Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

Everybody in the House is aware that few concerns bring communities together more than the proposal for the construction of a mast. Every public representative, both local and national, has been called to meetings in communities in his or her area because of concerns and objections to the proposal for the construction of a mast. People's concerns arise from fear of the inherent danger of antennae and an objection to the intrusiveness of the construction of a mast on the landscape. Health concerns predominate.

The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, stated that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government published guidelines for planning authorities on telecommunications antennae and support structures in 1996. The guidelines have been ineffective and little applied. I am unsure whether they were ever intended to be implemented. The Minister of State also indicated that the guidelines set out a locational hierarchy in respect of the siting of radio masts and advise that free-standing masts should be located only within or in the immediate surrounds of smaller towns or villages as a last resort. He further stated that if such a location should become necessary, the masts and antennae should be designed and adapted for the specific location. These guidelines neutralise the original statement. Who will decide what is a last resort? Has there been any examination of the research done by companies seeking to erect masts?

It is laughable for a Minister to say these are the guidelines and that local authorities will have an opportunity to assess and modify them if necessary to suit a particular location when, at the same time we are saying masts should not be located near schools, playgrounds or health centres. The fact is many masts are planted right beside such locations throughout the country. Local Garda stations are a popular location for antennae. Communities are concerned that they are being bullied into a situation by the local authority or the companies involved. If ever an element of consultation were needed, it is when a company chooses a location. It should consult with the community and an ideal site, if it exists, could be found.

EU Directive 2004/40/EC concerns the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risk arising from electromagnetic fields. The expected transposition date is 29 April 2008. Have the Government and Minister of Sate prepared for the transposition of this directive into our legislation? That is the commitment this Government has made regarding effective legislation in this regard.

The guidelines are laughable. Any Minister proposing them in response to the motion does so as nothing more than a packing operation. They have no substance. The Minister of State pointed out that ComReg conducts an audit of a minimum of 100 sites annually. We have approximately 4,500 masts in the country. That shows who within the Department is concerned about potential risks to health. If we were serious about this the reports on those audits would be given to the communities in which the masts are located. Members of the public who expressed concern and objected to masts should be entitled to know the results of these audits.

One might glibly state the results of these audits are available if one seeks them. I know of a group concerned about the location of a mast within 5 metres of a schoolyard. It asked whether an audit was ever conducted by ComReg. The group was told the report is a public document which it could obtain for itself. Unfortunately such a reply from ComReg, the agency charged with responsibility to carry out the audits, gives the two fingers. For that reason more than any other, all hell breaks loose in an area the minute a notice appears that a particular company intends to erect a mast. Communities have been divided on this issue and people take sides. Somebody may get an over-the-top price for a site to be used for a mast. Often, such a site is not of great commercial use. The person providing the potential location for the mast is ostracised by other people with genuine concerns about risk to health.

No local authority can monitor the concept of co-location. It should not be the responsibility of a local authority to direct the planning section towards a co-location site. Those who wish to erect a mast should be forced to prove no other alternative exists. Co-location should occur wherever possible.