John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith. I did not have the opportunity to listen to all the other contributions but I have heard a few speakers from the Government and Opposition sides. It is a puzzle to understand why the Government put down an amendment as all of the Government speakers to whom I listened agreed with the motion. There is nothing controversial in the wording of the motion, particularly given what Government speakers have stated during the debate. The motion is a simple one which expresses concerns following recent reports, calls on the Government to review the existing guidelines and empowers the Radiological Protection Institute to carry out monitoring. The Government amendment is unnecessary.

I am happy to support the motion. As one who is involved in politics, I could not be against the use of mobile telephones. They are a curse in many respects but a necessary evil given we would not be able to do our jobs without access to mobile telephone technology. However, the crucial issue is the location of masts and antennae.

Two arguments are ongoing. Senator Mansergh stated that he did not have a problem with the aesthetics of masts but I do have such a problem. There is a proliferation of mast structures at a number of locations in my area of Carlow and Kilkenny. I served on Kilkenny County Council in its previous term and know it included a paragraph on co-location in its last two county development plans. Despite this, I am not aware of any location in County Kilkenny where more than one mobile telephone company uses the same mast structure. This does not make sense if it is the policy of the council to implement co-location. None of the companies co-locate whereas some locations have five or six masts.

Last year at my clinic I received a planning query from a gentleman who noticed the erection of a new planning application at Corbally Wood, Piltown, County Kilkenny. I asked the local authority to investigate the number of masts on the hill. It took a couple of months to do so but the council eventually discovered five masts located there in varying degrees of obedience to the planning laws. It beggars belief and makes no sense that each of the major mobile telephone companies had a mast structure on that hill but could not share a mast for their antennae.

Senator Kenneally will be familiar with the village of Dungarvan, County Kilkenny, which is located on the N9 Dublin to Waterford road. As one enters the village from Dublin, the facing hill is known as Coppenagh Hill, which is located between Thomastown and Graiguenamanagh, a very scenic part of the world. Three masts of different mobile companies are located virtually back to back at the most visually obtrusive point on the hill. It makes no sense that the companies could not share the one structure. It will take effort by central Government to ensure local authorities insist telecommunications companies share masts. I encourage the Department and the Government to take that route.

In recent years there has been a proliferation of booster antennae in different locations throughout the country, mostly in urban areas. A conflict of interest arises in County Kilkenny where the county council has allowed a telecommunications company to install booster antennae on a water tower immediately behind a local authority housing estate. It transpires such antennae do not require planning permission as they are within the exempt category. However, it is not appropriate or acceptable that a local authority would accept funding from such a source. It clearly suggests a conflict of interest would arise if and when the council deals with planning applications from the same company for different locations. This should not be allowed now or in the future. I ask that whatever guidelines are issued from this date would take account of that and make sure the problem does not arise.

A similar situation has arisen throughout the country with regard to Garda stations and many of the agricultural companies, creameries in particular, which have similar arrangements with telecommunications companies. Booster antennae are supplied, most often in built up areas where there may have been a coverage problem in isolated pockets. These antennae are often located very close to schools or community facilities. Irrespective of whether we like it, significant questions hang over the possible health implications of masts. I do not claim to possess any in-depth knowledge in that respect but Senator Mansergh referred to the precautionary principle and I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point.

My final point concerns another problem I have seen emerge in counties Kilkenny and Carlow since my involvement in politics began in recent years. Most local authorities grant permissions for these structures for period of five years. Almost invariably these telecommunications companies allow the planning permissions to lapse before re-applying. I have yet to find an exception in Kilkenny. If they have planning permission for five years, they operate for six years before submitting a new application to continue at that location, usually after a complaint or inquiry. That is unacceptable and should be held against them when they re-apply for planning permission. They deliberately allow the permission to lapse for as long as possible and do nothing about it until somebody questions them.

There are three issues involved, namely, allowing planning permission to lapse, booster antennae and particularly the role of Government agencies and local authorities in allowing their facilities to be used to hold them, and co-location. If those three points could be addressed we could have a resolution. I am disappointed the Government has an amendment to a harmless motion, which seeks only to get information on this contentious issue. I am glad to support the motion in the name of Senator Finucane and my colleagues.