Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)

As the Minister will agree, the Stewart report of 2000 specifically stated in one of its main recommendations that planning should be extra cautious around schools as children are more susceptible to the effects of radiation and will be exposed to more radiation over their lifetime than adults. The most recent report to which the Minister referred stated that this recommendation holds, a point emphasised by the chairman of the board of the National Radiological Protection Board in Britain when questioned about it, as noted in an article in the Irish Independent.

The issue on which I am again attempting to get clarity from the Minister, having tried to do so several months ago, is whether it is advisable, given the limited research available and the views of some leading experts, to have mobile telephone masts located close to schools. Does he agree that this question is of considerable concern to parents of schoolchildren? In 2000 the report of the independent expert group in Britain, the Stewart report, recommended taking a precautionary approach and locating mobile telephone masts at a distance from schools. The Minister, in a reply to a parliamentary question in December last year, suggested that more recent studies removed any validity the recommendation of the Stewart report may have had. However, the latest report by the National Radiological Protection Board restates the position taken in the Stewart report and advises a precautionary approach.

Who is advising the Minister? Which leading experts are dictating his approach? Why will he not get to grips with a basic question as to whether, in light of the views of some of the leading experts, mobile telephone masts should be located near schools? Prohibiting masts from the vicinity of schools would not cost the State money or impose significant difficulties as it is a simple planning matter. What is the Minister's problem with the view of leading experts that masts should not be located near schools? Will he clarify his position because the response his advisers drew up to my question in November last year has been shown to be grossly inaccurate and without foundation?

See this speech in context