Mobile phones have often been the subject of health scare stories in the media, but less is heard about the visual consequences of the proliferation of mobile telecommunications masts used to transmit calls. The potential for harm from the microwaves emitted remain a matter of controversy, but for the families and communities who have been affected by physical imposition of towering masts, the harm is very obvious, real and lasting. I now have a bulging file of letters from people where these eyesores have had or will have a serious impact on their quiet enjoyment of their environment and the surrounding scenery.

The establishment of unsightly masts is growing at an alarming rate throughout the country. No one seems to know exactly how many there are. If my constituency is anything to go by, there must be more than 10,000. With capacity increases and new technology, the mobile operators are promising a doubling of their number, despite the present 98% coverage achieved by the networks.

Such a prospect will blight the landscape. It is plain that the planning regulations are insufficient to cope with this development and were anyway designed to promote rapid development at the expense of environmental concerns. The environment now needs to be put beofre development now the networks are largely complete. It is for this reason that I secured a Commons debate on the issue on Tuesday 18th January.

In the debate, in effect an exchange between the Minister and I, the fact that whilst the regulations have been drafted to assist mobile telephone companies, the regulations have been aggressively exploited in order to build new masts. The strong objections of local residents and local councils have been overridden in the process. This cannot continue; changes must be made and the planning guidance must be rewritten.

As the Surrey Mirror has reported, Orange were able to get the go-ahead on Appeal for a 32 metre mast development in a Conservation Area off Nutley Lane, Reigate despite a record number of local objections and the Borough Council's refusal of permission. I raised questions about Railtrack's use of "permitted development rights" which gave it the authority to erect the mast in a sensitive area without planning permission in July 1997, and Orange's subsequent application to replace the mast with a wider and more obtrusive one, just nine months later. At Shrimpsfield, Brighton Road, Kingswood, Orange escaped from its legal obligations to accept minimal council requests to reduce the visual impact of a proposed mast in an unseemly row over whether the council had met a 28-day deadline to respond to their plans. I now hear that the requested shrub cover is thin and inadequate. The mast that was put up in Banstead Woods - in the Metropolitan green belt, but for some reason not classed as an area of outstanding natural beauty - shows that the Town and Country Planning legislation needs to be amended to afford the same protection from mast eyesores as official areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Mast-sharing between the four operators is currently a pathetic 30% and I have called upon Oftel to set targets for sharing in support of everyone's desire to see more sharing. Local communities must also be sure that other base station sites have been tried and that proper offers made to the owners of such sites, in order to prevent an unnecessary mast from being erected. The Government have not heard the last from me and I fear I have not heard the last from you on the subject of new telecommunications masts.