Hansard

I will try to keep to my time.

I stand here this morning as a warning to every young researcher or putative candidate to Parliament—never lodge a members' business motion on any subject, because anyone who does so becomes their party's expert on that subject. I stand here leading for the Conservative party, promoted unwillingly as a telecommunications expert.

Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the report of the Transport and the Environment Committee on telecommunications masts. My first members' business motion was on the subject of mobile phone masts, occasioned by the appearance of a rather large structure not more than 25 m from my kitchen window. Members can take that as an expression of my interest in this matter.

Telecommunications is the boom industry of this decade; like Andy Kerr, I cannot think of one member of the Parliament who does not use a pager or mobile phone as an everyday working tool. We know that, under the Executive, crime is rising and police numbers are falling. As a result, children, women and more vulnerable members of society feel the need to carry mobile phones for their own protection.

The Executive hails the success of Motorola Ltd in taking over the mothballed Hyundai plant in my constituency for the production of the next generation of mobile phones. As Linda Fabiani said, the national Exchequer has just gained more than £20 billion as a result of auctioning off the next phase of mobile phone licences.

The telecoms industry is an important one, with a turnover of more than £6 billion and with 25 million users. The Scottish Conservatives want a competitive industry with a comprehensive infrastructure, yet we believe that, if we take a commonsense approach, commercial and environmental concerns do not have to be in conflict. We have to be realistic, not emotional, and understand the importance that mobile phones play in people's lives.

It was the foresight of the Conservative Government that allowed the mobile communications industry to accelerate at the rate that it has. However, we must acknowledge that the regulations that we put in place are no longer valid for today's market. Our policies enabled the fast-track development of the industry, but the sheer number of masts involved was not anticipated.

Lest we forget, 18 years of Conservative Government liberated people from the nanny state, lifting standards of expectation and taking the lead in giving people the opportunity to participate in local decision making. Regrettably, this Administration has not generally grasped that right; it must do so on this issue. While the public has embraced mobile phones, this Administration has not yet understood the need for the equipment necessary to enable the phones to work. We need to address those issues to ensure public confidence in the operating system.

The erection of mobile phone masts is causing considerable concern in many parts of the country. One of the problems of becoming my party's expert is that, every time a Conservative member receives a letter or a telephone call on this subject from a constituent, it is directed straight to my desk. I know exactly how many problems we are having throughout the country.

Measures to enforce the current environmental restrictions are weak, outdated and poorly enforced. Local communities will welcome the opportunity given by the Transport and the Environment Committee's report to have a greater say over where masts are located.

The Conservatives want to protect our visual environment and respond to concerns over public safety. The new networks—the new wireless application protocol technology—could result in up to 100,000 new masts across the countryside of Great Britain. Correspondingly, we have developed seven commonsense solutions to tackle those issues.

Permission for mast development should not be automatic. Planning guidance should be redrafted to provide a better balance between environmental and commercial concerns. Operators should have to justify the need for a new mast when environmental or health and safety concerns are raised.

A local community should have a greater say on mast developments in or near areas of environmental importance. We propose that full planning permission should be required for green-belt land, listed buildings, local wildlife sites, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and conservation areas. In addition, full planning permission should be required if it is proposed that a mast be situated just outside those areas, but still visible.

Local communities should be allowed to question mast developments near schools, hospitals and residential buildings. There are concerns that mobile phones are damaging to public health. The Stewart report has been mentioned this morning; I believe that it says that children under 12 are especially at risk, as their bodies are still developing and their skulls are lighter, thus providing less protection from radiation. I cannot understand why anybody would want to give a child of 12 a mobile phone. Several of my friends have children who have not one mobile phone but two. The precautionary approach urged by the Stewart committee is probably the right approach at this time.

We believe that full planning would make local authorities better informed about future mast developments and would encourage co-ordinated development. At the moment, operators have to prove to local authorities that they have explored mast sharing before they are allowed to erect a new mast. That is hampered by the fact that many local authorities do not have a record of all the existing masts in their area.

I refer the minister to my question on 1 September last year, asking how many applications had been received for mobile telephone transmission masts in the whole of Scotland. The answer was that the information was not held centrally. I urge the minister to start a database of masts now so that we know exactly where they are. Furthermore, the Stewart committee has asked for the masts to be registered and the radiation transmissions to be recorded for future information. We also propose that operators notify planning authorities of their forward plans for two years to ensure that the needs of all operators are known to authorities when applications are considered.

However, we should acknowledge that, in practice, there is little incentive for mobile phone operators to share masts or for surveyors to find mast locations that can be shared. Although it is recommended that local authorities keep a shared database of masts, there is actually little record of how many masts are shared. At the moment, only a third of existing masts are shared; steps should be taken to ensure more mast sharing. However, although that is technologically viable, there is the problem of competing operators wanting the top spot on the masts.

For new masts, planning regulations should be clarified so that new permission is conditional on other operators being allowed to access the completed phone mast. In fixed-line telecommunications, British Telecom's local loop is accessible to many of its competitors and the principle of common carriage could be used to encourage operators to share masts.

Although the code of best practice urges operators to replace old masts with less intrusive new technology, there are no measures to enforce that. As a condition for the new licences, targets should be set for phasing out old masts and replacing them with new technology as soon as it is developed.

On greater network sharing, we suggest an investigation into the viability of cross-network roaming within the UK, which would reduce the demand for new masts in sparsely populated areas. I spend a lot of time in Spain and am amazed that I can use my mobile phone with far greater ease there than I can in Scotland. Agreements between phone companies calculate the cost of such network sharing and a charge is passed on to the phone user. In the UK, there is no requirement on networks to provide roaming, with the exception of calls to the emergency services. However, consumers could benefit from that system; people should perhaps be able to choose to have roaming or non-roaming calls and absorb the extra costs. We urge the exploration of cross-network roaming in Scotland and the UK and consultation with the industry on this issue.

Masts should be blended into the environment. There have been some totally inappropriate attempts to disguise masts as trees and bushes, and we need to examine alternatives that are visually acceptable for the environment, to ensure that tree masts fit in with real—not pretend—trees.

All in all, we welcome and commend the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. Although we do not want to hamper the industry, we have reached the point where industry expansion and public concern must be recognised and balanced.