 per cent. this year. That is not the issue this afternoon, however, save to say that these technological advances will help that effort all the more.
I do not discount entirely comments made by hon. Members who have received representations from their constituents; however, I have not received a single representation from my constituents about masts in the Rother area. In the past, I have received representations about mobile phone masts, but in so far as this particular enterprise is concerned, no representations whatever.
Peter Bottomley : Does the hon. Gentleman know where the masts are sited? Would he like to tell us now, so that it can be reported in his local press? Then people might know to whom they should write if they have a problem.
Mr. Foster : I appreciate that the masts are sited across the Rother area, but as to the precise spots, as no one has contacted me, obviously I do not know. Why would I? People are fast to contact their very available and
1 Mar 2005 : Column 225WH
accessible Members of Parliament if they have a problem, but that is not the case; the case is that the police say that the system is essential and must not be compromised as a result of certain comments. If unsafe systems can be resolved, we must try to resolve them. However, that is more down to local authorities.
The suggestion that the Home Office is the villain of the pact is wholly inappropriate. The people who made the contract were the Sussex police authority. The Sussex police authority—I do not apologise for saying this again—is Tory-led. Perhaps people in West Sussex, who nominate a goodly number of the members of that authority, should exercise a right of recall if they feel that those they have placed in that position, while generally doing a good job, have made a serious error in the case under discussion. That is not the position as I understand it from the East Sussex end. I know of no problems at my end of the county, so they may just be peculiar to West Sussex.
Tim Loughton : The hon. Gentleman again raises a political point. Perhaps he could tell us what the Sussex police authority would have done if it were Labour led, or what any Labour members of Sussex police authority have called for but had overruled because they were outvoted on the authority. Does he know?
Mr. Foster : Of course I do not know the detail, because it is unimportant. Democracy is about who is in charge, and we know who is in charge on the Sussex police authority. It is Tory led, with a Tory chairman, and if there were a Labour chair and a Labour authority it would be an authority over which I suspect I would have some influence. The hon. Gentleman has less interest in influencing his own party than I would hope to have with mine.
The important point is that the system is working, making it possible for crime to fall in Sussex, as it has done for the past few years and will continue to do. We must not in any way impede the tools that allow the Sussex constabulary to do the job for which it is paid.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Before I call the right hon. Gentleman—that is a clue—it seems that I shall have to invoke Mr. Speaker's ruling on winding-up speeches. The debate is local to Sussex, so it is therefore important that all Sussex Members get a fair kick at the ball. It looks like speeches of five, five and 10 minutes. I call Mr. Maude.
2.45 pm
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (Con): I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I can be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), and I make an impassioned plea to his constituents: I hope that many of them will write to him. When his local paper picks up on what he said today, I am sure that his postbag will be full. I wish him well in dealing with it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate; it is a tribute to his persistence. His
1 Mar 2005 : Column 226WH
constituents have borne the brunt of the rolling out of Tetra masts in West Sussex, which started in the south and is gradually moving northwards. The first two masts being sited in my constituency at Warninglid and Colgate are causing concern, although not a huge amount as they are not in built-up urban areas. My hon. Friend dealt eloquently with the health concerns that certainly exist but which have not been addressed definitively by the Government or any serious authority. It is inevitable that concerns remain, and the public are entitled to be anxious until their concerns are properly addressed; but I see no sign of that yet.
My concern is principally about the planning process that applies to Tetra masts and more broadly to commercial mobile telephone masts. None of us wants to stand in the way of progress. We all have an interest in good emergency services and good emergency communications. We should recognise that they are in our interests and in the interests of all our constituents. Indeed, pretty much all hon. Members have an interest in good mobile telephone communication. We use mobile phones a lot, and we complain bitterly if we do not get a good signal; but we also complain bitterly if mobile phone masts go up where we do not want them.
The planning process is not at all transparent. It does not allow a proper local debate, nor does it give people the sense that, through their elected representatives, such things can be controlled and their concerns addressed. That is one reason for the growing alienation between the governed and those who govern. People have the sense that although they can elect whichever local councillors they like, and whichever MPs they like, it makes no difference to what happens in connection with the things that affect them. That is important.
I appreciate that planning is not the Minister's responsibility, but he has been put up by the Government to answer the debate, and I hope that he will address that problem and show some understanding of the fact that the way in which the system works is causing grave concern. As I say, Tetra masts are merely emerging in my constituency, but the planning concerns that my constituents already have about commercial mobile phone masts are causing growing anxiety about Tetra masts.
One specific instance illustrates the point graphically. An application has been made by T-Mobile to erect a mobile phone mast; it is below 15 m, so ordinary planning permission is not required. It would be sited on a mini-roundabout at the junction between St. Leonard's road and Compton's lane in Horsham. That puts it within 300 yd of four schools—the Millais girls secondary school, the Forest boys secondary school, the Queen Elizabeth II special needs school and the Heron Way primary school. Three pre-school provisions are also to be found in the immediate neighbourhood. As a result, there will be 3,000 children within approximately 300 m of the mast, and some very much nearer.
The Stewart report states that
It seems that the advice is being ignored in that case. Many local people have expressed serious anxiety about the application. It now emerges that T-mobile has withdrawn it, but it is anticipated that it will submit another very slightly revised one shortly. Indeed, it may already have done so.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 227WH
My constituents feel that the system that currently applies simply does not allow their concerns to be recognised and addressed. As the science advances and the research continues, it may well be established definitively that there is no health risk from immediate and close proximity to Tetra masts and ordinary mobile phone masts, but that has not yet been shown to be the case. The precautionary principle really should be applied but, more than that, my concern is that local people should have a greater sense of being in control of their destiny, and the system should be amended, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out very eloquently, to enable local councils to have the final say.
2.51 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is right to raise the matter of public disaffection with the political process and the sense of powerlessness that people now feel under our democratic system. The way the Tetra masts have been rolled out, oblivious to local concerns, is a classic example of that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this very important debate and on his excellent presentation of the issues that are of enormous concern to tens of thousands of people who live in the shadow of a Tetra mast. I share those concerns. One Tetra mast has already been erected on the site of existing masts at Littlehampton police station. It did not need planning permission, and so could be erected despite the fact that it is close to schools, a community hospital and a large number of residential properties.
The siting of the mast near a school, as other hon. Members have said, directly contravenes the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's code of best practice on mobile network development. There was no consultation with local people or with the local schools. When the mast was switched on, people began to notice problems with their health. They had nosebleeds, headaches, sleeplessness, confusion, loss of memory and skin problems.
A survey similar to the one carried out in Worthing, to which my hon. Friend referred, was conducted in the area around the mast in Littlehampton. Some 350 householders were consulted, 68 per cent. of whom reported health problems. There is also the prospect of a Tetra mast in the Southern Water compound at West park in Aldwick in my constituency. Planning permission was sought for the mast, as it exceeded 15 m, and I am pleased to say that it was refused by Arun district council. That is a totally unacceptable site for a Tetra mast. The compound is in a children's park, which is also frequently used for large-scale social events such as the annual Bognor carnival.
A mast has also been erected at the Bognor Regis golf club in Felpham. Again, no planning permission appears to have been necessary as a mast was already sited there; it was certainly not applied for. That was in June 2004. When the Tetra mast went up at Felpham, some 20 people in the immediate area reported similar health problems. Interestingly, the local campaigners against Tetra masts were sure that the mast had not been
1 Mar 2005 : Column 228WH
switched on, yet the local people insisted that they were suffering from health problems. It later turned out that the campaigners were wrong. The mast had been switched on and the local people were therefore correct. That directly answers the accusation that those people are simply suffering from psychosomatic problems or the power of suggestion.
Mr. Tyrie : It appears that there was a similar experience in Harting in my constituency with respect to the challenge as to whether or not the mast had been turned on. That spills over into concern in other areas, which is exactly what has happened in Sidlesham. An inquiry has been conducted into the mast there, and it is hoped that the inspector's decision will be announced on 7 March. Again, local people are extremely concerned about the health effects of that mast. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only rational way of dealing with this is to give power back to the local people and to allow local decisions to be taken about the siting of these masts? Does he also agree that that is the only reasonable way of reassuring the public about the health risk?
Mr. Gibb : My hon. Friend is right. The more reports there are of genuine health problems, the greater is the onus on us to ensure that research is undertaken into the effects on health. The Home Office and O2 claim that the symptoms are either psychosomatic or the normal occurrence of such ailments, and therefore unconnected with Tetra. I do not accept that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has also said, the power of the masts is such that it causes severe interference with television reception in the area around a mast. A special device has to be purchased—at the expense of the home owner, not of O2—to counter that reception interference.
Given the power necessary to cause that interference, and the fact that many people report significant health effects, why is there no Government-funded research into the health effects of living close to a Tetra mast? I understand that Professor Lawrie Challis, of the National Radiological Protection Board mobile telecommunication health research programme, confirmed in a recent meeting that no research is currently being carried out into the health effect of Tetra masts. There has been research into calcium exchanges in cells, but surely the best approach is not to look at each of those isolated areas of research, but to investigate the reported health problems experienced by people living close to Tetra masts, and to isolate those people from the effects of the masts or switch off the masts to see what effect that has on their health. Then research can be conducted to find out what causes particular symptoms.
There has been significant research into issues such as calcium exchanges in cells, and the effect of heat, but no real research has been conducted into the neurological effect of living near a Tetra mast and suffering prolonged exposure. In a written answer to me on 10 June 2004, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), claimed:
"Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) researchers have completed their work on calcium exchanges in cells—the main concern of the Stewart report. They found Tetra exposure had no effect".
"Work is continuing to see if exposure to Tetra can affect electrical activity in brain cells and to assess the effects of Tetra signals on cognitive performance. Quarterly reports are available".
My understanding—the Minister in the Chamber can correct me if I am wrong—is that the research has not been authorised and no funds have been released to finance it. In other words, no research is being carried out into the neurological effect of Tetra masts. I emphasise the word "masts". The Minister replied to other written questions by stating:
"The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has calculated specific absorption rates from Tetra handsets. Even in worst case situations, these were found to be well below international health and safety guidelines. In areas accessible to the public, signals from Tetra masts are very much weaker than those from handsets".
"The main Microwave Consultants Limited expert currently working on specific absorption rates from Tetra equipment is Dr Philip Chadwick. The research does not include Tetra masts."
In another written answer, she told me:
"King's College London is already assessing the effects of GSM mobile phone handsets on cognitive performance and stress levels. It will extend the study to Tetra handsets in 2005. No work is planned on Tetra base stations or masts."—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 511–30W.]
That is very wrong. There is genuine concern about the safety of the masts. People who live near them are reporting serious health effects as a consequence, and I believe their reports, yet no research has been conducted, or is being carried out, into their complaints or into the general neurological consequences of prolonged proximity to Tetra masts.
The real concern, which I hope the Minister will address, is the effects of resonances set up by magnetic radiation emanating from the masts. The burden seems to have been passed from the Government and O2 to an unfunded but competently managed group of protesters and local residents, led in my area by John O'Brien. Surely the onus should be on O2 and the Home Office to satisfy the public that the masts are safe. I hope that the Minister will give us a commitment to that effect this afternoon.
2.59 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): First, may I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate? For the most part, his comments were measured. He presented his case as a series of questions, and that approach was taken up by other hon. Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far, I should point out that the Back-Bench contributions finished a bit earlier than I thought they would, so if the two Opposition Front-
1 Mar 2005 : Column 230WH
Bench spokesmen can square the time a bit, we can go to seven and a half minutes for each of their speeches and 15 minutes for the Minister's.
Mr. Carmichael : I am grateful to you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I may be able to give up some of my time so that the Minister can give us a slightly fuller reply to this wide-ranging debate.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) comes from the wilds of Gloucestershire. If he thinks that Gloucestershire is wild, I am not sure what term he would apply to my constituency. None the less, it is interesting to have the opportunity to observe a debate whose subject is so far removed, geographically speaking, from my constituency. It is also interesting because there are so many themes to which I can relate as a constituency Member. I am thinking in particular of the point made most forcefully by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that, in so many different ways, and in so many different parts of the country, people feel that they do not have control over their own communities and destinies. That lies at the heart of this subject.
I should also place it on record that the duty of responding to this debate would normally have fallen to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I know how energetic he has been in pursuit of this subject, because I had to read his file to familiarise myself with the topic in preparation for the debate. He has been thorough—something for which he is widely known, and no doubt admired, in the House.
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, there is a need for a proper and comprehensive debate. Coming to the subject fairly new, it strikes me that although there has been a multiplicity of studies, there does not seem to have been an overarching look at the effect of masts, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out.
If I can wear my hat as vice-chairman of the all-party group on telecommunications for a second, the approach taken by O2 in dealing with communities has left something to be desired. Where there is lack of openness and candour, suspicion and concern will inevitably grow. No one who has contributed to the debate has in any way sought to exaggerate those concerns, and they are to be commended for that.
I commend to the Minister the thorough report on mobile phones and health produced by the National Radiological Protection Board at the start of the year. It made a number of recommendations, and I draw his attention to the first two. The first relates to communities' ability to gain access to all the up-to-date information about Tetra and mobile communication masts and phones. The second is that the planning process associated with the erection of mobile phone base stations and masts should be the subject of an independent review. The report called for particular attention to be given to how best to minimise the exposure of potentially vulnerable sub-groups, such as children, and for continuing research on the possible health effects of mobile phone technologies to be strongly supported. As other hon. Members have observed, some time has passed since the publication of
1 Mar 2005 : Column 231WH
the Stewart report and it would be a worthwhile exercise if the Government were to resurrect that or to revisit its findings.
The other concern that the NRPB report rightly highlighted was the role of Ofcom. We all know that Ofcom is fairly young, and it clearly still has a lot of proving to do. However, it is quite clear that Ofcom has been able to make available rather less information on such matters than is sufficient. The report also recommended that Tetra base stations should be audited in the same way as global system for mobile—GSM—base stations. Until more information becomes available, the board considers that it would be premature to rule out the possibility of health effects on users of Tetra-based equipment and believes that a precautionary approach should be adopted. I think that the Minister will find little in that with which he will be able to argue in principle. We know why the police want Tetra in a broader sense, but surely a proper balance has to be struck.
3.6 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on setting out his case comprehensively and rationally. This subject is a matter of concern not only in Sussex but in many other parts of the country.
I should like, if I may—particularly as you have an understanding of the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to relay my personal experience, because it echoes so powerfully the experience of hon. Members. I discovered that a Tetra mast had been erected on a block of flats in Newmarket in my constituency—90 per cent. of the town of Newmarket is in the county of Suffolk. There were protests and great concern that that had been done in a stealthy way.
As a result of the protests, I intervened and negotiated with the company that had erected the Tetra mast. I spoke at length with the Suffolk constabulary and there was a public meeting. We had agreed that the Tetra mast would be moved from the flats to the top of a hill—or what passes for a hill in East Anglia—just outside Newmarket, and I was confident that that had happened. One morning we all woke up to find that the Tetra mast had been moved, but to that part of Newmarket that is in Cambridgeshire. That was a disgraceful and dishonourable thing to do. I had words with the chief constable of Suffolk, who had no idea that that was happening. We then experienced the ritual with which we are all now so entirely familiar, as the local council challenged the move and lost on appeal, which happens virtually every single time because there is no protection in the law.
That occurrence was so disgraceful because the new Tetra mast was close to a school and to an area of high population concentration. The code of best practice of the operating companies is simply not worth the paper that it is written on. It includes, for example, consultation with the local Member of Parliament—some consultation. There is no effective planning control, and the behaviour of some of the operating companies has been a disgrace and has undermined public confidence.
Five years ago, Sir William Stewart reported on the question of the location of base stations and transmission masts. He talked about the precautionary
1 Mar 2005 : Column 232WH
principle, which we have heard a lot about this afternoon. However, I wonder whether hon. Members noticed that only weeks ago he called for the precautionary principle to be revisited for precisely the reasons that I am suggesting. It has not been applied in practice, because there is no effective planning control. This is a matter of public confidence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is absolutely correct; people are alienated by a process in which they feel they have no control whatever over something controversial that might have an impact on their health and on their lives, certainly from an aesthetic point of view at the very least. They feel alienated from the process and from local government, which is there to protect their interests. I say quite dispassionately to the Minister that that is exactly what is happening in practice, with all the attendant consequences.
I introduced a private Member's Bill to try to deal with the problem, but I regret that the Government did not accept it and it did not see the light of day. Let me say just this: the effects of the frequencies of the Tetra system are different from those of normal telecommunications masts because the pace of Tetra electrical impulses is such that they affect the brain and human bodies quite differently. That is of great concern to at least a minority of scientists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was absolutely right to talk about the health concerns. I do not know—none of us can know—whether the outbreaks of dizziness, nausea, and erratic behaviour, particularly in young children in schools close to Tetra masts, are part of some mass hysteria. As all these cancer clusters have developed for no apparent reason—they have been well documented in different parts of the country because they are in the beam of the greatest intensity—we must, as Members of Parliament, adopt the precautionary principle and be very careful.
Cannabis was considered to be completely harmless in the 1960s and 1970s, yet habitual cannabis smokers in California are now suffering from different forms of cancer much earlier than is usual because of the carcinogenic properties of cannabis. At the time, we did not know what the long-term effects of cannabis would be. I simply say, therefore, that we do not know what the health implications of Tetra masts are, but the evidence is of concern and we must respond to it.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) was absolutely correct to say that we want an efficacious communications service. Of course we do. We want it for our police and our ambulance services. In theory, Tetra involves a national digital mobile radio communications system that the emergency services find quite valuable. However, I have looked into the matter and discussed it at length, and must say to him that Tetra is based on 1950s and early 1990s technology that can no longer be described as the state of the art, as Airwave claims. It cannot, for example, send graphics, faxes, photos or video streams. It cannot access the police national computer, nor can it send or receive files or fingerprints. It cannot access the internet, and it is expensive. It will cost £3 billion to start up, and there will be 3,350 new base stations, including 87 in the county of Sussex.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 233WH
Following the reluctance of police forces to adopt Tetra, the Government agreed to fund its introduction with £500 million, to be shared among all police forces. We heard about the police precept. The cost above the £500 million must be met from the council tax. Of all the stealth taxes introduced by this Government, the one that has caused our constituents the most irritation and concern has been the soaring cost of the council tax. That plays a part in all this and, from that point of view, the situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
In trying to highlight the issue in a non-party political way, as I and many other hon. Members have tried to do, I have been astonished that the Government have not reacted in the way that would be appropriate for a Government in such circumstances, despite private conversations with Ministers and pressure from Labour Members. The fact is that the system, however efficacious, needs careful monitoring. The locations of sites need to be checked, and local people need local control over the local environment. If we do not proceed in that way we shall store up problems for the future.
My final point is party political. The Conservative party—others will share this view—now believes that masts should require full planning permission. We are an overcrowded and small island, which is densely populated in parts. We must protect our citizens from potential health difficulties and the environment in which we live, and give some sense of control to people who increasingly feel that they have less and less control over the things that are important to them in their day-to-day lives.
3.16 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne) : It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), even if he did, in his final comments, fail to resist the temptation to adopt a party political stance. However, in view of how the debate has been conducted, perhaps we can forgive him that slight lapse.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate and on his tenacity and persistence in doing so. He has done the House a service this afternoon, and not only by providing an opportunity for a debate that, although limited geographically, has dealt with issues close to the heart of many constituencies and constituents. I have had my fair share of constituent correspondence on mobile phone masts, although not specifically on Tetra masts. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on how he set out his arguments. He was very fair.
The hon. Gentleman said that many questions need and deserve to be answered. He is right, and I shall endeavour in the time available to answer as many as I can. However, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that, despite the fact that this subject does not fall four-square in my area of Home Office ministerial responsibility, I shall pass on all the comments to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has an unavoidable commitment outside London today dating from long before the debate was fixed.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 234WH
I shall, of course, also pass on comments to other Ministers in other Departments, where appropriate. However, I do not want to avoid the responsibility to answer the debate as comprehensively as I can in the time available.
Before I discuss some detail, I want to mention the fact that there is one area of dispute between me and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on this matter, which is the weight he attaches to the results of the survey conducted in his constituency. I am sure he will accept that although it may never have been intended as a scientific survey, there are concerns about how it was conducted, which would normally affect the view someone took on its conclusions. It would serve no purpose—it would be hypercritical—to list them all, although I have them available, but as a piece of scientific work the survey is significantly flawed. However, it may not be so flawed as a measure of the views of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. To the extent that it helps us to understand our responsibilities, collectively and individually, and my ministerial responsibilities to his constituents, it is valuable. It is far from being a scientific work, however, and there were serious flaws in how those who conducted it communicated with those from whom they wished to extract the information.
The hon. Gentleman laid out the background to the issue well. Although I want to say something about Airwave and the Tetra process, I do not propose to explain to the House what the issue involves, because it seems to me that everybody who is present and has contributed to the debate has a fair idea of what is going on in producing a modern communication system for the police. However, I repeat the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) shared with the House, which is that police officers are delighted with the new system. A significant number of them use it throughout the United Kingdom.
The increased coverage provided by Airwave means, importantly, that there are no more holes in the system to endanger the safety of police officers. The system's emergency button means that they can summon help quickly and the improved clarity of signals means that they can work more effectively, efficiently and safely than with previous communication systems.
I shall give three examples of improvements. One is the view of Sussex police, who have given positive feedback on clarity, quality, coverage and freedom from interference and eavesdropping—that is important—as well as the functionality of the new system. The hon. Member for West Suffolk criticised the system by implication, saying that it is by no means state of the art and listing a series of things he claims it cannot do. I do not remember exactly what those were, but I recognise in some of them functions that I have been specifically briefed the system can do—in particular, providing access to the police national computer.
I will ensure that that list is gone through and that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members get a detailed response. I do not think that providing such a response at the moment would be the best use of my time.
Mr. Spring : I accept that the system is of value to our emergency services, but I simply note that it is not used
1 Mar 2005 : Column 235WH
in other parts of Europe, where people use a system that they feel is better. That system was not considered when Tetra was introduced in this country.
Mr. Browne : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which leads me to the first question that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked: why we are using the Tetra system and not Tetrapol, which may be the system that the hon. Member for West Suffolk is referring to? Tetrapol is, as I understand it, a French system that, if it were operated on a similar frequency band to Tetra, would require slightly fewer base stations and, consequently, slightly fewer masts. I have no expertise in the area and rely on advice. I am advised that the comparison is with a low frequency system that does not provide the same coverage or fill in the gaps in coverage that Airwave fills. I am advised also that Tetrapol would not meet the police's communication system requirements.
I have significant information about the extent to which Tetra is used throughout Europe and the rest of the world—it is used extensively—but it would not be the best use of my time to list the locations in which it is used or its geographical spread.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked why no research was done before implementation. The answer to that was partly given by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you were able to tell the House that the system was piloted in your constituency. That is correct. It is fair to say that the issues of concern to which most hon. Members devoted their attention, outwith the issue of planning, were first raised in the Stewart report of 2000. The issue of planning is a function of the concern about health, as there would be nothing like the concern about planning if there were no underlying concern about health.
All short-term issues raised by that report have been addressed and no concerns have been found. As hon. Gentlemen suggested with their request for specific research, long-term research needs a user base and monitoring over many years so as to gather enough statistics to examine whether there are even any small effects.
Mr. Maude : I appreciate that my point is not the concern of the Minister's Department, but I hope he can comment on it. He says that the short-term issues in the Stewart report have been addressed. I quoted the part of the report that said that caution should be exercised when planning a commercial mobile phone mast in residential areas or close to schools, yet caution is not being exercised. That is one short-term concern expressed in the Stewart report that has simply not been addressed.
Mr. Browne : I do not dismiss the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to this debate. He expects me to treat it seriously, and I do. I listened carefully to the concern he expressed about the Littlehampton mast, but as I understand it that is a T-Mobile mast, which I do not think can be a Tetra mast. However, I understand that he used it as an example.
Mr. Spring: It was a planning example.
Mr. Browne : Well, I am not specifically instructed about every mast—Tetra or otherwise—that there may
1 Mar 2005 : Column 236WH
be in Sussex, but I undertake to respond to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on individual masts and on the concerns that they have raised. That is the best way to deal with those concerns.
I am specifically instructed that O2 follows the planning guidelines of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot leave this debate without undertaking to address the concerns raised by hon. Gentlemen, whose accounts of events I trust, although those concerns contradict the information that I have. I can say that the ODPM will consider a revised planning process to include all masts, which is a step in the direction that hon. Gentlemen have encouraged. Currently, as we have heard, not all masts require planning. If they are new and above a certain height, however, they are required to go through the planning process.
With regard to the other suggestions about how the planning process ought to work, and whether the process ought to stop at the decision of the local authority, which appears to be the official Opposition's position on planning for mobile phone masts, I shall have to take further advice, consider the matter and respond to those who have contributed to the debate. However, I wonder whether that is precisely how the Opposition would operate were they ever faced with the responsibility of providing such a system. I wonder whether that is really what they would do: give up the opportunity for an appellate process in the planning system.
Mr. Spring : As it is only a matter of weeks before the Minister finds out exactly what will happen, may I say to him that the system would follow the same appeals process as any other planning element? I want to stress absolutely dispassionately that, at the moment, any attempt by a district council to stop or prevent the construction of a base station or transmission mast, or to have them removed, invariably fails, such is the weakness of the planning support structures for local councils. I want him to know that explicitly.
Mr. Browne : I thank the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the point that he has already made.
Mr. Spring : I want the Minister to understand it.
Mr. Browne : I do understand it. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I fully understand the point he made. I intend to consider it and draw it to the attention of the relevant ODPM Minister.
There are understandable public health concerns arising from the siting of mobile phone masts and the development of the network for mobile communication. The Government have responded in a perfectly appropriate way to the Stewart report. There was a second Stewart report at the end of last year, so when hon. Members call for a supplementary Stewart report, they should know that there already is one.
Mr. Spring : We said it should be revisited.
Mr. Browne : The hon. Gentleman may have been referring to some comments that were made in the context of the publication of that second report. All the
1 Mar 2005 : Column 237WH
report's recommendations are being taken forward and the relevant research is being conducted. Hon. Members seem to have extensive knowledge of the nature of that research, but it is appropriate that I should set out exactly what the Government's position is. In March 2004, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety updated all hon. Members by way of a letter on Tetra health and safety issues.
It is important to note that neither the Stewart report of May 2000 nor the follow-up reports of the National Radiological Protection Board in 2003 and 2005—the 2005 report being Sir William's second on the subject—nor the 2001 report of the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation concerning Tetra technology found any established evidence of any adverse effects on health from exposure to radio frequency emissions at levels within international guidelines. The Tetra system works within international guidelines.
The AGNIR report recommended eight areas for further research. The Government accepted those recommendations and have advanced them either as part of the mobile telecommunications and health research programme or in the Home Office research programme.
The comprehensive recommendations that have been referred to are further studies on the behaviour of calcium in tissues to determine the extent and significance of any effects that occur; further studies on the effects of amplitude modulation or pulsing; investigation of the possibility that modulated radio frequency fields might somehow increase the likelihood of epileptic seizures; investigation of possible
1 Mar 2005 : Column 238WH
mechanisms by which living cells might demodulate amplitude modulated RF fields; human volunteer studies, which is what hon. Members are calling for, to measure changes in cognitive performance; studies to examine working practices in conditions of exposure to RF radiation from Tetra systems; the inclusion of Tetra-based stations in Ofcom's audit of base stations; and further work on providing more information on exposure from hand portables, which are the part of the system that generates the greatest concern.
The Government contacted reputable, independent organisations to carry out that research, and I am concerned that hon. Members may have misunderstood exactly what has taken place since then. I shall spell it out carefully so that it is properly recorded. The Defence Scientific and Technological Laboratory has looked into the first three recommendations and the fifth. The Burden Neurological Institute, which is part of the MTHR programme, considered the fourth. King's college London and the university of Bradford, which is also part of the MTHR programme, considered the fifth. Imperial college London, the university of Birmingham and the university of Manchester looked at the sixth. The Radiocommunications Agency, which is now Ofcom, looked at the seventh, and Microwave Consultants Ltd. looked into the eighth.
Interim reports relating to all that work are available from the Home Office websites. Final reports are being peer reviewed for publication in the academic press and will be made available on the web as soon as they are available. Although peer review delays publication of the final report, it is an important procedure that gives credibility to the scientific process—
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Time is up.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 237WH
1 Mar 2005 : Column 239WH
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |