Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this debate and the amendment to the motion which I broadly support. It is a timely debate because there has been widespread unrest at some of the developments taking place in my constituency and in some of the country areas, especially adjacent to schools, play areas, hospitals, etc. While no major problems have been identified to date from emissions from the transmitters on these masts, there is a general belief that they have a detrimental effect. It is almost impossible to convince local communities that they do not do damage.

At a recent meeting I attended about a proposed mast in the area in which I live, there was much adverse comment. However, the proposal was withdrawn at the request of the landowner. For many years people did not seem to have a great problem with passive smoking and it did not create any major controversy but suddenly tobacco smoking was associated with cancer and we all know how that developed. There is a belief in the communities in which I have been involved — unfounded or otherwise — that these masts will eventually damage people's health and welfare and that they are particularly damaging to children, especially where they are adjacent to schools and recreation and leisure areas.

There is also a commercial aspect in that the location of masts adjacent to areas in which there is widespread housing has had a detrimental effect on the value of property. If somebody pays €500,000 for a house, which happens in many towns, and finds a mast located next door which will possibly reduce the prospect of selling that house, he or she has a legitimate concern that this development is detrimental to his or her economic stability or otherwise. This is a cause of much concern, certainly in many of the areas in which I have been involved over the years. The underlying fear is the effect it will have on property values and the fact it might damage the prospect of selling a house and moving. For that reason, this debate is timely.

It is important to use an opportunity such as this to convince the public, as is being done in the amendment, that all the scientific research has been provided. I saw some of the documentation connected with this from various professionals. The difficulty is that one finds professionals arguing on both sides of the argument. All the available material and research done nationally and internationally, especially in Europe, shows there is no major health risk arising from these masts. However, how does one convince the public of that? The public is not convinced, especially in Ennis.

Last July I attended a protest march in Ennis against the proposed erection of a mast by the Electricity Supply Board. The local council refused permission for it which is where the dilemma arises in many cases. Where a local authority refuses permission and the body concerned appeals the decision to An Bord Pleanála, evidence suggests that the board, by and large, overturns the local authority decision because of the necessity for economic development and good communications networks. In some cases, it has not done so but in most cases where councils have refused permission, having taken into account the views of local councillors and others, the board has overturned the local authority decision on appeal.

This is the case in Ennis and it is causing widespread anxiety for a large number of people living adjacent to the town and the bypass. They cannot understand why the Electricity Supply Board, which is involved in this development, cannot find an alternative site away from the built-up area. One should also bear in mind that it is adjacent to the new bypass and that hectares of land will be neutralised because of the bypass and it would be possible to find an alternative location for the mast away from dwellings, schools and Cahercalla hospice, which is quite close to it.

Attempts to date to convince the public it will not be detrimental to health and the value of their property have been unsuccessful. We have had several meetings attended by the ESB and the local community. Although we had a very useful discussion, we could not reach a compromise. What bothers me about the particular development in Ennis is that although there will be a judicial review, the ESB has notified local people that one way or the other, it proposes to go ahead with the erection of the mast and that if the judicial review determines that it should be taken down, it will do so then. That is a negative way to approach this issue and I appeal to the board of the ESB to refrain from erecting the mast until such time as the judicial review is heard. If it does not do so, it is quite likely an injunction will be sought to prevent it proceeding with the erection of the mast until the promised judicial review is heard.

It is a complex matter and I do not believe we can find a resolution to it tonight. In the course of a meeting I attended regarding masts, three or four mobile telephones went off. This brought home to people that although they objected to the erection of telecommunications masts, they were all dependent on them to an extent for their communications needs. If people could be convinced that their health and that of their children will not be damaged, one could certainly proceed. If the public can be convinced that the erection of such masts will not in some way undermine the value of its properties, land and expensive houses, agreement for them might be achieved.

However, in the present climate, there is a range of problems. For example, widespread problems exist in Moveen, which is near Kilkee, Ardnacrusha, which is near Limerick and Ennis. The publication of the report from the interdepartmental committee, which is expected at the end of this year, will be timely. I recommend that Members should wait until its arrival before following up this matter further.