---

Mr. Curry: It is crucial that we understand what the Stewart report recommended. I have taken from the website—a technological feat in its own right, as far as I am concerned—the summary of the Stewart report from the National Radiological Protection Board. It recommends, for example, that

"particular attention be given to how best to minimise exposure of potentially vulnerable sub-groups such as children and to consider the possibility that there may be other sub-groups who may be particularly sensitive to radiowaves"

and calls for a continuing programme of research.

I recognise that Sir William Stewart's report was on a much wider subject than masts, but he stated:

"The fact is that the widespread use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon and it is possible that adverse health effects could emerge after years of prolonged use. The evidence base necessary to allow us to make firm judgements has not yet been accumulated. What we can say is that there is as yet no hard evidence of adverse health effects on the general public, but because of the current uncertainties we recommend a continued precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies. This approach should be adopted by all involved in this area—including government, the mobile phone industry and all who choose to purchase a mobile phone for themselves, or their family, or their children".

What he is saying, which is entirely sensible, is that a case cannot be stacked up on health grounds, but sane people realise that that situation may not be permanent and we should build into our provision the possibility that that advice may change.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): Is my right hon. Friend aware, given his European interests, that there has been research in both Germany and Sweden relevant to this matter, which shows instances giving rise to concern?

Mr. Curry: I am aware of that, which is why the evidence is a moving phenomenon, not fixed. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—one of the large delegation from Hampshire present today—said, the precautionary principle is the right one to apply. The Government are constantly applying the precautionary
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 557
 
principle in a range of areas—in, for example, bioengineering plant and food technology, at both the European and the national level.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for his Bill. Will he confirm that the regime he is promoting for England is already up and running in other parts of the UK, such as Scotland and Northern Ireland? The infant that he seeks to produce for England is already an active toddler elsewhere.

Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth, and it is perfectly possible to reform or modernise the rules without either the intention or the consequence of damaging the industry. Scotland requires full planning permission for the ground-based masts under 15 m, and there is a debate in Wales on which way to go. Indeed, in July 2004 the Scottish Executive commissioned from the university of Dundee a study entitled "Evaluation of Revised Planning Controls Over Telecommunications Development" on the consequences of the changes in Scotland.

I shall not quote from that study, but it states that the strengthening of the planning rules has been no impediment to the mobile phone operators, nor has it caused a burden for Scottish councils that they have not been able to discharge. It is right that within the quasi-federal system in the UK, different policies are being applied in all manner of regions across the country.

The Bill has three core provisions, which are familiar and inherited from the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. That, I think, was put together with a great deal of help from the technical expertise available in the House. The provisions are the precautionary principle, which must accompany the planning applications; the identification of the area and the range of the beam of the greatest intensity, as well as the characteristics of that beam, which then become part of the planning consideration; and the ability of local authorities to remove masts on land used for medical or educational purposes without compensation.

I repeat to the Minister that the Bill represents an invitation to negotiate and engage. We have a common interest in putting to rest vexations and persistent grievances. I know he will agree that we need a process of identification and analysis, followed by the addressing of the issues before us. His consultation document has started that process.

The Minister could stand up and say, "We've got it under control. We've had the consultation and the document has been published. We envisage new guidance and we'll consult on that. Then we will have dealt with the issue." I would say that there is a deep suspicion over this, which is not healthy. We need to proceed in such a transparent way that the industry feels its future is secure, and the constant local guerrilla wars no longer have to be fought. The public must not feel threatened, intimidated or taken advantage of. Local authorities must not feel overburdened.

The best way to achieve all that is through the traditional procedure of taking the Bill into Committee and being open in the negotiations, to try to achieve
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 558
 
what the Minister and I both want. At the end of the day, he and I will have a great deal less traffic from my constituents about concerns that I know are very real to them. Also, the industry will not feel that it is guilty of some local trespass all the time.

Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the all-party group on mobile communications, but I understand that the Bill is largely the result of a report from that group. I further understand that the group was criticised in the press last week as being misused by lobbying organisations. Does he share my fear that the concerns he has outlined, which are shared by all our constituents, are being misused by organisations that simply want to promote alternative forms of communication?

Mr. Curry: That may or may not be the case. I do not belong to the group; I feared that there might be a technical entry qualification, which I would be bound to fail, so I stood outside it.

My concern is simply that we should sort out the problem in a way that lets everybody see that it has been sorted out—clearly and openly. We would all be a great deal more comfortable as a result, whether we are trying to make the industry work or whether we want to feel that our home is not being threatened in any way. Colleagues across the House would then increasingly feel able to concentrate on the easy issues in their constituency burden, such as the future of the Child Support Agency or the Government's tax credits system, which are already taking up a great deal of our time. In that spirit, I commend this measure to the House.

1.19 pm

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on introducing his Bill. He will be pleased to hear that I support it, so I do not intend to speak at great length. I want to find out about one or two points, however, because this subject is a major issue in my constituency.

I have been checking my records, and I see that in the past 12 months, in one ward in my constituency, Mill Hill, and in its immediate neighbouring planning districts, there have been 14 different applications and issues relating to mobile phone masts. Orange is probably the main culprit, closely followed by T-Mobile and Vodafone. They seem to try to wear down communities and their opposition—and local authority planning departments—through repeat applications and continuing appeals. Something must be done about it. There was even an application for a mobile phone mast to go on top of Barnet hospital, which, I am pleased to say, the hospital authorities came to their senses about and decided not to allow.

The worst case involved a mast upgrade, which does not need consent, for Copthall school. The application was to put a 3G mast on the roof of the school, and there seems little that the school can do about it other than negotiate. To put the matter in context, I have a pile of correspondence about that one mast—not objections, but merely correspondence between the council, school
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 559
 
and mobile phone company. We must find ways of dealing with the matter other than hoping for good will from the mobile phone companies.

There is a general problem with 3G upgrades, which has led to the huge upsurge in applications. The issue first arose several years ago with the previous generation of mobile phone masts, and then it went quiet. Suddenly, it has become a major issue all over again.

---