Mole Valley Liberal Democrats

Further to our story on phone masts, this excerpt from the debate in Parliament raises some of the more complex issues to be considered.

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD):

New clauses 3 and 4 did not arrive out of thin air for this debate. They are substantially the same provisions as those included in private Members' Bills promoted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in 2004, by me in 2005 and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 2006. Those three Bills were all talked out in one way or another, and we are close to that today, so I hope that you will agree to test the opinion of the House on those new clauses at the appropriate moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House should have an opportunity to say whether the system should be reformed. Those three Bills were supported by members of not only the three biggest parties but fourth parties, too.

We all have cases involving mobile phone masts in our in-trays. When the House previously considered the matter, the now Minister for Borders and Immigration was saying in his literature that Labour would

"do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals".

I am not sure whether that is still his view.

I want to make it clear to the Minister that the dissatisfaction is based not on party, but on hon. Members' understanding of the concerns of their communities. The problem is that telecommunications masts were exempted from planning control in 1984. The huge elephant in the room is that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer received some £30 billion for licence fees. That means that it is difficult for the Government to agree to tighten things up, because some of those people might want their money back.

There is a problem. I understand the broader national policy context. However, it cannot be right that if I wanted to erect a 15 m high conservatory I would have to apply for planning permission-I would, of course, be refused-but if I wanted to erect a 15 m high mobile phone mast, I would not need planning permission and could not be refused.

Lembit Öpik:

The difference is that although a 15 m high conservatory may be aesthetically displeasing, it does not transmit radio waves. Does my hon. Friend agree that as long as the science is still equivocal, local people have the right to expect a greater say in these matters? He may be interested in the fact that Alan Blood, one of my constituents, has written a play about the issue of radio transmission masts, which may not always be welcome in the local community.

Andrew Stunell:

My hon. Friend is reflecting a fear that many of our constituents have. I do not want to base the whole of my argument on health considerations. Let us be clear: we will get more radiation from our mobile phones than from any mast, and 60 million of us have mobile phones-so we are in a bit of trouble.

Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op):

As the hon. Gentleman said, the radiation from a mobile phone is much greater than that from a mast. On occasions, the lack of a mast can mean that there is an even greater signal in the earpiece as the phone searches for a mast to which to connect. Therefore, counter-intuitively, sometimes it would be better for there to be more masts or for masts to be closer to schools than to have increased signals as a result of that searching. Our consideration of constituents' fears has to be evidence-based.

Andrew Stunell:

That brings me neatly on to the argument put forward by Sir William Stewart in his report. He mentioned the precautionary principle and recommended that children under the age of six should not have access to mobile phones for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why my proposals in new clauses 3 and 4 refer to the need to validate what radiation is coming from masts that are close to schools, health facilities and nurseries.

There are straightforward solutions, and-this point has also been made in previous debates-this is not an attempt to shut down the mobile phone industry. The industry has 60 million users and is a very important part of our national infrastructure. However, petrol stations and supermarkets are also such a part, and they go through a planning process; it is flawed in some ways, but they nevertheless go through it. If one looks north of Hadrian's wall, one sees that the Scots have amended their planning rules so that mobile phone masts are subject to those controls. As far as I am aware, the mobile phone industry and mobile phone users in Scotland have not lost out as a result.

Mr. Clifton-Brown:

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the solution may be to encourage mobile phone companies to go on to roaming so that there could be more mast sharing? Hopefully, that would reduce the need for so many masts.

Andrew Stunell:

I am beginning to wonder whether I circulated my speech notes before the debate, because the hon. Gentleman has certainly got close to what I was going to say. One of the things that the Minister may say, if she has any time, is that mobile phone companies are very responsible and that they have 10 commitments. They are 10 commitments, but they are certainly not 10 commandments; even if they were, commandments tend to be broken quite often. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) introduced a Bill, as a Labour Member, to try to make those commitments into commandments, but he did not succeed. The phone companies have an exceptionally strong record on arrogance and oppression.

Susan Kramer:

Does my hon. Friend agree that if mobile phone masts were subject to the planning regime, the companies would be far more likely to co-operate and we would be likely to have fewer masts-and in sensible locations, without competition for separate locations?

Andrew Stunell:

I would like to think so; it is certainly true that in every realm of life, including what goes on in this building, if people have the power to do something, they go and do it-just because. That is what the phone companies sometimes do in local communities.

My case is not an attack on individual companies or on the industry; it is a straightforward case. The mobile phone industry no longer needs the start-up protection that it was given in 1984. It has 60 million customers, for goodness' sake, and 40,000 transmission stations-base stations, as they are called. We now need to reflect on the fact that our local communities need the assurance that local planning authorities and their local representatives have an effective say in how the mobile phone industry impacts on the local environment. It is surely a matter of public policy that at least a nod should be given towards the recommendations of Sir William Stewart's inquiry and the precautionary principle. The new clauses would require additional statutory assurances that where masts are close to sensitive locations they must have that validation. It would not be a ban or a moratorium but a formal process of validation of radiation levels in those places, somewhat similar to an MOT test for a car. At present, no car can go on the road unless it has type approval, but we do not see that as good enough for individual cars, which need to have MOTs.

Mr. Llwyd:

I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware of last weekend's reports in The Sunday Times of a link between the huge number of suicides in the Bridgend area and telephone masts-reports that proved to be rather interesting and frightening reading?

Andrew Stunell:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, but I would prefer not to get engaged in the point that he makes.

New clauses 3 and 4 would allow the House to bring the mobile phone industry back under public scrutiny. There can hardly be a Member in the House for whom this has not been a significant concern in their constituencies since they were elected, however long ago that was. Support for the new clauses would be a signal that we are serious about protecting and representing our local communities. They have all-party support-I was delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said on behalf of the Conservatives-and I hope that there will be an opportunity to test the view of the House later.

Mr. Clifton-Brown:

I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. Time is marching on quickly, so I just want to make one or two brief points on this large group of amendments with which the Minister dealt in great detail, which was extremely helpful to the House.

I support the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who made a cogent case, although I am not sure that he quite understood my comments. I think that it is now technologically possible, via roaming, which happens much more extensively on the continent than it does here, for more mobile phone companies to share masts, which would mean that fewer would be required. However, that does not obviate his point that we still need to bring them within the planning system and they need to have a health check before they are erected.

The debate continued on other clauses of the Planning Bill.