HC Deb 04 March 2003 vol 400 cc790-8

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

7.3 pm

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this evening's debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply. The debate concerns mobile telecommunication masts—a subject that is of concern to many hon. Members. It is certainly of concern to a number of my constituents, who have written to me on numerous occasions relaying their fears that those masts have a detrimental effect on their heath. It is becoming an issue of such importance that Mast Sanity, a pressure group that pushes for further regulation on the erection of masts, has organised a demonstration for this coming Saturday against what it calls the continued widespread abuse of Planning and Insensitive siting of Mobile Phone Masts too close to homes and communities across the UK. I note that we have had several Adjournment debates on the subject in the past. I do not want simply to reiterate all the old arguments, as much of the scientific data is well summarised in the Stewart report, which remains the standard work on the subject. Nevertheless, following the report's recommendation for further research, a research programme, called the Link mobile telecommunications and health research programme, was set up to look into the possible health impact of mobile telecommunications. Following calls for research applications, I understand that the programme is to undertake research into the possible health impact of mobile phone base stations and masts. That new area of research will be unique as it will be a series of human volunteer studies. The volunteer group is to consist of individuals who attribute symptoms of acute ill health to their exposure to emissions from base stations.

According to industry figures, more than two thirds of the total population of the UK use a mobile phone. The growth in the mobile communications sector in the past 15 years has been remarkable and is set to continue. That creates pressure because of the demand for mobile phone services. I fully appreciate the somewhat schizoid view of many people, which is to find mobile phones indispensable in their lives, but to dislike the often intrusive communications structures.

Mobile phones will simply not work without the supporting infrastructure of the masts. There has been a huge increase in the number of masts being erected across the country, and my constituency has not escaped that trend. Their siting causes genuine problems, on which I wish to focus my comments. I want to ensure that my constituents are able to enjoy the benefits that flow from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services, but not at a price of risking the health of those who live near transmission masts.

The Government have something of a dilemma of their own. In view of the popular hostility towards mobile phone masts, further regulation is demanded by the public and by local councils, but the Government are also committed to encouraging the development of new technologies such as mobile phones, and have sold the licences for radio spectrum for third generation mobile phones for £22.5 billion.

My interest in the issue has been prompted by constituents' very real concerns. One concern is the siting of a telecommunications base station and relevant equipment on and around a water tower in a residential area in the town of Haverhill. Such has been the negative impact that the area has seen a resulting loss of property values. Another concern arises in an area of high population density, close to three schools. Since the transmission mast was erected, close to a number of neighbouring properties, residents within a large circumference around the mast have experienced unexplained headaches, tiredness and a general feeling of ill health. A constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Wheal, has lived at the same address for 30 years, but since the erection of the transmission mast he has suffered from some of the symptoms that I have just described and has even had—I am appalled to say—an epileptic seizure. Mr. Wheal tells me that he has never suffered from such health problems before.

There have been masts on the aforementioned water tower since 1995. Another constituent of mine, Mr. John Insole, who has been a distinguished Haverhill citizen, has suffered from a number of health problems and has told me the remarkable story of his aunt, Mrs. Doris Barnes. She came to live with Mr. Insole for four years, right next to the water tower. After being diagnosed as suffering from a series of small strokes, she became housebound, needed 24-hour care, and was given just three months to live. That of course became an intolerable strain on Mr. Insole and his wife, and Mrs. Barnes went to live in a nursing home outside the town. Incredibly, within a fortnight, she was well, could cope with everyday tasks, and lived for another four years.

All of those distressing problems have been ascribed by local residents to the erection of transmission masts nearby. Additionally, there are now clear instances of interference in radio and television programmes. They are, to say the least, highly irritating. In those circumstances, it would have been inconceivable for me, as the local Member of Parliament, not to respond.

Although the Stewart report has been discussed endlessly, and although it represents the current conventional wisdom, I wish briefly to comment on it. It is fair to say that its conclusions are subtle, complex and rather confusing for many people. Simply quoting the report's conclusions will do nothing to allay the fears of residents living near the masts in Haverhill that have caused so much controversy.

In my experience, telecommunications companies have always tended to quote the basic conclusion of the expert group in the report. It states: We conclude 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 guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well being in some cases. Later, though, the report states: There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests there may be biological…effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines…We conclude that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF 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. Professor Stewart concluded that the evidence was not decisive either way. As a result, he recommended the use of the precautionary principle in the siting of transmission masts. In particular, he recommended that the masts be situated away from schools and other places where young people, who may be more susceptible to the signals emitted by masts, might gather.

I therefore very much welcome the new study, as it will focus entirely on base stations. There is a great deal of research into the use of handsets, but there is a clear need to look at health risks from mobile phone base stations. It is my understanding that this is the first study to look at people who think that they are ill, and at the masts themselves. Until now, there has been a struggle to research the effects of masts on health, because so many devices produce electromagnetic fields—including electricity cables and household equipment—which makes it hard to separate one device from another.

By using volunteers who specifically cite masts as the cause of their illnesses, the new research will avoid that. Even so, for the spirit of the Stewart report to be applied, there needs to be much greater local accountability, and more stringent controls on the siting of masts.

I acknowledge that there has been a partial movement in that direction since the Stewart report was published. Masts up to 15 m high are now subject to longer periods of consultation, so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. Even so, the prior approval procedures still apply. They are not subject to a full planning clearance procedure. There is a narrow requirement that schools should be consulted, but there is no obligation to meet the requests of schools if they choose to make them. Therein lies a paradox.

Crucially, however, the law does not allow local authorities to adopt a precautionary principle approach of their own. Ultimately, what will happen is that, if authorities defend the interests of local residents and reject the application, they will do so knowing that it is highly likely that, under the current guidelines, the mobile phone companies will ultimately win on appeal. That appeal will include the award of costs against the local authority. Alternatively, the authority could choose to give in, even though that might be very much against the wishes of the people who elected councillors to represent them.

Both district councils that embrace my constituency, St. Edmundsbury borough council and Forest Heath district council, support me in bringing this matter to Parliament. I have received letters to that effect from the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council and the chief executive of Forest Heath district council. The concerns apply in the whole area covered by those councils and beyond. They both favour, as I do, new powers being given to local authorities that are more directive as to where masts may or may not be placed. A mechanism whereby broad grounds of public anxiety are accepted as a legitimate reason for turning down an application needs to be considered, and the effective loophole currently provided by the 15 m height cut-off should be addressed.

In a letter to me, the chief executive of Forest Heath district council very much supported the line of thinking that I have outlined and expressed that view in the following terms: In the context of this summary of the current position, I am able to confirm on behalf of Forest Heath District Council that we would welcome your proposed change to the existing arrangements. This would ensure that local planning authorities have a discretionary power to oversee/control such development for the benefit of their residents. In seeking to bring about this important amendment, my council would also like to consider the possibility of revising PPG8 to allow LPAs to regard health issues as a material consideration when addressing any proposal to install a telecommunications mast." I should add in passing that this has been a very live issue among the residents of Newmarket, also in my constituency. Similarly, the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council indicated his preference for the location of transmission antennae in the non-residential parts of Haverhill. I hope that the Government will consider such moves, especially given the results of the study. They would give local authorities more flexibility and give councillors the right to balance the arguments about the location of transmission masts. With all the attendant concerns about health and other risks, the time has come to move on. If, through the debate, I can help to do that, I know how much it will be appreciated by so many of my concerned constituents and their elected local councillors.

7.17 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms)

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on his initiative in raising these matters with the House.

There are many different uses for radio communications, most of which need some kind of transmission mast: television and radio, business communications, the utilities, the emergency services, point-to-point links for the fixed telephone network and the ubiquitous mobile phone network, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. All those uses are vital to our way of life and are important for our economy.

Due to the enormous and ever-increasing demand for mobile communications, their transmission masts most often cause public concern. The UK has nearly 50 million subscribers, approaching 80 per cent. of the population, making us the third biggest mobile market in Europe. More than 30 million UK subscribers use a pre-paid mobile package. That means that the benefits of mobile phones are available to all and reach every sector of society. The technology is inclusive, which was not envisaged when the developments were originally introduced. It is convenient and adds to our safety and comfort.

The technology is of vital importance for the whole economy. Industries depend on communication on the move; transport, haulage and distribution would stop without it. M-commerce—mobile commerce—is an increasingly important element of the economy.

In terms of value added, the Office for National Statistics estimates that the mobile sector contributes £18 billion, or about 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. To put that in perspective, that contribution is about the same as that made by the entire automotive sector. Furthermore, it is growing by 10 per cent. a year—in an industry that started only 15 years ago.

The industry is competitive. In addition to the five mobile operators, 250 licensed companies offer national or international services. The UK is certainly Europe's most competitive communications market.

The world's major telecoms operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers are almost all resident in the United Kingdom. They are attracted by our strengths in technology, innovation and design, the highly deregulated marketplace and the attractive business environment. A lot of them have their worldwide research and development headquarters in the UK as well. We are a world leader in technological development in mobile telecoms, particularly in new wireless technologies, but if we want to have communications, as the vast majority of people do, we must have the infrastructure to support them.

To ensure usable national coverage, there needs to be a national network of base stations and masts. Steps are being taken to minimise the number of masts to cover any area. Buildings or other physical features will block or deflect radio waves, so by placing a mast on a tall building it is possible to cover a wider area than a mast at street level. However, there is another limit: every base station can handle only a certain number of calls at a time. The more the usage, the greater the number of base stations needed to cover a given area, so masts are most common in urban areas.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the desirability of locating masts in non-residential areas, but, as coverage in urban areas is desired, masts have to be sited there as well. Network sharing makes a valuable contribution to minimising the number of masts needed because different operators can use the same mast, but it has limitations.

Yesterday was a significant milestone in the development of mobile communications. Along with Italy, the UK became the first major market in Europe to roll out a third generation service with the launch of 3 by Hutchison 3G—one of the companies that bought a licence after the licence auction. I am certain that many hon. Members will soon he sporting their 3G phones and that one of the first things that they will wish to do is download the video message of welcome that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recorded.

The 3G network operates at a higher frequency than the current 2G network, so although it can carry large amounts of data, its range is shorter than that of 2G. Operators are reusing 2G sites for 3G, but some extra masts are inevitably required to fill in gaps in the coverage. As the new entrant to the market, 3 has taken all the available opportunities to share mast sites with other operators and to use existing structures whenever it can, but it has had to build up its network from scratch.

Some people may ask why it was felt necessary to bring in an additional mobile operator, with all its extra masts, when we already had four operators. The advantage of our policy in encouraging a new entrant is an increase in competition. We are already seeing the positive benefits of that policy, despite the problems in the mobile communications market caused by the high-tech downturn. Strong competitive pressure has ensured that all five UK operators are committed to rolling out next-generation networks in this country.

The new entrant, 3, has to ensure that its launch is a success; it does not have an existing 2G network to fall back on. That puts huge pressure on the other four operators to follow suit or suffer damage to their competitive positions. Roll-outs of 3G throughout Europe have been delayed, but by less in the UK than elsewhere. One of the other operators has publicly announced that its 3G roll-out elsewhere in Europe is on hold, but it is pushing ahead in the UK; it cannot afford to delay because of the UK market's competitiveness. The economic benefit of mobile communications is widely recognised and would not be disputed, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a fair concern about health issues, and I want to say a little about that.

In 1999, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Health, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, set up the independent expert group, chaired by Sir William Stewart, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The group called for written evidence and held a number of public meetings. The Stewart report was published on 11 May 2000. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is the definitive work on this subject. It contained recommendations based on a thorough review of the available scientific data on the health effects, and it took into account the evidence that was received.

The report's key conclusions have been referred to and read by the hon. Gentleman. It concluded that the balance of evidence indicated 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 levels in the guidelines. It recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. It went on to recommend that an independent research programme should be carried out, along with an audit of emissions at locations close to the most sensitive sites, such as schools and hospitals.

The Government welcomed the Stewart report and we accepted the advice on the need for a precautionary approach and on the establishment of a research programme. The mobile telecommunications health research programme was established in 2001, and about 18 research projects are now running. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a new piece of work that is being conducted. As new results emerge, we will pay very close attention to them. If any evidence exists, beyond the anecdotal, of problems in this area, we will pay particularly close attention to it.

The Stewart report recommended an independent audit of base stations, which is being taken forward by the Radiocommunications Agency. That has focused initially on schools in particular, and will be looking at some other sensitive sites, too. The results of its second year of surveys were released last month, and are available on the Radiocommunications Agency's website at www.radio.gov.uk. The findings are reassuring. The study has so far examined mobile phone masts at 200 sites across the UK, looking at school and hospital sites. The readings showed emission levels ranging from hundreds to million of times below international guideline levels, which are set independently by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, usually abbreviated to ICNIRP. Even the highest reading was only one two-hundred-and-seventy ninth of that limit. Undertaking health-based research on exposures from mobile phone masts is not straightforward, because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, levels of exposure are difficult to isolate from other exposures. Drawing together the advice of the Stewart report and the measurements in the audit programme, however, shows conclusively that there are certainly no grounds for any kind of moratorium on base station installations.

We also take environmental concerns very seriously. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Site sharing, as I have mentioned, is one way of doing that. Camouflage or otherwise making the mast less obtrusive is another. Two thirds of masts are located on existing buildings, on street furniture, or in rooftops and the like. The mobile operators are working with the Council for National Parks on developing ways of ensuring that masts and equipment fit in with the landscape in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, for example, through use of local materials in construction. After a slightly uncertain start, I am told that masts disguised as trees are now very convincing.

Network sharing has been successful on a limited basis. For the Hebrides in Scotland, funded by a European Union grant, O2 and Vodafone agreed jointly to provide the islands with mobile coverage by sharing their networks. Fewer base stations were needed as a result, but each operator had to compromise on its coverage plans. Sharing on a larger scale could reduce competition between networks and could be against the interests of the consumer. O2 and T-Mobile are planning a degree of network sharing in rural areas for their 3G networks, although that is subject to approval by competition authorities. In urban areas, the technical limitations to which I referred mean that more antennae are needed to provide enough capacity to meet the demand of people in those areas. Network sharing therefore looks unlikely to be practicable.

That is not to say that mobile operators can do what they like or site masts where they please. They have a voluntary code of practice, while our planning guidance note on telecommunications sets out the framework for local planning authorities and for operators. The code of practice was adopted in 2001 with the "Ten Commitments to best siting practice". The key elements are: improved consultation with communities and planners; better information on sites and on use of sites through, for example, site sharing; compliance with internationally recognised guidelines on emissions; and financial support for more independent research.

The initiative has three aims: improving transparency in the process of building mobile networks; providing more information to the public; and increasing the role of the public in the siting of base stations. Those commitments are being put into practice in consultation with local government and community stakeholders to ensure that they are fully workable. The industry is taking this issue seriously—reflecting the level of public concern that the hon. Member for West Suffolk spoke about.

The code is the operators' commitment to greater transparency and consultation. In addition, my Department's Radiocommunications Agency, in cooperation with the operators, has developed the "Sitefinder" database of mobile phone base stations. It is on the internet and gives members of the public the opportunity to get details of the location and operating characteristics of all outdoor mobile phone base stations in the United Kingdom. It is well worth a visit; its address is www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk.

Dealing with planning applications and the location of telecommunications equipment is a matter for the local planning authority. The hon. Gentleman referred to policy planning guidance note No. 8, which sets out the policy on different aspects of planning with regard to telecommunications developments, including masts and other equipment. PPG8 was updated in 2002. The main changes were: to update guidance to take account of developments in telecommunications technology and the growth of the telecommunications industry; to update guidance to take account of changes to the permitted development rights that apply to telecommunications code system operators; and, in particular, to provide advice about taking account of health considerations in making planning decisions on telecommunications development.

Transparency and consultation are key to the guidance note. It strongly encourages operators and local planning authorities to participate in annual discussions about roll-out plans for an area; it calls for pre-applications discussions with the authority and other local and national interested bodies; and it stresses the importance of discussions with schools or colleges that are near to a proposed development. The aim is that there should be no surprises.

The guidance note recognises the environmental concerns and it encourages operators to adopt innovative design solutions to help telecommunications blend as much as possible into the local landscape. It also encourages them to share sites where appropriate. A key element is the expectation that masts and installations should be kept to the minimum consistent with the effective operation of the network.

I will end by quoting PPG8 on planning and health. It says that it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. There are also another two paragraphs on the subject.

We acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, which are reflected widely in our communities. We have made a number of changes to take account of those concerns, and a programme of research is in place. We will consider very carefully any new information that emerges as a result of that work.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.