---

Lord Taverne: My Lords, in order to dispel the widespread myths about the risks from phone masts, will the Government consider making available to editors of newspapers and television producers the evidence of actual incidence of cancer among children living near those masts and a control group far removed from them? Does the Minister not agree that, whatever the evidence about the effect on and risk to health of mobile phones, the risk from masts is infinitely less, because the intensity of radiation is hugely diluted?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is much detailed research matter in the public domain. We try to make publicly available what research findings there are and it is open to editors to make proactive use of them. The noble Lord is right to say that the risks are very low.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Government ask the police and/or Network Rail to share their mast sites with other providers? That would mean that there could be fewer sites and the danger, whatever it was, could be lessened.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She makes a very good point and we will pass on her suggestion.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the fact that planning applications for mobile phone masts are increasingly not just the subject of planning appeals but are going to the High Court suggests that the guidance is not as clear as the Minister suggests and currently meets neither the aspirations of local ommunities nor the strategic objectives of telecommunications companies.
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 657
 
Does the noble Lord not agree that the time has come to revise the guidance to make it much clearer and easier to interpret?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there will of course be some revision of the guidance, because the planning policy guidance process is turning into a different form of planning guidance. There have been recent reviews of PPG8 and I understand that it is widely understood. The problem is that local residents sometimes do not like what they hear; one has to be realistic about that. The noble Baroness makes a point about the number of appeals. It is certainly true that there was a large increase in appeals and in the quantity of written representations on planning applications. Thankfully, that appears to have peaked and may well now be tailing off, but it is of course open to local political activists to stir up such issues. It is in their interests to do so; one can well understand that.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is not much of the concern about the tetramasts, which I understand are used by the police and other services? Is there not some indication that low level sound waves affect brain cells and that the people—the parents—who are expressing their concerns about children are probably quite right to do so?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not inclined to agree with the first point of the noble Countess, but I can certainly understand parents being concerned about health issues. It is understandable that where a newly emerging technology is developing as fast as this one is, parents express those important concerns volubly and powerfully in their local communities.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is not possible for a planning committee—I declare my interest as a member of one—to take health considerations into account in considering those applications?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, basically, the noble Baroness is right: the local planning authority must deal with the facts of the planning issues in front of it, but the planning process is of course often used to express other views.

Drug Tests: Drivers

Lord Luke: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is unable to be present today to ask his Question. On his behalf, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:

How many individuals have been prosecuted and convicted following roadside drug tests since the introduction of such tests.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to drive or attempt to
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 658
 
drive while unfit through drink or drugs. Historically, statistics have not differentiated according to the cause of impairment. New sub-classifications, introduced on 1 January 2004, will make such a differentiation possible, so identifying the number of offences involving drugs. The 2004 figures are expected to be available in autumn 2005.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is not the only way to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol effective road-traffic policing? Does she agree with me that the 11 per cent fall in the number of road traffic police officers since 1996 and their apparent replacement by speed cameras means that perpetrators are less likely to be apprehended?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, unfortunately, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. Of course we have taken advantage of new technology to make accurate detection easier. That has been possible using the technology, which has appeared to enhance our ability to bring offenders to justice.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the breathalyser is the accepted means of checking whether people are over the limit for drink offences. What is the equivalent for drugs, and which types of drugs can it detect? Is it as accurate as the breathalyser has now become?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a clear difference between the test for drink and the drug test. Noble Lords will know that in drink testing one must be over a prescribed limit. It is a different offence from that with which we are currently dealing. The test for drugs can identify only whether the drug is present in the body. It does not identify the level at which the drug is to be found. That can be done only by more specific analysis. The nature of the individual's driving must then be observed to understand whether the drug has made that person unfit to drive.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is there adequate provision to monitor roadside drug testing to ensure that it does not adversely affect one particular racial group, as is the case with stop-and-search legislation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, roadside testing will be done in a proper manner. I understand the point made by the noble Lord. However, there will usually be some indication of impaired driving, which would cause the person to be stopped, at which stage there would be an examination. I take on board the sensitivity that the noble Lord has expressed. I assure him that we will be assiduous in ensuring that there is parity of treatment of all who are so stopped.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that her answer to her noble friend suggests that, in detecting and prosecuting those driving under the influence of drugs, we are back where we were in relation to alcohol offences before the introduction of
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 659
 
the breathalyser, and that that means that very few people will be convicted of driving while unfit through drugs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that that is our position. The noble Lord should know that we are developing more sophisticated testing. The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 introduced to the Road Traffic Act 1988 improved powers to test at the roadside for both drink and drugs. Those powers allow the police to require motorists to undertake at the roadside preliminary impairment tests and preliminary drug tests. The preliminary impairment tests require a trained officer to observe a suspect in the performance of specified tests and to make such other observations about that person's physical state. Legislation requires a code of practice which will specify exactly how tests must be undertaken. The combination of those two and the fact that we are developing very sophisticated tests that can be used at the roadside means that we are a long way from where we were and far down the road of proper intervention.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the road traffic fatality rate has remained more or less static over the past five years?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we cannot say why the rate has remained static; perhaps we should rejoice that it has not gone up. Noble Lords will know that, until fairly recently, the numbers were going up and up. I hope that we will be able to celebrate the fact that we can contain them and, it is to be hoped, drive them downwards.

---