HC Deb 18 January 1999 vol 323 cc680-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

10.25 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This Adjournment debate, for which I am extremely grateful, gives me an opportunity to recognise the efforts of a group of Castle Hill residents in my constituency. For some 30 days, they took part in what is known locally as the seige of Whinney lane, to prevent Orange Communications plc erecting a new telecommunications mast. They were protesting not simply about a mast that spoils their environment, although that is precisely what it does, but about a planning and public health system that had let them down.

Permission for the mast had been gained using permitted development rights. There was no site notice, no public consultation, and not even consultation with locally elected councillors. The first local residents knew that something was about to happen was when a bulldozer ripped out a listed hedgerow and began work on the site. Is that an isolated experience? No, it has been replicated throughout the United Kingdom. At Stormont recently, I shared similar experiences with residents of Northern Ireland.

If hon. Members want to discover the extent of the concern about legislation governing the erection of telecommunications masts, they need look no further than their own experiences in the House. Since 1 May 1997, 88 written questions on the issue have been tabled to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and three Adjournment debates and three early-day motions, which have attracted 91 signatures so far, have focused on the matter. In addition, the DETR has completed one consultation paper, "Telecommunications Development Control", and launched another in conjunction with the Department of Health.

I should make it clear to the Minister that I recognise that the current legislation and, indeed, current policy guidelines, were in place prior to 1997. I am not therefore trying to make any party political point. Nor do I seek to undermine the telecommunications industry, whose technological developments are essential to modern communications.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I alerted to my wish to make the point that permitted development rights have come up in Adjournment debates before, with respect to Railtrack. Perhaps the Government need to take a wider view on whether they should reform the right of private companies to use such wide-ranging rights, certainly given my experience of problems in Radley road in Abingdon and Bagley Wood road in Kennington, where green-belt planning decisions in the latter case and good neighbourliness have been overridden.

Mr. Willis

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his broad consensus on permitted development rights.

It is my belief that planning policy, especially the use of part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, is weighted too much in favour of the industry and not of the environment and public health. The proposed guidance announced on 16 November, which extends consultation from 28 to 42 days, is still inadequate. I hope that I can persuade him to think again. It is interesting that his proposal to extend the consultation period has been warmly welcomed by the industry but not by any environmental or public health group.

Although I do not want to be alarmist, I hope that the Minister agrees that neither his Department nor the Department of Health can categorically state that telecommunications masts and mobile phones do not pose a threat to public health.

Mr. Andrew Reed (Loughborough)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the case in Shepshed in my constituency, where a telecommunications mast is only about 25 m away from the rear of a series of properties. Does he agree that, even if there is no proven case either way, the perception at this stage—fear of the long-term implications and health fears regarding telecommunications masts—needs to be taken into account in legislation?

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Quite often, the fear—a fear of something that has not been proven one way or another—causes a great deal of concern and stress.

Ms Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

I know of a similar instance in my constituency. What concerns me—I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares this concern—is the fact, which has been brought to my attention, that the National Radiological Protection Board is becoming increasingly isolated in its approach to the levels of radiation to which it is prepared to allow the public to be exposed. In some instances, that level is seven times greater than the level suggested by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. Does he agree that it is especially worrying that, apparently, the consultants employed by the NRPB are also employed by the telecommunications industry, notably Orange, and that that is a matter of general, desperate, concern on public health grounds?

Mr. Willis

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for describing me as her hon. Friend; I hope that I am that in this matter, because I believe that the issue unites hon. Members throughout the House. I believe that there is general concern that some of the organisations that we expect to protect us and give us advice are in dispute with one another, and that the industry often uses them to support its case when making planning applications—although I do not believe that the latter is necessarily a bad thing, provided that the rules are clear and above board at the start of the process. I shall return to that subject.

After recent findings on smoking, passive smoking, asbestos and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, any Minister would be foolish to rule out the possibility of a health risk. However, I equally accept that it is almost impossible to prove that telecommunication masts are safe. The Government's task is to assess the degree of risk to the public. The potential risk from telecommunication masts forms the basis of the argument that I shall make tonight for a change in the law.

To date, much research has been conducted on the thermal effects of microwaves as part of the electromagnetic spectrum. There is proof that, at sufficient power and frequency, such waves can cause damage at the tissue, cell and molecular levels. However, although evidence exists to suggest that the public are relatively safe from the thermal effects of electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency used by mobile phone operators, there is insufficient evidence to calculate the level of risk from biological effects.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Willis

I will, for the last time.

Mr. Stunell

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry to trespass on his time; I shall do so only briefly. I draw his attention to the situation in my constituency where, overnight, a mast was erected in a back yard overlooking 25 terraced houses. The transmitting antennae are less than 50 ft from the nearest bedroom window. The mast is an eyesore and—more to the point—it raises serious health concerns. I very strongly support the plea that he brings to the House tonight.

Mr. Willis

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is general guidance that, in the United Kingdom, masts should be sited 150 m from residential properties, but that guidance is being openly flouted in the desire to put up masts and fight off the competition. It is a real issue, which I believe the Government must address.

I was speaking about the biological effects of microwaves, especially radio frequency waves at the very low frequencies used in mobile phones and transmissions from mobile telecommunications masts. Increasing evidence suggests that low-frequency magnetic fields and low-frequency microwave radiation arise from the constantly pulsating signal of mobile phone masts, and that their proximity to electromagnetic fields encountered naturally causes potential biological damage. So concerned are countries worldwide—including the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden and, of course, the European Union—that the World Health Organisation has set up an in-depth study into the biological effects of low-frequency microwaves. I am pleased that the UK Government have supported the research enthusiastically and are among its leading supporters across the world. So far, research using animals to assess the biological effects has demonstrated cell stress, enzyme activity, genetic effects, gene transcription and hormone production. The biological changes seen in cells, tissues and organisms are similar to changes seen in degenerative diseases such as cancer, leukaemia, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

Dr. Michael Repacholi of the World Health Organisation, a leading expert in the field, and Dr. Russell of the US Food and Drugs Administration, said at a conference in Dublin on 6 March 1998 that until the current WHO research is complete, "the jury is out" on the health risks from low-level electromagnetic fields.

Henry Lai, the research professor in bioengineering at the university of Washington, another leading research figure, stated in a recent letter to Halsey Meyer Higgins, a major London law firm currently involved in litigation over the health issue: People who live close to masts are constantly being exposed to the radiation for months or years. Even though the level is low it would matter if the effects of RFR turn out to be cumulative. Small doses cumulate over a long period of time and will eventually lead to harmful effects. That is the view of the world's leading expert.

In a press release issued by the WHO in December 1997, in which it announced the research project into EMF exposure, Dr. Paul Kleihues, director of WHO's international agency for research on cancer, stated: With an estimated 15 million new cancer cases each year by the year 2020, we must know if exposure to EMF is contributing to any significant extent to the incidence of the disease". If the World Health Organisation can take seriously the possible effects of mobile telephone masts, so should Parliament.

In the United States, 39 states have stopped erecting masts until the authorities have greater confidence in the technology. In Australia, the siting of cell tower masts less than 500 m from schools, homes and hospitals has been banned. A draft European Union recommendation on limitation of public exposure to electromagnetic fields is under consideration.

I am not suggesting that the Government should order every mobile telephone mast to be pulled down tomorrow, or that the telecommunications industry should stop applying to erect new masts. What I am suggesting, and what the WHO is suggesting, is a cautionary approach. That would be in line with our obligations under the Maastricht treaty, which introduced the precautionary principle as a legal obligation in article 130-r(2) of the treaty of Rome. The fact that since the UK signed the Maastricht treaty PPG8 has not been amended could well give rise to a challenge in the European courts.

What can be done to support the precautionary principle? I ask the Minister to consider five proposals. First, PPG8 should be amended to restore the balance against the industry and in favour of the general public. According to section (5) of PPG8: The Government's General Policy on telecommunications is to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems. That advice is probably the most heavily weighted Government guidance to local planning authorities. That probably explains why, even when planning authorities refuse applications, 47 per cent. of them are granted at appeal by the Secretary of State, compared with only 33 per cent. of all other planning applications.

It is no use the Minister saying that planning authorities have the opportunity to exercise control over the individual siting of mast developments. They do not. Given the public concerns about health and the environment, such policy objective imbalance is surely unacceptable.

The second proposal is to remove permitted development rights for all applications for new masts. Already one company, One2One, has agreed to give up its permitted development rights. If that company can do so and continue to compete in the market, surely others can, too. Such a measure would immediately restore public confidence in the justice of the planning system. It would enable local residents and elected members adequately to consider the merits of each application, give operators greater incentive to negotiate with local communities and the planning authority, and still allow operators a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

My third proposal would make mandatory the requirement for local planning authorities to have as part of their development plan a detailed telecommunications planning policy. Currently, PPG8 recommends such inclusions without making them obligatory. Local authorities should be obliged to maintain on the plan details of all current installations, including their power, frequency and coverage. That would give added protection against the cumulative effects of multi-installations using a single mast and pave the way for assessing need.

My fourth proposal would be an essential part of the development control process. All applications should be subject to an independent assessment of need before determination. At present, the operator can justify need without any external verification. Few, if any, local authorities carry specialists who are able to assess a case of need. Why can Cellnet achieve 99 per cent. coverage across the United Kingdom using 2,400 masts, while one of its competitors needs more than 4,000? An independent assessment financed by the operator as part and parcel of the planning application would show the public that need had been independently assessed.

My fifth proposal is the most crucial. Each application should be accompanied by a health risk assessment financed by the applicant and produced by the National Radiological Protection Board. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) may disagree with that, but it is one of the only organisations that could give a local authority an independent health risk assessment.

The NRPB's role is to assess risk. Although it is reassessing its guidance in the light of public concern, I believe that an assessment by it would give added security to local communities.

The debate has given me an opportunity to present the concerns of my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. My proposals mirror their concerns and those of hon. Members who have had the courtesy to stay in the Chamber to listen to the debate. These proposals are not against the telecommunications industry, but they represent a cautionary approach to future development.

At present, the jury is out on the health risks. How much better to say in five years that we were right to be cautious than to have another BSE-type problem heaped upon us.

10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing this Adjournment debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss an important matter that causes concern to many people. They feel quite reasonable anxiety about the environmental and the health impact of telecommunication masts erected in their vicinity.

The growth in the mobile communications sector over the past 15 years has been remarkable. There are more than 13 million mobile phone subscribers in the United Kingdom; in other words, more than one in five of the population has a mobile phone. Some analysts expect that figure to rise to about 30 million subscribers—one in two of the population—by 2003.

An efficient and modern telecommunications network offers a number of significant social and economic benefits, helping to create a climate conducive to business development and providing ready access to a growing range of services in urban and rural areas.

The technical constraints of cellular radio networks—the need to have a line of sight between handsets and base stations, for example—means that providing the necessary infrastructure represents a considerable challenge. In meeting that challenge, it is important that we continue to strive to minimise the environmental impact of the new installations.

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford

I do not have time to give way, as unfortunately, I have been given only 12 minutes to reply. I must press ahead if I am to do justice to the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

The Government's policy for telecommunications development is to strike a balance between the provision of a competitive national telecommunications network and the protection of our environment. That is reflected in the planning policy guidance on telecommunication development set out in planning policy guidance note 8. We are fully committed to our environmental objectives and established national policies for the protection of the countryside and residential areas.

It may be helpful if I explain the background to the licensing of radio-based telecommunications operators. The network operators are licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to provide mobile radio telecommunication services. In order to help them to do that, they are granted telecommunications code powers.

As licensed code system operators, cellular operators are given permitted development rights under part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Permitted Development Order 1995. Under the GPDO, operators have the right to carry out certain types of development without the need to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission. Some development permitted in this way, such as the erection of a mast up to 15 m in height, is, however, subject to a condition that requires the operator to satisfy a prior approval procedure. Under that procedure, the local planning authority has the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve, within 28 days, details of the installation's siting and appearance. The authority is able to refuse approval if it considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity.

It is important that operators recognise that the selection of sites for the erection of masts may raise a number of sensitive issues. That is particularly true of residential areas. Appendix E to environment circular 9/95, in suggesting the sort of considerations that might need to be taken into account in addressing a mast's siting under the GPDO provisions, refers to the site in relation to residential property. Further guidance on this aspect is included in the code of best practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast or tower development, which is published by our Department. Copies of that document are available in the Library.

I commend the code, which was prepared by a joint working party of local authority representatives and the principal telecommunications code system operators, as a basis for best practice. It provides guidance on how local planning authorities and operators can co-operate to make it easier for prior approval applications to be dealt with effectively within the time allowed under the GPDO.

As well as providing guidance on the operator's practice, the code examines the local planning authority's role. It is important that local authorities understand the constraints within which telecom companies operate, and assist them in finding pragmatic solutions. The planning authorities' local knowledge is vital in that process. The control of development, such as telecommunication masts, does not rely simply on responding to planning applications. PPG8 sets out a number of positive steps that local planning authorities can take to help shape telecommunications development in their area. As to the hon. Gentleman's third proposal, we expect local authorities to include clear policies on telecommunications in their development plans, which are adopted after opportunities for public involvement in their preparation.

The guidance also makes clear the importance we attach to close consultation between operators and local planning authorities before making any application for consent to install telecommunications apparatus. Pre-application discussion will assist both sides in understanding the constraints within which the other is working, and exploring possible alternatives for mast siting and design. Although not a statutory requirement, the Department encourages publicity for prior approval applications so that people likely to be affected by the proposed development can make their views known to the authority. Many of these working practices are set down in the code of best practice.

We want to avoid the situation highlighted by the hon. Gentleman—it occurred in his constituency—in which local residents are unaware of a proposed mast installation until work commences. For that reason, we made proposals in our consultation paper "Telecommunications Development Control", which was published for public comment in July. In that paper, we said that we considered that the use of permitted development rights continued to be appropriate, but that there was scope for improving procedures to address a number of concerns. A major concern was the need to allow for greater public consultation over the siting and design of masts erected under the GPDO. A wide range of respondents to the consultation paper were highly supportive of the principle of increasing the opportunity for public comment.

In November, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced his intention to extend the prior approval notice period to 42 days for ground-based masts. That announcement was intended to ensure that local authorities would have sufficient time to consult local communities on the siting and appearance of proposed mast installations at the outset.

We intend to place a statutory obligation on the operators to erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed. That will advise local people of the proposed development, and enable them to make their views known to the local authority. The authority will be able to take any representations into account when considering whether to grant or refuse approval to the mast's siting and appearance.

There will continue to be a need for local authorities to establish the necessary avenues for consultation with local Members and residents ahead of a GPDO application. The guidance that we are drawing up will cover the local authority's role in bringing the application to the attention of interested parties, and undertaking any additional publicity that might be required to achieve that. We believe that the new procedures will overcome the problems described by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they will prevent any further sieges of Whinney lane or anywhere else.

Concern has been expressed about the number of telecommunications masts. It is important not to ignore the technical constraints of rolling out telecommunications networks; that said, we are anxious to keep the numbers of masts to a minimum, consistent with an efficient network. This is why we encourage mast sharing.

It is for that reason that the licences issued to telecommunications operators require them, before erecting a new mast, to take all reasonable steps to investigate using, or replacing for joint use, an existing mast or other structure, whether their own or belonging to another operator. I understand that 60 per cent. of the mobile operators' antennae are now on buildings, other structures or shared masts.

While recognising that mast or site sharing may not be the answer in every case—the installation of new and innovative masts and antennae, designed and sited to blend into the environment, might on occasion be a more attractive option—the Government attach great importance to minimising the impact of telecommunications development on the environment. We are keen to discuss with the telecommunications industry what more can be done on all sides to reduce the adverse environmental impact of new development, by furthering our policy on mast sharing and in other ways. To that end, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning will meet representatives of the industry early next month. I hope that, following all that I have said, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the Government take the matter very seriously, and are taking steps to address the problems that he has raised.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's worries about the alleged adverse health effects in connection with telecommunications installations. We are aware of public concern about the suggestion that there can be harmful effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with mobile communications base stations, and the Government take that concern seriously. The National Radiological Protection Board issues guidelines for restricting human exposure to electromagnetic fields. The guidelines are based on well-established thermal effects, and their basis is broadly consistent with other international guidelines such as those of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.

The NRPB guidelines can be exceeded in areas close to and directly in front of the antenna, but I should emphasise that that is within 1 to 2 m, and that the public are prevented from access to such areas. The practical effect of health and safety at work legislation, under which operators have a duty to ensure that their work activities do not present a risk to employees and the general public, will be to prevent public access to areas where the NRPB guideline levels are exceeded. Exposure at ground levels, and in areas to which the public have access, are many times below recommended exposure levels—typically, some thousands of times inside the exposure limit.

The House may be aware that on 8 December, my Department issued a joint circular with the Department of Health on a consultation exercise on land use planning and electromagnetic fields, which deals specifically with those considerations in the land use planning context. A copy of the consultation package has been placed in the Library. The closing date for responses is 19 February. Hon. Members, and members of the public with an interest in the subject, are encouraged to forward their views to my Department in the context of the public consultation.

I believe that the Government are acting appropriately to respond to the anxieties that have been expressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the total absence of Conservative Members this evening suggests that concern is limited to the two parties that are represented, but I stress that the Government are concerned, and are taking steps to deal with the problems that have been identified. We shall continue to pursue the research in respect of health risks that the hon. Gentleman has anticipated. I hope that he will accept that the real concerns that he has voiced have been accepted by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.