---

Mr. Curry: The intention of my Bill is not to hamper or burden the industry or make it less able to operate, but to try to find a mechanism whereby it can operate with the consent of the people among whom it is necessarily implanted. That is why Committee stages are valuable; they enable us to tease out unexpected or unintended consequences, and also to reinforce consequences that are intended—another reason to grant the Bill its Second Reading.

When the planning framework was put in place in the 1990s and the mobile phone industry was in its fledgling form, there was a natural concern to nurture it. The industry has been nurtured well enough to provide a quite astonishing amount of money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it has moved on. I suppose that it is now iconic; it is almost a new-age industry. It is not just an industry, but almost a culture as well. Its very pervasiveness has what has made it necessarily a much more political industry—a phrase I use with a small "p".

It is estimated that there are some 50,000 base stations in the country. One cannot get the precise figures from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but one can see the number of non-domestic hereditaments shown in the rating list, which I happen to have discovered following an assiduous search. On 31 March last year, which is almost exactly a year ago, there were 20,930 hereditaments, and I have a list that breaks down among local authority districts the number of installations in existence. Of course, some districts have more than 300 installations.
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 554
 

To understand why there is concern, we must have what le guide Michelin calls "un peu d'histoire"—a little retrospective look at the situation. There are four broad categories of mobile phone installation. I immediately declare to the Minister that in the hierarchy of anoraks, I am an extraordinarily long way from the top and very close to the bottom, so I shall not speak in extremely technical detail.

First, ground-based masts of more than 15 m in height get the full planning permission. Secondly, at the opposite end of the scale, the very small boxes—I think that they are called pico boxes—that are often masked by shop signs could well be sited every 50 m along a main road. They are governed by de minimis rules. One up from that, we have small base stations, which are up to 4 m high and might sit on top of buildings. They come under the permitted development rules. No planning permission is required but there is a range of consultation processes, depending on the site.

The most sensitive category of mast, on which much of the argument focuses, is the ground-based mast up to 15 m high. Those masts are governed by a voluntary code, under which the site is rated. It is known as the traffic light method. Sites are rated red, amber or green and the rating triggers a specific consultation process.

Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that grading is done by the company that wants to install the mast? Would not it make sense for an independent assessor to do it?

Mr. Curry: One of the concerns about the consultation process is the lack of an arbitrator or referee. Indeed, the review of the consultation procedures that the Under-Secretary has conducted suggests that there is a case for instituting an arbiter. That would cover my hon. Friend's point.

It may not be in the operator's interest to have a system of red, amber and green, because red suggests some sort of danger to most people, whereas the ratings relate to the appropriateness of the site rather than carrying a medical connotation. Perhaps it would be in everybody's interest to move to something more appropriate to the process.

Jim Dowd: The role of an arbiter or third party in assessing a site would be irrelevant, because the code of conduct has no legal force. It makes not an iota of difference whether operators choose to abide by it.

Mr. Curry: That is a good point, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point is also made in the Under-Secretary's review. There would be no point in having an arbiter if there were no rules whereby he reached his judgment. There is a problem.

Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): My constituents feel strongly about the issue. Many of them believe that red, green and amber relate to the amount of upset that the siting of a specific mast is likely to cause in the local community. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman commented on that.

Mr. Curry: I merely repeat what I just said: the system is not intended to denote upset, but it is generally
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 555
 
assumed to do that. I shall be brief, because I believe that the hon. Lady is the promoter of the next Bill. Her intervention was therefore a heroic act of self-sacrifice—but we have all sacrificed a lot today already.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I am the promoter of the next Bill but one, but I would still like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Does he agree that one unfortunate side effect of the grading system is that the same sites receive applications for more and more masts, so there is a concentration in a small area, which leads to fears and rumours—one never knows whether evidence will follow one day—about clusters of cancer cases?

Mr. Curry: I accept that, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the diversity of his interests. He can move from telephone masts to breastfeeding in one sitting.

The local authority has eight weeks to object to a mast, subject to the traffic light system. The most frequent ground for objection is amenity, because health issues are not normally considered to be a valid ground. There are weaknesses in the procedure. As we all know, local authorities are often reluctant to refuse planning applications if they believe that they will end up going through an appeal procedure, simply because of the costs of an appeal. There are problems with the timing and relevance of the consultation. People feel that they are not heard, or that if they are heard, no account is taken of their views. There is no confidence in the traffic light system and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) said, any arbiter would have no basis on which to make a judgment because compliance is voluntary.

Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): One of the concerns expressed to me by my constituents is that not only must they be vigilant about applications, but when one application is refused, another operator makes an application for the same site. My constituents consider that unfair, and even though the council may refuse the application, they feel strongly about the vigilance and time needed, and the unfairness.

Mr. Curry: I entirely agree. That is one of the major concerns that has been expressed. Of course, the concerns tend to focus on masts sited near schools and medical facilities.

Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): I had a case in which Orange wanted to site a mast right outside a school in Farnham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current legislative framework is that it allows operators to be extremely arrogant in their dealings with local residents? In that case, the response from Orange was, "If you don't want the mast outside your school, that's fine. Can you find us somewhere else to put it?" It is inappropriate for a mobile phone operator to be able to say such a thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to address that?

Mr. Curry: Indeed. Even where operators are required to issue a consultation—for example, to heads and governors of schools if they want to site a mast within range of a school—there is no control over the timing, so the consultation document can arrive on the
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 556
 
day that the school packs up for the summer holidays, and by the time school starts again, the consultation period is almost over. Again, that is a loophole that sensible measures could put right.

I accept that there is no present evidence of harm. Sir William Stewart's report in 2001, which was updated in 2004, spells that out, but I have been around long enough to know that politicians and scientists can offer only current evidence. They do not deal in certainties or guarantees. The public increasingly ask for certainty and guarantees, and risk is a much more difficult political issue now than it was a generation ago. Having been at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the BSE crisis, I am familiar with the way in which that may work out in practice.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is this not a key point? The fact that there is no current evidence of harm does not mean that there is evidence of no harm. That is a very different issue, and we surely need to follow the precautionary principle, as the Stewart report suggests.

---