Hansard

I am grateful to Nick Johnston for clarifying the Conservative front-bench situation. For a terrible moment, those of us who enjoy transport and the environment debates thought Murray Tosh had been demoted to the back benches. We are gratified to hear that this is just a temporary measure for today's debate.

As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee and as a Liberal Democrat spokesman, I support the motion in Andy Kerr's name. The report is constructive, important for the Parliament's work and, as Linda Fabiani said, the result of exhaustive work by the committee and everyone who gave evidence. Furthermore, I want to echo Andy Kerr's tribute to the clerking staff, particularly to Lynn Tullis for her work as clerk team leader. However, I do not know whether maternity leave is due reward for all her work.

When Andy Kerr first raised this issue in the committee, other colleagues such as Elaine Smith told us of particular concerns in their communities and asked us to undertake serious work in this area. I think that the report's publication reflects well on the Parliament's ability to adopt issues of concern to the whole country and to produce important reports on such issues.

I am sure that other members heard Sir William Stewart of Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust on BBC radio this morning. He said—if I can trust my handwriting—"In some cases, emissions from mobiles may cause biological change; in particular, a child's response time may be stimulated by exposure to radiation, which may create a short-term health effect". In his radio interview this morning he linked that to the siting of mobile phone masts. His points about health were important.

The Stewart committee recommended that the Government take a precautionary approach until more research has been completed and another review has been conducted in two years' time. It has backed up the work that has been done by the Transport and the Environment Committee. That is extremely helpful.

The Stewart committee also recommended, as other members have said, that the need for planning control for mobile phone masts should be addressed. Paragraph 1.36 of its report states:

"We recommend that for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process."

That is entirely in line with what the Transport and the Environment Committee recommended. I hope that that will help to deal with concerns about different standards being applied throughout the UK.

The Stewart committee report will inform the Government at Westminster and the Transport and the Environment Committee's report will inform the Executive in Scotland, so consistency can be achieved. Vodafone AirTouch Group Services Ltd wrote to members of the Transport and the Environment Committee urging

"consistency between the Scottish Parliament's response to the Committee's Report and Westminster's response to the Stewart Inquiry Report."

We have that consistency, and I hope that the concerns of the mobile phone companies have been dealt with.

Sir William also mentioned that better information about buying and selling mobile phones should be available. That is important and relates to points that the Transport and the Environment Committee has made about people being in charge of—or, at least, involved in—the planning process. There is an opportunity for that to happen and there is consistency in the approach to that in the two reports. Sir William's report augments the work of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I encourage the Executive to pursue the precautionary approach that that report stressed and to endorse the proposals for full planning control.

I would like to pick up on a couple of points in the Executive's interim response. As Linda Fabiani said, it will be useful if Sarah Boyack tells us, in her winding-up speech, when she hopes to give a final response to the two pieces of work.

I represent a rural constituency. It is sometimes difficult to ensure that the highest standards of modern technological advancement are available in rural areas. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has put a lot of resources into that and the new objective 1 programme involves investment in it. I understand that, in European Community terms, that is known as soft infrastructure.

Mobile phones claim coverage only of a percentage of the UK's population. Evidence from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Transport and the Environment Committee said that about 90 per cent of the UK population would be covered by December 1999. That is not much help if one has three screaming kids in the car and the car radiator bursts on some back road in the middle of the Highlands where there is no mobile phone coverage.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement recently about mobile phone companies bidding for licences and the money that will accrue as a result of that process. I hoped that he would attach some strings that would ensure that the money that came into the Treasury would be used to provide greater coverage than the DTI is currently asking for. I hope that the Executive will be able to exert additional pressure in that regard. As the Executive's interim response says:

"Supporting rural economic development is a key priority of the Executive. It is important, therefore, that the economic prospects of rural areas, where modern telecommunications infrastructure can offset the disadvantages of distance, are not frustrated."

I agree absolutely, but there is an opportunity for joined-up government. There could be some strings attached to the financial return to the Government. I hope that that will be pursued with some vigour in the times ahead.

Andy Kerr mentioned the importance of mobile phones to the ways in which we do business nowadays. That is true, but they are not always a godsend. At times, I am grateful for the fact that some of my constituency is not covered by mobile phone networks. There is a particular advantage when I get off the plane at Sumburgh. BT Cellnet does not cover that end of Shetland, so when the pager goes off at 20,000 ft saying that the "Lesley Riddoch Programme" wants me, I cannot respond. That is, occasionally, quite an advantage.

I know that Ian Jenkins—if he can catch the electronic eye—wants to make some points about conservation, which Nick Johnston rightly mentioned. I do not think that it is good politics or a particularly good approach to say that national scenic designations and natural heritage areas are really important and that we must be careful about locating masts, if any, in such areas yet, given the health concerns, not go for full planning control to allow local people to be involved. Andy Kerr rightly pointed out that health should become a material planning concern. There must be a consistent approach to ensure that people are every bit as important as our natural heritage, birds, wildlife and all the rest of it. I hope that the final response to the committee's report will reflect the need for such consistency.

It is right that the committee should recommend tougher planning controls on the proliferation of masts through a requirement to apply for local authority planning permission. Given the reasonable doubt, which others have mentioned, about whether radiation from masts presents a health risk, it is also right to presume that masts should be located away from schools and residential areas.

Local people and communities should get involved in the planning process. As the committee highlighted, the current arrangement, whereby people have no right to be informed about or object to a mobile mast proposal, is not acceptable. The Stewart committee's recommendations strengthen that point.

The Transport and the Environment Committee has worked hard on the report. It is an important piece of work. I encourage the minister and the Executive to endorse the findings of the committee and to implement its recommendations.