---

Mr. Curry: I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Lady for her support. There is huge concern throughout the country, and my view is very simple: when there is concern, the job of politicians is to try to find ways to deal with it. I hope that I have found a pragmatic way to deal with that concern.

The Bill is something of an old favourite. I plead guilty to what could be called parliamentary plagiarism: I am the third of the lone parents who have introduced such a Bill in succession. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) for beating the path along this road.

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): My right hon. Friend would be wrong to describe himself as a lone parent. This is more like the Child Support Agency: the Bill has more parents than one could possibly imagine. There is much support in the House for the Bill, so can we hope that the Minister will not talk it out?

Mr. Curry: I share that thought, although I have some caution about the analogy with the CSA, given its productivity and the Government's view of it, which is rather generally shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab): Reference has been made to three attempts to introduce such a Bill, but
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 551
 
I point out to the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that there has been a wide variety of Bills on issues relating to phone masts. I introduced one myself—it was not the same as this Bill—in an attempt to place on a statutory basis the Mobile Operators Association's code of conduct. I have reservations about parts of the Bill, but even if not through the opportunity that he is offering, the Government need to take a detailed look at the concerns about how the mobile network operators currently go about getting their planning permissions.

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree with what he says. In referring merely to what one might describe as the Bill's direct line of descent, I would not wish to exclude all its relatives.

The concern has not abated; it has increased. I could bring pantechnicons full of letters, petitions and submissions into the Chamber. Of course there will be a quota of cranks and obsessives, but a large proportion of the concern is being expressed by normal responsible citizens. There are two ways of dealing with that: by saying that the concern is uninformed, unjustified, unreasonable and plain wrong, or by saying, as politicians, that irrespective of the intrinsic validity of people's concerns, there is a problem to be dealt with and everyone benefits from our dealing with it. I have introduced such a Bill again, simply because the problem still exists.

I think that the Government share that point of view. Yesterday, by a happy coincidence, they published their review of the consultation procedures that are being carried out by the university of Reading and Arup. I read it in as much detail as I could in the time that I had, and it is a clear, concise document that expresses the concerns well. The industry shares my point of view. I met the Mobile Operators Association yesterday, and it said that there was more that the Government and industry could do. We have achieved a consensus in understanding that there is a problem to be addressed, which is the first step towards a consensual approach.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that we have had up until now is that many people who have raised concerns have felt patronised, to an extent by the mobile service providers and also, at a previous stage, by the Government? I held a one-day conference on the matter last year. In fairness, I must add that there were representatives from all the groups involved and the dialogue began to make meaningful progress, as had not happened before.

Mr. Curry: The paternity claims for these measures are spreading so rapidly that we will have to have some DNA testing at the end of the day. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people are seriously concerned that the consultation procedure is not substantive, and that what they say makes no difference. I will talk about that in a little while.

My Bill is an invitation to the industry and the Government to engage in discussion and find a better planning and consultation framework. My proposals are not prescriptive, but an invitation to negotiate. I have been a Member long enough to know that the
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 552
 
chance of Back Benchers producing Bills that meet all legislative requirements is quite small. After all, the Government cannot do that in their own Bills and it takes a great deal of amendment to get them right. This Bill would undoubtedly be little different.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I support the principles behind the Bill, although I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made it a little complex, and the problem could be dealt with rather more simply. I am particularly concerned about 3G upgrades, because no planning consent is required to upgrade existing masts. Will the Bill deal with that? Although the right hon. Gentleman claims that there is great support for his Bill among Conservative Members, I am concerned that few of them seem to be present to back him up. If there is a vote on Second Reading, has he got enough support to carry it?

Mr. Curry: If no one decided to divide the House—I have not yet found anybody who says that they are hostile to the Bill—it would be immaterial how many hon. Members were present, as with the Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will persuade the Minister to envisage precisely those circumstances. I know that he is an aficionado of Friday sittings and I welcome his interventions—although, knowing a little about his track record, I should say that the briefer they are, the more I shall welcome them.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if mobile phone companies were to come to the community early to outline their needs and plans for the next few years, the community could help to identify appropriate sites? In my community, local residents negotiated with Kew gardens to have a site identified in the gardens for all mobile phone masts in the area. That was done only after direct action that included planting palm trees in locations where masts had been planned. Those palm trees are still there, but the mobile phone companies are happy to have their masts in the campanile. However, there is no methodology for ensuring that that approach has been captured for use in the future.

Mr. Curry: I have seen some amazing sights, including masts disguised as trees representing extremely rare flora from Latin America. I agree with the hon. Lady, but I would add merely that local authorities have a responsibility too. They should have proper planning frameworks and designate people to talk to the mobile phone companies. Those people should be willing to engage in dialogue, as should local councillors. Too often councillors wait until planning applications are received, and are not alert enough during the consultation process. There is an improvement to be made across the piece.

Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the organisation Together Against Masts in Burnley and me that, for the very reason that he gives, it is essential to revoke the provisions on permitted development rights? Unless we do that, the public simply will not know where the masts are likely to be located.

Mr. Curry: My Bill does not propose to revoke permitted development rights in quite as brutal a way as
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 553
 
the hon. Lady mentions. What is important is that people should know what is happening and have a proper opportunity to make representations. When they make representations, they should be listened to. The range of considerations that a local authority takes into account should be broader than at present. There is currently a bias in the system against a local authority objecting, for reasons with which we will probably all be familiar.

Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): The right hon. Gentleman prays in aid local authorities, but does he accept that a number of them have made representations to the Government asking for a review of primary legislation?

Mr. Curry: I do accept that. Indeed, I have the representations; I have a large file dedicated to representations from local planning authorities. The representations have come from across the piece—from lobby groups, individuals, organisations and local planning authorities.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point about permitted development rights? I understand that his Bill would revoke those rights in respect of antennae, which include satellite dishes. He will know that such rights have recently been amended to reflect changes in technology and support the demand for access to digital TV and broadband. Would not some provisions in his Bill make it more difficult for people to access those digital services?

---