---

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The problem with the TETRA masts is
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 562
 
that they are new. To some extent, we have learned to live with whatever is coming out of the previous generations of masts and become a little more familiar with them, but the new TETRA networks are an increasing concern. Those concerns could be met—indeed, the industry says that they will be met very easily—by stating specific precautionary principles in the Bill.

It is generally said—I was interested in what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said—that the Bill could be simplified, strengthened and generally improved. I am happy to believe that all those things are true, but none will happen unless it receives a Second Reading. I urge the House to allow that so that the matter may be discussed further, our constituents' concerns may be properly addressed and the interests and anxieties of many hon. Members may be dealt with.

1.34 pm

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I would like to draw the House's attention to the Christmas-tree effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, what do we do where there is legitimate permission for a mast? I refer to one in my constituency on Bigyn hill, which was erected in the early 1960s for police use. That mast has begun to look like a Christmas tree whose loving tenders have bought an enormous number of decorations. One apparatus after another is tagged on, with each adding to the grotesque look of the mast and to the immense concern of the parents of children at the primary school just underneath it. The Bill could deal not only with the masts themselves but with the additional equipment that is tagged on to them.

The second issue that concerns me is how on earth these companies can pick a very densely populated urban area such as Dafen in my constituency and suggest putting up a mast there, right next to Prince Philip hospital, when there are wide open spaces not far away. The people who will be affected in their homes, schools and hospitals must be taken into consideration so that companies do not pick such areas when there are clearly alternatives.

We are all—let us be honest—users of mobile phones. We all need and want the technology, and it would be hypocritical to say that we do not. However, there are alternatives to sticking masts right in the middle of places that are full of people living and working as opposed to emptier areas. We must make that message extremely clear. Masts are clearly being deliberately put in places that are unsuitable when there are more suitable places available. I ask the Minister to give serious thought to the multiple use of masts and to the initial consideration of planning applications.

1.36 pm

Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): I rise to speak in strong support of the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on presenting it to us. His speech was rational, reasonable and effective. The cross-party support that the Bill has received is very encouraging. This is the third or fourth occasion on which such a measure has been before the House, and it is a pity that we have not made a great deal of progress to date. I hope that the Minister, who is a reasonable
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 563
 
man and is listening hard, will take on board the view shared by many of us that it would be good for the Bill to go into Committee so that these matters can be discussed at greater length and in greater detail. As we have heard, this issue concerns many of our constituents.

Of course, we all use mobile phones. Like my right hon. Friend, I am rather challenged when it comes to some aspects of technology, and I came rather late to using mobile phones, but they are absolutely vital to the work that we do and the lives that we lead. However, technological developments always have consequences. These masts are not only an eyesore and a nuisance but a potential health risk.

I want to highlight the situation of residents who are constantly battling with mobile phone operators who keep applying for an opportunity to have a mobile phone mast in an area close to residential properties. When one operator has been refused, another comes along and goes through the same procedure. In parts of my constituency, including Iris avenue, West Heath road and Woolwich road, people have had two or three different operators make the same application once one has been rejected. That creates worry for residents and means that they have to give up a lot of their time in being vigilant and ensuring that they are on the ball as regards what is going on. Often they do not receive notification from the phone company or the local authority because the consultation has taken place in such a narrow area that they are just outside it. I welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives us to discuss how we could make masts subject to the full planning application.

This morning, I met Alan Eaton and the Orange Squash Group, who got together a petition of 750 local residents in the northern part of my constituency. They support the Bill, and I urge Members to enable consideration of it in Committee, so that their concerns about locating such masts in the vicinity of schools or other sensitive sites can be aired, we can establish a new modus operandi and everyone can be happy with where these masts are being located.

I accept that the health issue, which many of us are concerned about, is a very difficult one. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), reports from Sweden and elsewhere show that the location of such masts does give rise to serious health concerns. The danger to health remains unproven, but the fear of those who feel that they and their families will be affected in the long term by the locating of masts near to their schools and homes is very real.

Dr. Pugh : There is also the unresolved issue of electro-sensitivity: in other words, even though there may be no effect on people in general in a given area, individuals could be substantially affected by something that does not affect the majority.

Mr. Evennett: I am very grateful for that intervention and I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman says; it is important to bear in mind that such problems could be specific, rather than general.

Many of the mobile phone masts in Bexley could have been located more sensitively, away from schools, hospitals, old people's homes and residential areas. We
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 564
 
urge phone companies to locate them away from such areas, but so far, we have been spectacularly unsuccessful, even though there are plenty of open spaces—motorways, for example—that might be more appropriate locations.

Mr. Hunt: I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that some residents are concerned about the effect on property prices of placing mobile phone masts in residential areas, and that many such fears could be allayed if mobile phone companies had to go through the proper consultation process that the Bill requires? A resident in my constituency, in consultation with an estate agent, has estimated that erecting just one mobile phone mast in his area would impact on property prices to the tune of some £1 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another reason why we should support the Bill?

Mr. Evennett: That is a very fair and important point and it is another reason why the Bill should proceed to Committee.

This is a worthwhile Bill and it deserves further consideration and discussion. We hear all too often that politicians do not listen to their constituents, but today we have found cross-party support for action on this issue. This is an opportunity for us to take on board our constituents' concerns and to do something about them. I very much hope that when the Minister winds up, he will agree that we should proceed along these lines, have further discussions and support my right hon. Friend's Bill this afternoon.

1.43 pm

Ms Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab): I, too, want to begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for introducing this Bill, which deals with an area of planning policy that is challenging to policy makers and is important to many people. The issues to which the placement of mobile phone masts gives rise are significant to many people, and particularly to those in my Hove and Portslade community. I have received a lot of correspondence on this subject, and I have been approached in person by many concerned residents and been made aware of a number of local campaigns. Several forums have recently been held, at which all the stakeholders involved—members of the local authority, residents and representatives of the telecommunications industry—engaged in reasonable debate. As would be expected, the meetings rarely reach a consensus, but they are highly productive. The educative value of the meetings has led to more informed debate on the subject in my constituency. During the election campaign, I also made a commitment to the people of Hove and Portslade to investigate the concerns about mobile phone masts and to act on them when appropriate. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so today.

In 2002, the Government, in conjunction with the mobile phone industry, pledged £7.4 million for research into the safety of mobile phones. I am pleased also that the Government continue to remain committed to investing resources into examining the impact of mobile phone technology on our everyday lives. Ministers are also committed to reviewing current planning procedure for mobile phone masts—a policy
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 565
 
that I wholeheartedly support. I applaud right hon. and hon. Members for taking seriously the concerns of our constituents about the issue and I am satisfied that public health remains paramount in the consideration of any current or future policy.

However, given the regulatory framework on the placing of telephone masts, the public still have cause for confusion and concern. That is clearly supported by the continued presence of the issue at the top of many people's local agenda, as many hon. Members are well aware. Indeed, the interesting article written recently by the right hon. Gentleman for his local paper confirms that that is true for Members on both sides of the House. For example, there is a consensus among the scientific community that mobile phone emissions pose no direct health risk to users of phones or those situated near masts, but masts are no longer situated near schools on the recommendation of the Stewart report. If the Government believe the Stewart report evidence that phone masts pose no threat to public health, why recommend such a measure? Such contradictions have fostered hostility towards phone masts in the general public, who sense uncertainty among policy makers on the issue.

It is understandable that concerned constituents, many of whom have young children, seek clarity and reassurance on the issue. It is important that we are able to work together across the House to reach the clarity and consensus that is needed on the matter. Mobile phones have undoubtedly become an essential part of everyday life. It is important that we are able to strike a balance between the needs of many to use mobile phones and the suspected potential health concerns for some of our constituents.

During my surgeries, many constituents have raised the issue of the need for the further installation of the more powerful 3G telephone masts, which has formed part of the debate today. Again, it is a question of balance. One possible solution to the problem is the suggestion that the number of mobile phone relay stations could be reduced by having mobile phone companies share potential installation sites. I am pleased that the Government are looking at that option further as it would greatly reduce the need for other mast sites throughout the country.

The other area that should be investigated before any further legislation is made is the point at which perception of risk to general health translates into actual damage to health caused by the stress of the installation of a telecommunications mast in the vicinity of people's homes or schools. It is not sufficient to say that such effects are merely subjective, and I encourage the Government to consider the effects that constant stress can have on a family with young children. As a mother myself, I understand the concerns that other parents may have about the health of their families. However, that is not to say that my constituents do not understand the ever-growing need for mobile technology in our day-to-day life.

My constituents are understandably concerned when scientific reports recommend restricted phone use by younger children. My constituents do not believe that such recommendations tally with the telecommunications industry assertion that there is
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 566
 
nothing to fear from the emissions caused by masts. My constituents' concern is that the scientific evidence gathered so far is not conclusive. Although the Stewart report stated that there was no threat to health, the recommendation that installation sites should not be near schools sends parents a contradictory message. Many of my constituents conclude that if it is not recommended that mobile phone masts be installed near a school, it should not be acceptable for such a mast to be erected in a residential street where many young children live. Whether or not there is a scientifically accurate basis for not installing mobile phone masts near schools, it is on that apparent contradiction that many of my constituents have formulated their stance on the issue.

The report has continued to cause much stress and anxiety, which could in certain instances lead to tangible medical conditions. Constituents' concerns are real and deep-felt and cause genuine distress to all those affected. As legislators, it is our obligation to take their worries into consideration, and I am pleased that Labour-led Brighton and Hove city council has always given high priority to the concerns of local residents.

I am also greatly encouraged by the Government's continued commitment to that field of research following publication of the Stewart report—the most comprehensive study to be commissioned by any Government in the developed world. The report states that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge about mobile phones, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister and the mobile phone industry to continue their commitment to pursue an active and forward-looking programme of research to seek answers to those gaps in our knowledge.

On 3G telephone mast installation, I recommend that we err on the side of caution, especially when children are concerned. We already know that our children are more susceptible than adults to the effects of mobile phone emissions. It is, therefore, reasonable that we take a more considered approach to the further installation of the new generation of more powerful 3G telephone masts.

I am eager not to take up too much time, as other Members want to speak, but I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise my concerns on this most important of issues. The health of our children should be brought more to the fore, as it transcends the boundaries of party politics. As their elected representatives, it is important that we maintain a dialogue with our constituents and that the results of further scientific studies are made more easily accessible to those who are affected the most.

Again, I highlight my appreciation for the Government's continued commitment to examining the health concerns of those affected by mobile phone masts, and I once more express my appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating this timely debate.

1.52 pm

---