| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ellwood: How does striking the right balance affect one village in Bournemouth, where a population of 50 to 60 is made to have five mobile phone masts from five different companies?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I acknowledge that there are anomalies around the country and I hope to consider the detail of protection and improvements to procedures that relate to planning controls and consultation arrangements for local communities later. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient for a little because I want to deal with the impact on health.
First, let me assure hon. Members that the Government take seriously the need to protect the public from health risks. Indeed, we have spent considerable amounts of time and money on researching whether mobile phone technologies present a genuine health risk. Approximately 25,000 articles have been published in the past 30 years about the biological effects and medical applications of non-ionising radiation. Scientific knowledge about the matter is arguably more extensive than for most chemicals.
In the United Kingdom, we have held two major reviews of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence for health effects due to exposure to radio-frequency transmissions, including those associated with mobile telephone handsets and base stations.
The first report was published in 2000 by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and is commonly known as the Stewart report. It concluded that
"the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines."
However, the Government acknowledge that it also said
"that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to radiofrequency radiation even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) referred to that.
3 Mar 2006 : Column 574
Part of the precautionary approach recommended by the group was the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiological Protection— ICNIRP—guidelines for public exposure. The Government have introduced standards to ensure that all base stations meet those guidelines, which are five times tougher about public exposure than the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines, which were used previously. Those guidelines are adopted in the majority of other countries in the European Union.
The second major review of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence was undertaken by the then National Radiological Protection Board advisory group on non-ionising radiation and was published in January 2004. That report fulfils the recommendation of the first Stewart report that the issue should be reviewed in three years. It also concluded:
"Exposure levels from living near to mobile base stations are extremely low and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health".
Seventeen similar reviews have been conducted internationally. They were undertaken by organisations such as France's Commission for Consumer Safety, the Health Council of the Netherlands, the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, the ICNIRP and the World Health Organisation. They all concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any adverse health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields.
The Government are not complacent, however, and we have established the mobile telephone health research—MTHR—programme, which is costing around £8.8 million and is funded jointly by Government and industry. The programme is being directed and overseen by an independent management committee led by Professor Lawrie Challis OBE and is made up of leading UK and international experts. It is carrying out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health and encompasses emerging radio-based technologies. The process will ensure that Government and the public are kept up to date with new research findings.
The programme management committee has been responsible for the selection of proposals to be funded. The programme is funding only research of the highest quality that meets the research requirements suggested by the World Health Organisation and follows its criteria for good laboratory practice. It fits with similar work done in other countries and with the EU framework projects in this area. The programme has funded 25 projects so far.
Work already funded by the programme includes studies of mobile phone users to investigate whether the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing brain cancer or leukaemia, studies investigating the effects of mobile phone signals on brain function and the behaviour of exposed people, studies examining how mobile phone signals could produce biological effects as evidenced by changes in exposed cells, and a study investigating ways in which mobile phones affect the performance of drivers.
On 20 March 2003 the MTHR programme announced the first proposal to be supported, which is concerned with mobile phone base stations and is one of
3 Mar 2006 : Column 575
the first such studies in the world. The epidemiological study addresses public concerns about possible health risks from exposure to emissions from base stations. The study was selected in recognition of the public concern about the proliferation of mobile phone masts, and of the need for research to investigate whether they could have health effects. The study will also investigate whether people may differ in their sensitivity to radio-frequency emissions.
I shall not go into further detail about health issues now, since those will come up again as I go through the clauses of the Bill. However, I stress that the Government are not complacent. We are committed to keeping the mobile phone technologies under review. In the light of such studies and international research programmes, I can assure the House that if the scientific advice changes, the Government will act.
Mr. Hunt: The Minister said that the Government are not complacent and are keeping the health issues under review. Will he therefore confirm that the Government's decision not to support the Bill is not the result of any deal with mobile phone operators to keep their exemptions from planning requirements in return for the large amounts that they paid for 3G licences?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I can wholly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. If I get the opportunity later, I shall deal with previous allegations of deals between Government and mobile phone operators. We have evidence to demonstrate that that is a scurrilous allegation and totally without foundation. We are working with the mobile operators. As the right hon. Gentleman said, having had a meeting with them this week, the operators acknowledge that there is a gap and that progress can be made, and they are keen to co-operate. I hope that is adequate reassurance for the hon. Gentleman that no skulduggery is going on in any way, shape or form.
Let me set out the Government's record in terms of the planning regime and managing the environmental impacts of communications developments. The Government have strengthened the planning regulations twice, in 1999 and in 2001. In 2001 the regulations for prior approval were strengthened so that in effect they are very similar to the arrangements for full planning permission. The current planning arrangements have therefore been given very careful consideration.
The Stewart report on mobile phones and health published in 2000 recommended that telecommunication development should be subject to the normal planning process in order to improve local consultation. The Government considered that recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation takes place.
As a result, the changes in 2001 significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for such developments. We increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56. Public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures were strengthened so that they became exactly the same as those for applications for planning permission. Fees were increased from £35 to £190 to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
3 Mar 2006 : Column 576
Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as applications for planning permission. Therefore, we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission. The Government have also published revised planning policy guidance, which provides more information on their expectations for standards of consultation with local communities on new communications developments, particularly where the development would be near a school.
In November 2002, we also published the code of best practice on mobile phone network development. The code was produced jointly by central Government and local government and the mobile phone industry. It provides detailed guidance on consultation procedures between operators, local authorities and local people. The Government attach great importance to securing good design in development generally and the code's advice on good siting and design of new communications developments has helped to direct development to the most appropriate locations and to minimise environmental impact and visual intrusion.
Mention has already been made by right hon. and hon. Members of the review that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government commissioned the university of Reading and Arup to undertake in September 2004. Their independent study was designed to assess the impact that the code of best practice on mobile phone network development has had since its introduction, how local authorities have implemented the code and how the public perceive its operation.
The review was completed in March last year. The ODPM is considering the findings and recommendations set out in the report and how we should take them forward within the context of the wider review of planning arrangements for telecommunications developments. We took a decision to publish the report this week to inform today's debate, which has been mentioned by several colleagues.
Before I talk about the content, I want to address some criticisms that have been made of the Government's handling of the report. The review was carried out in consultation with stakeholders, and representatives from local authorities, the industry and Mast Action UK were on the steering group. Its conclusions were reasonably widely known.
Those Members who have had the opportunity to read the report will have seen that it is not negative; it is balanced. The general conclusion is that, where the code works, it works well, but that there is room for improvement, which is where the recommendations focus. That is where the Government will be focusing their attention.
We are keen to ensure that every community that is affected by a development proposal for a telecommunications apparatus can be assured that it will have the opportunity to comment and that the decision-making process is open, fair and consistent.
Allegations have been made:
3 Mar 2006 : Column 577
"By not publishing the report the Government is allowing telecommunications companies to continue to erect phone masts while openly flouting Government guidelines and codes of best practice and ignoring the wishes of local communities affected by masts."
That is simply not true. I have already outlined how the Government have, since 1997, twice strengthened the consultation requirements to ensure that local communities have an opportunity to express their views on telecommunications developments. Although there has been considerable improvement, the Government think there is still more to do. I can assure the House that we are looking at this issue closely and will continue to do so to determine the best way forward. The recommendations of the report will assist in that process.
Another allegation that has been made is that the £22 billion paid for third generation licences put the Government under an obligation to let the industry do what it wants. That is ridiculous, as I said a few moments ago in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). The licences were auctioned in April 2000. In August 2000, the Government strengthened the planning regulations, and if we decide we need to strengthen the regulations further, we will.
The rate of development of new base stations is determined by the industry and influenced by licence requirements and market forces. The rate of development has slowed now that 2G networks are rolled out. The licence requirement for 3G networks has to be met by the end of 2007, but clearly development will not stop then as demand continues to grow.
The Government recognise that this issue will not go away. That is why it is so critical that any changes we make to the planning arrangements are effective and proportionate in the longer term.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 March.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |