| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 793—continued
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 be 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 co-operation 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."
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |