JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 2006

Non-Ionising Radiation: Presentation (Resumed).

Chairman

The committee is reviewing its report of June 2005 on non-ionising radiation from mobile phone handsets and masts. We are doing so with the ministerial advisory committee set up to examine Government policy in relation to possible health effects. I welcome Mr. Peter O'Neill, assistant secretary of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; Mr. Roger O'Connor and Mr. Alan O'Sullivan from the Department; Dr. Colette Bonner, deputy chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children; Dr. Colman Concannon, senior scientific officer of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Dr. Anthony Staines, senior lecturer in public health.

Before I ask Mr. O'Neill to begin, I wish to advise that we will hear a short presentation which has been forwarded to the committee, followed by a question and answer session. I also draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

It is seldom that we have the opportunity to engage with departmental officials on recommendations we ourselves have made which have been taken on board by the Department. It is a pleasure to find that the work we are doing in committee has added some value to the process and has been helpful both to the Department and to Government. We have issued a number of reports during the four years of our existence. Our final report, on energy, will be launched on Thursday, 15 June. We hope your colleagues in the Department will accept its findings and will find it helpful when they are developing future energy policy. We look forward to engaging again with the advisory committee and other bodies on 14 June. We have sent a set of questions regarding our second broadband report, which I hope is being attended to.

I welcome Mr. Peter O'Neill. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope he will be very successful.

Mr. Peter O’Neill

Thank you, Chairman. We are taking very seriously the report the committee produced last June. I will briefly outline what has happened since then.

The Government has considered the report and has set up an interdepartmental advisory committee to examine Government policy on possible health effects of non-ionising radiation and advise on the appropriate action to be taken in regard to the recommendations contained in this committee's report. Some of the members of the advisory committee are here today. Represented on it are the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Health and Children, the Radiological Protection Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of the Chief Science Adviser.

The representatives on the committee from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Radiological Protection Institute and the Office of the Chief Science Adviser cannot be here today and send their apologies. They had prior engagements that they could not break. The Health and Safety Authority also participated in the initial meetings of the committee but decided to withdraw from the committee because it will not be dealing with areas of concern to the Health and Safety Authority which deals with non-ionising radiation issues in the workplace.

The Government also asked the advisory committee to set up an expert group on electromagnetic fields. The reason for this was to provide a detailed overview of the state of the latest international research in this field, to provide answers to questions that are commonly raised by the public in regard to the health effects of electromagnetic fields and to suggest ways in which the Government may deal with current research findings and also whether or not the Government should engage in research of its own on whether new policies should be developed.

This expert group will produce a scientific report and will provide science-based policy advice to the advisory committee under the following terms of reference. The group will focus on issues of public exposure rather than examining occupational exposure as this is handled by the Health and Safety Authority. The report produced by the group will be aimed at the Government and at the public rather than at the scientific community. The group will consult with industry, with recognised national and international experts and with the wider community in order to complete its report. The report of the group will provide a detailed overview of the state of the latest international research. It will provide answers to questions commonly raised by the public in regard to the health effects of electromagnetic fields and also suggest ways in which the Government may deal with research findings.

The main focus of the expert group will be on the following three areas: radio frequence, static fields and extremely low frequency. It will have four overarching themes dealing with new wireless technologies, hypersensitivity and electromagnetic fields, children and electromagnetic fields, and risk communication. The members of the expert group are Dr. Michael Repacholi, the current co-ordinator for radiation and environmental health in the World Health Organisation, chairman of the group; Dr. Tom McManus, former chief technical adviser to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; Dr. Eric van Rongen, scientific secretary to the Health Council of the Netherlands; and Dr. Anthony Staines, senior lecturer in epidemiology in the department of public health in UCD, who is here today. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is providing secretarial support to the group.

The group has done quite a considerable amount of work so far and, particularly importantly, it has engaged in public consultation. It has invited submissions in order to garner the views of the public. This process started on 2 December with an advertisement in the newspapers and with letters to local authorities, Government Departments and agencies, political parties, interested groups and individuals. Written submissions were received from individuals, local authorities, industry interests and concerned citizens groups. The expert group also met representatives of some of these in February where further clarification was obtained regarding issues facing the expert group from an Irish perspective.

We have asked the expert group to produce its report in June and we are told the group is on schedule to do that. When the advisory committee receives the report from the expert group it will prepare a comprehensive report to Government on appropriate action to be taken on foot of the recommendations contained in this committee's report of June 2005. That is how matters stand at present.

Chairman

Is the expert group considering all of the recommendations of the committee or only the health issues?

Mr. O’Neill

The expert group will consider all of the recommendations. One recommendation is referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children.

Chairman

Which one is it?

Mr. O’Neill

Recommendation No. 8 is being referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. All the other recommendations have been put before the expert group.

Chairman

I was the rapporteur for that report in 1998. Recommendation No. 10 is important. It relates to our recommendation that masts should not be sited near health centres, schools or sensitive sites such as playgrounds or playing pitches. We made that recommendation in response to the concerns of the public. Perhaps some of the advisory committee's consultations have thrown that up as well. I am not sure whether or not it is within the scope of the advisory committee's work.

Mr. O’Neill

It certainly will be considered.

Chairman

Before I call on my colleagues, when will the report be published?

Mr. O’Neill

We have asked the expert group to produce the report in June. It may be towards the end of June. At that stage we will have to examine that report and do our own report for Government on that, so it will be some time during the summer.

Chairman

Have there been many responses to the advertisement and communications?

Mr. O’Neill

We received 25.

Chairman

From the whole country?

Mr. O’Neill

That was in response to the advertisement by the expert group.

Chairman

I have the advertisement before me.

Mr. O’Neill

There were 25 responses from a range of different organisations.

Chairman

Were there individual or personal responses?

Mr. O’Neill

There were several individual responses. I do not have names.

Chairman

I just wanted to get a flavour of the responses. There were only 25 responses in the whole country.

Mr. O’Neill

Yes.

Deputy Durkan

What form did the advertisement take? Was it similar to what is on the last page of the appendix?

Mr. O’Neill

It is in the appendix.

Deputy Durkan

Was the advertisement sufficiently informative to draw a response from a wider audience? It appears somewhat limited in its appeal. I may be wrong in saying that. My interest is to ensure that health and safety standards are recognised in this area. Technology is advancing all the time. We need to be up to speed with these advances and with the health and safety requirements that accrue from those advances. We made specific recommendations. We specifically wanted to hear about medical evidence and the IMO's response because whenever a debate arises we are caught in the middle and we must have recourse to the very best information, which we will have when we receive the report of the advisory committee. I presume that when the report is produced and presented to Government it will be published straight away.

Chairman

As there is a vote in the Dáil, I propose we suspend until it finishes.

Sitting suspended at 4.10 p.m. and resumed at 4.25 p.m.

Chairman

I apologise for the break; I think we won the vote. Deputy Durkan was asking a question before the break. Will he repeat the question to allow the officials answer it? If Mr. O'Neill does not know the answer he can refer it.

Deputy Durkan

The first was whether the nature of the investment was sufficiently inclusive to draw a response from the public in the way it might be intended. The other question was that, given all we have said in the past, we are anxious to be certain we have guidelines regarding the effect on people's health, especially those who are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies and so on. There has been much discussion and speculation on that and when the report is produced it will be hugely beneficial to us, the people who have concerns and the industry because we will have the authoritative version of the most up to date information and will be able to say that this is as good as we can get. We will then be in a position to move on.

Mr. O’Neill

On the scope of the advertisement, we believed the advertisement was sufficiently widely scoped to draw in submissions. We had more than 20 submissions, many of which were from representative groups. Although we got only 20 submissions, therefore, they covered a wide grouping of people. The expert group will be well-informed about opinions in Ireland and will be able to factor that into their considerations.

On the question of medical expertise on electromagnetic fields, we are reassured in that we have Dr. Bonner, deputy chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children, on the interdepartmental committee, and Dr. Anthony Staines, who is a medical person, on the expert group. Between the advisory group and the expert group, we believe we have a good degree of medical input. Those medical issues will be addressed by the expert group and recommendations will be forthcoming from it.

Deputy Broughan

I warmly welcome the expert group. This whole area is one to which the Oireachtas has given careful thought. The representatives might have noticed that earlier we had a delegation in from Glenbeigh and Kenmare, County Kerry. The type of reaction public representatives often get to the location of phone masts, and sometimes to problems regarding handsets, is fairly typical. The type of response we heard earlier was fairly typical of the concerns people have in my constituency. They are concerned about the forest of masts that have appeared, particularly in the west of my constituency, and the failure to co-locate them.

Our report was the second one this committee and its predecessor carried out into the effects of non-ionising and microwave radiation. It shows the level of concern that exists. Notwithstanding the forming of the non-statutory group of representatives from various Departments, is our approach not still a long way from that of the United Kingdom to this matter? Its chief medical officer was Sir William Stewart and the committee that was appointed published the famous Stewart report. Did that report, which was published some years ago, not contain strong guidelines on the location of masts and on handsets? Did Sir William Stewart not recommend that children under the age of eight should not have handsets? Is that a recommendation that the expert group will consider when preparing its report next month? Will it make a definitive recommendation on that issue?

I accept there are many benefits to having a handset. Mine is on the desk and is switched off, but we use them extensively. Telecommunications accounts for a large portion of our GNP and that industry is an important aspect of the remit of this committee. The industry accounts for 3% to 5% of GDP. A number of us spoke to Mr. Danon who has taken over Eircom and Meteor. The latter company continues to grow and, together with the other two operators, it means there are three operators in this market. It is a competitive marketplace.

We have passed the level of 100% of the population having a mobile phone and are heading towards the level found in Switzerland or a similar economy where there is 147% or 150% penetration. In other words, many people have several mobile phones. There is no question that mobile phones play a vital role in the economy. I mention children in that respect. There are benefits, particularly for parents, in their children having a mobile phone. From the discussions in the Dáil this morning and yesterday, the benefit of this technology is evident. However, the people we represent are concerned about the danger posed by the masts and by the failure to co-locate them.

There are medical issues around the use of mobile phones. The use of this technology has gathered pace only in the past 15 years. During the previous Labour Party-Fianna Fáil Government, which came to power in late 1992, I noticed that the programme managers had mobile phones. I did not have one at that time. This was the first time many of us noticed the increase in the use of mobile phones and from that era onwards their use gathered pace.

Does the expert group intend to make a definitive recommendation on the heath impact of the use of mobile phones? Will the research carried out in Sweden, which the committee considered in its deliberations on the report, be re-assessed? Recently we heard of reports from Germany on the possible dangers of the use of handsets and the link to various cancers affecting the head. Even though the technology is relatively young, it may well have been a factor in the incidence of such cancers.

Has the group a view on the planning aspect? Representatives are frustrated with the exemptions from planning conditions. Various operators are based in at least five major locations in Coolock industrial estate in my constituency and a Gaelic football club is located nearby. We have got the list of such exemptions. All kinds of skullduggery on the location of masts has been carried out by developers and phone companies. The most famous case in my constituency was the erection of a chimney which transpired to be a mast which the local shopping centre denied. That was done by a prominent mobile company. Will the group make representations on such incidents? Does Mr. O'Neill consider that the recommendations in our report and in the previous report, which was published when I believe the late Deputy Doherty was Chairman of the committee——

Chairman

He was the rapporteur.

Deputy Broughan

Therefore, the Chairman is the rapporteur, and I congratulate the Chairman on that. Our Chairman has had a long history of involvement in this area. However, we have not seen any action taken to address this issue. Should there not at least be a democratic planning process in which constituents could get involved and exemptions from planning conditions could be removed?

When Deputy Howlin was Minister for the Environment he drew up detailed planning guidelines on co-location and the distance such facilities should be from schools and residences. It seems strange they have not been implemented. Will the expert group address that issue? I welcome that it will publish a report. On planning and health grounds, will the expert group have something fundamental to say?

Chairman

Mr. O'Neill can share out the taking of the questions raised by the two Deputies.

Mr. O’Neill

Deputy Broughan referred to recommendations related to medical issues. I said earlier that the expert group has been asked to examine all the recommendations of the joint committee, including those relating to medical issues. It will report its conclusions and recommendations on that issue.

Deputy Broughan will appreciate that the question of planning and the planning process is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and not a matter which I am in a position to discuss. This is an issue that has come forth in the joint committee's report and the expert group has been asked to examine it. It has been asked to review the research on this area and to report to us with its recommendations on issues such as that. We will take them on board and report to the Government. The Deputy can take it that issue will be covered by the expert group. I am not in a position today to make a statement as to whether something fundamental will be contained in that review. I will have to await the findings of the expert group.

Deputy Broughan

Has the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government been consulted on this issue? I believe it was approximately two years ago——

Chairman

This matter has been passed to the working group.

Deputy Broughan

Dublin City Council, one of the county councils of which I have been a member, presented us with a list 18 months ago of no less than 141 locations, 20 of them in my constituency, in respect of which no planning permission was sought. These locations are in various places stretching from the north side to the south side of Dublin city. They represent a rollout of a national infrastructure which was carried out without planning permission. If it was any other kind of infrastructure, a Part 8 or Part 11 provision would apply. Effectively a county council, on occasion, can get permission from itself for a proposed development, but at least there is a process. However, in the case of these 141 locations, there was no planning process.

We heard earlier about what happened in Kerry and my colleague from Limerick spoke about what has happened there. Is the planning system not a farce when it comes to this area?

Chairman

Is that not a question for another body? It is not a question for the Assistant Secretary General of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Deputy Broughan

He said the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is involved.

Chairman

Am I correct in saying that Mr. O'Neill can refer recommendation No. 10, with which we are dealing, to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ask it to deal with it and report on it for consideration in his report?

Mr. O’Neill

Yes. The expert group will report to us with recommendations around that issue, but it is ultimately a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman

Account will be taken of the transcript of this meeting in terms of the earlier group which made a presentation to the committee. It is possible that this committee, when it considers the evidence given to it earlier today, will seek a review of the regulations, exemptions, the co-location of masts and antennae and so forth. It is possible we will make that recommendation to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy Broughan

What is the status of the delegation today? Our recommendation 3.4 was that there should be a standing advisory committee and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be part of it, along with the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which we invigilate. I understood the group established and which is before the committee was approximating to recommendation 3.4.

Chairman

You are correct but Mr. O'Neill is not in a position to answer. I presume the representative from the Department will have an input and that Mr. O'Neill is asking for that.

Mr. O’Neill

Yes. I will explain the status of this group. The group was set up by Government to examine all the recommendations made by the Oireachtas committee, including the recommendation on establishing a standing group.

Chairman

Will you have regard to the 11 recommendations and others that you may consider from the consultations you have had and your own input as an expert adviser?

Mr. O’Neill

Yes. You mentioned the transcript. We will carefully read the transcript of the proceedings with the group that was before the committee earlier. In fact, we have accepted a submission from the group during the recess.

Chairman

I am delighted to hear that.

Senator Finucane

I am aware the group is examining the health aspect. I am disappointed because it appears to be a narrow focus. I am aware of the group's objective but if all the different Departments were pulled together there could be a wider focus. I accept there are planning implications with this issue. When the Planning and Development Act was being debated in 2001, many of those exemptions were included. They gave carte blanche to the Office of Public Works.

The OPW considers putting masts and antennae in various Government buildings, Garda buildings and so forth throughout the country a good commercial transaction. At that time, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was concerned about the telecommunications structure and the number of masts throughout the country. However, there is a huge difference between 2006 and 2001, given the pressure from the Department at that time. Does Mr. O'Neill know how many of these masts are in the country? Is there a breakdown of the number of masts in different counties?

The mobile phone has been available for approximately 20 years so one would have anticipated that there would be a reduction in the number of planning applications for communications masts. However, every week in County Limerick I receive representations from different groups concerned about communications masts and the fact that they might be located near a school, in an area of architectural importance and so forth. I also attend public meetings on the issue. There appears to be a dramatic acceleration in the number of applications.

I got a telephone call during the week about Abbeyfeale Garda station, where there is a mast with different antennae. Co-location is permissible in that situation. The masts are being put up by Meteor, Hutchinson 3G and even RTE. The mobile phone companies only pay lip service to the idea of a tacit arrangement between them. They talk about it but it does not happen. They are probably looking at the commercial aspect. It is time somebody put pressure on them. People are sick and tired of the mast issue. Public representatives are tired of it. We attend the meetings and listen to the frustrations of the people at those meetings.

The group has a narrow focus on the health aspect. However, will it also look at the actual emissions from the masts and compare them with those in other countries such as Sweden and Austria? Will the group also explain why the frequency is so much higher in Ireland than in those countries? I attended a large meeting on masts held in Limerick. There were heart-rending stories about people who were sensitive to the masts and the impact the masts have had on their lives. I welcome the fact that the group is examining the health aspect and, perhaps, we will find a solution to it but how many of these masts are in the country and what companies have erected them?

There is a dramatic difference between 2001 and 2006. There is no justification nowadays for exemptions. They are a short cut whereby the mast can be put in the Garda station without any hassle. It is not necessary to go through the bureaucracy of applying for planning permission and so forth. A public meeting is to be held in Abbeyfeale tomorrow night but I am told by the organisers that they do not have a hope because there is an exemption. Health is too narrow a focus; the focus should be more broad based. I cannot understand how all these groups can be brought together from different Departments and only focus on health. This is a bigger issue. Otherwise the committee would not have arrived at its conclusions and recommendations. It is time we took the issue seriously.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has a lead role. There is a dramatic difference between the years 2001 and 2006. The companies should be told that they must accept co-location or not have a mast. I, like other public representatives, am sick and tired of trying to explain to people the reason these commercial companies are erecting masts in various locations.

Chairman

Perhaps I can assist you, Senator Finucane. When we got the figures before producing our report, there were 4,000 GSM antenna masts in Ireland.

Senator Finucane

How many were in public buildings?

Chairman

That was in 2005. We want to focus on the other issue.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the advisory group. I will focus on one recommendation in our report, which is the most important. It is recommendation No. 10 regarding the location of masts close to health centres, schools or other sensitive areas such as playgrounds or playing pitches. Mr. O'Neill said it will probably be late June when the report is received from the advisory group. The group will probably have to study it before going to the Government. Can he give us an indication of when we will see some positive action?

I welcome this meeting today. We stated in the report that we would review this matter after 12 months to find out what progress is made on the recommendations. A small amount of progress has been made but we must move further. We should not have to debate this issue, the substance of No. 10, again in 12 months. My reason for raising this is the unfortunate situation that has arisen in my parish on the outskirts of Waterford city. The local GAA club, Ballygunner Hurling Club, did a deal with Meteor and erected a mast without any consultation. It is most unfortunate because this club is the biggest organisation in the parish. It has done a huge amount for everybody and been helpful to schools and others through the years. This action, however, has polarised people and I believe if the club members could get a way out of it, they would take it. If recommendation No. 10 was in place, it would be a way around their problem.

There is no conclusive evidence as to what dangers are posed by masts. One expert will say one thing, another will say something else. However, we must err on the side of caution and that is what we have done in our report. Does the group accept that there is a particular danger to children and adults? Even Meteor stated on its website some time ago that there are no scientific findings that indicate children or the elderly are more sensitive to radio waves than anyone else. When the company was tackled about that, it removed it from the website. That suggests the company itself is unsure and that it has a difficulty. Perhaps somebody could comment on that aspect. I am particularly mindful of the Sentini report which suggested that none of these masts should be within 300 metres of sensitive areas, including populated places.

As regards the planning aspect, unfortunately there is no representative of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government here. I know that the departmental representative is unavoidably absent. If we come up with a recommendation eventually to which the ministerial advisory committee agrees, and something is inserted in the Planning Acts to the effect that masts cannot be located in particular areas, what force will that have over masts that have already been erected in those areas? Can they then be removed?

Chairman

It is important to recall that an interdepartmental advisory committee was established in the first instance, some of whose representatives are here under Mr. O'Neill. The expert medical group that was established is not here however. Dr. Staines is the only member of that group present. That group has not yet reported on the 11 recommendations concerning our report. We are grateful to the Government for taking on board a number of our proposals and for reviewing this report and its recommendations. If I understand it clearly, the expert group will be reporting by the end of June. At that stage, the advisory group will be in a position to brief the Government and decide on the next course of action. I do not want to get bogged down in planning matters today. Mr. O'Neill is the assistant secretary of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I have his assurance that the advisory group is considering the 11 recommendations of this joint committee. That is why we are reviewing today the progress of the advisory committee, which has already been outlined in the opening address. If Mr. O'Neill wants to refer to any of the other questions of relevance that have been raised here he can do so.

Perhaps Dr. Staines is in a position to make a preliminary comment on the health aspects. We read all the expert reports before we finished our own. Perhaps Dr. Staines could brief the committee on his own views concerning non-ionising radiation. He might also have regard to this particular committee room, which contains four televisions, a digital sound recording system, a digital name-plate system, a land wi-fi and a number of mobile phones that are switched to silent mode. I am not electromagnetically sensitive but I accept that part of the population is. We have already heard that at the committee. One witness said that if he was driven around the country roads of Ireland blindfolded he would know when he was approaching a non-ionising radio transmitter antenna. Perhaps Dr. Staines would comment on that.

Dr. Anthony Staines

First of all, our report is still under consideration. We are meeting again tomorrow and will be preparing a draft report to hand over to Mr. O'Neill in the near future. The Chairman has raided a number of issues some of which fall well outside what I know about. There is going to be a major uncertainty in the evidence, as members of the committee have suggested, and there is not much one can do about that. There is not going to be a definitive study that will show whether or not there are health effects. By undertaking bigger studies, all one can do is to suggest that if there are effects they get smaller.

There are a number of studies to which we will be giving detailed consideration tomorrow. We have identified a number of specific questions that are priorities for us to focus upon. One of those is the hypersensitivity question, which the Chairman also raised. If the Chairman so wishes, I will say a couple of words about that. In essence, there is a large number of studies showing that under laboratory conditions, people cannot detect whether these masts are turned on or not. There is a study before me which shows beautifully that people who report hypersensitivity develop symptoms on exposure to masts, but these symptoms are not affected by whether the mast is turned on or not — they are the same. This does not mean that the symptoms are not real. It does not mean the symptoms do not exist and it does not mean there is not a health problem. It means that the description of what is electromagnetic hypersensitivity may not tell us much about its causes. It does not mean it is an imaginary complaint or one that does not need to be addressed. It does need to be addressed. There are models. We have received a communication from Leena Hilliard, a researcher and therapist in this field in Sweden. That provides a model, down which we could move, for managing the symptoms of people who have these conditions.

Chairman

It was mentioned that 5% of the Irish population were sensitive. The information in our report — if Dr. Staines read it — said the figure was approximately 1%. Does Dr. Staines have any idea of what figures we are talking about?

Dr. Staines

To the best of my knowledge, there are no published surveys of the Irish population in this regard. I am familiar with most of the health surveys that have been done in Ireland and none of them has asked about electromagnetic hypersensitivity. So, as far as I know, there is no Irish evidence that bears directly on the question. There are studies from a number of other countries that have come up with fairly different results. None of them come up as high as 5%. The highest I know of is a Swedish study that reports 3%. Quite a big Californian study reported 1.5%.

Chairman

Does Mr. O'Neill have any other comment to make on some of the statements by the members?

Mr. O’Neill

No, other than what I have said before and which the Chairman has reiterated — that the issues are all with the expert group at the moment. We are not in a position to pre-empt what that group might say about them.

Deputy Broughan

Would Dr. Staines recognise a precautionary principle — for example, in the way we discuss environmental issues — that we must always err on the side of caution? Would he see that as having any real scientific basis? Given that, would it influence what he is likely to report? Has Dr. Staines examined the work of the Karl Linske Institute and its reports?

Dr. Staines

First, I would recognise the precautionary principle. Essentially, it says that in the absence of scientific certainty about risks, one does not wait for a certainty to arrive before taking action to ameliorate it. It is an important public health principle. The question is what action does one take to ameliorate the risks. If one is producing regulations as to where masts might go, the regulations need to cover the field strength, not the physical location of the masts. The emissions from masts go out in a doughnut shape, so they tend to be highest and at some distance from the masts at ground level. One could conceivably end up maximising the exposure to children by requiring the masts to be at a certain distance from places where there are lots of children. Therefore, the regulations would need to specify field strength.

I am familiar with some of the work the Karl Linske group has done, but not all of it. It has put a lot of effort into this. Our group has consciously not sought to produce another detailed review of all the literature because that is a 400 to 500-page document and it would take several people working full-time a year to do it. As several other people are already doing this around the world, it did not seem sensible to spend an enormous amount of money doing it. So we have built on the reviews that other people have done, and recently published literature. Three or four relevant papers have come out since our group started meeting.

Senator Finucane

Dr. Staines mentioned the term "field strength" and I probably used the term "emission levels". My understanding of an analysis of it is that we in Ireland and the UK, as opposed to other European countries like Sweden and Austria, have the highest level of field strength coming from those masts. In Sweden, Austria and other countries, the levels are quite low. How concerned are we about this matter? I understand that in Ireland if it rains or there are bad mists, they must increase the field strength in the masts. Is it possible to reduce the field strength or why can the European countries to which I refer manage with a field strength so much lower than ours?

Dr. Staines

That is a question I would have to pass to a telecommunications engineer. I do not understand the technicalities of it.

Chairman

That is a question which Mr. O'Neill could consider and on which he might return to the committee.

Mr. O’Neill

I will do so.

Senator Finucane

It is an intrinsic part of the report from the point of view of health. The objective should be to get the level down to that which appears to be acceptable in other European countries, rather than being in a position where people are sensitive to the location of these electromagnetic masts and antenna. It is an important factor in their report. I advise them to look at the experience in other countries.

Chairman

The committee would agree with Senator Finucane. Dr. McManus might be the man for that job but he is not here today. Although I did not realise it, Mr. O'Connor has expertise in that area.

Mr. Roger O’Connor

Yes, I am a telecommunications engineer. I would be interested to know the basis on which that picture has emerged. The mobile telephone systems are the same throughout Europe and we use the same standard — GSM. The manufacturers produce the equipment to be sold in many markets and it is generally the same. The standards under which they operate are generally the same and I would be surprised if there was an appreciable difference.

Senator Finucane

I can show Mr. O'Connor the tabulated comparison with the different countries which I received recently from a person knowledgeable in that area. The information is available.

Chairman

Did Mr. O'Connor appear before the committee previously with another official?

Mr. O’Connor

Yes. I was with Mr. Bob Hanna.

Chairman

The question is whether the emissions from the antennae adhere to international standards and whether they are higher or lower than the lowest international comparisons.

Senator Finucane

Why is there such a variation between the field strength levels of European countries such as Sweden and Austria and those of Ireland and the UK, which have the highest levels? Why is it necessary to emit such strong levels?

Mr. O’Connor

An additional point I wish to make is that all of the companies operating here are required by their licences issued by ComReg to comply with international standards on emissions from antenna. Those standards are enshrined in the ICNERP guidelines, which are the international guidelines recognised as sufficiently safe to guarantee public safety within the scientific evidence available to date. I would be surprised to find that there is an appreciable difference and I would be keen to see that data.

Senator Finucane

To qualify that point made by Mr. O'Connor, is it true that ComReg employs people who test emissions standards? It mentioned testing approximately 400 sites. Those people are based in the UK and they do much work for mobile telephone companies in the UK. Surely a fundamental recommendation in that report was that as people are concerned about these masts, there was much validity in making the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland responsible for that area rather than ComReg delegating it to some crowd in the UK who may be compromised anyway.

Mr. O’Neill

That is one of the recommendations in the report. It is one of those being looked at and on which there will be a report back.

Senator Finucane stated that ComReg surveys these sites. It surveyed 400 sites in 2004. It is surveying them at the rate of approximately 100 a year. Today, approximately 12.5% of all sites in the country have been surveyed. No site has been found to be above the limits and generally speaking, the level of the sites surveyed is about 1/1000 of the ICNERP limits. They are very much below the limits.

Senator Finucane

Which company was used?

Mr. O’Neill

I do not have those details.

Senator Finucane

They would be worth looking at.

Chairman

We have raised this important question at which the Department will be looking. I welcome Deputy Gilmore to the committee.

Deputy Gilmore

I thank the Chairman for permitting me to make a contribution. I compliment him and the committee on its work on this issue.

Chairman

Deputy Gilmore might mention that to the Taoiseach.

Deputy Durkan

I am sure he knows.

Deputy Gilmore

I would be glad to do so. There is not much point in mentioning it to him now. The Government has little time left.

Deputy Durkan

And the Taoiseach is in America.

Deputy Gilmore

There were just two questions I wanted to raise. First, as I understand it, there is a Government committee to advise on the health implications of telecommunications masts and antennae and there is an expert group which is to report to that committee. It is expected that the expert group will report by June of this year, the advisory committee will consider that report and then it will go to the Government.

In the meantime, the problem is that there are masts rising out of the ground all over the place and where there are masts, the number of antennae is being increased. Is there any policy or view on placing a moratorium or at least a slowing down in the erection of masts? By the time the expert group has reported, the advisory committee has considered the report and it goes to Government, all the masts and antennae will be already up and it will be an academic exercise.

Is there a view as to what happens between now and the report of the advisory committee, and presumably Government taking some decision on it? Is there a view as to what should happen retrospectively in the event of the expert group or the advisory committee coming to a conclusion that some of these masts might be outside the scope of what would be permissible when the committee reports? To put that question in another way, what reassurance has this committee that the advisory committee will not cut its cloth to measure what has already been put in place? In saying so, I mean no disrespect to the advisory committee, its members or their integrity. The position is that this is moving ahead apace while the discussions are ongoing and I want to hear how that is squared off.

My second question is specifically for Dr. Staines. I want to hear more about this doughnut. If, for example, one takes a typical mast with the maximum permissible number of antennae, which at present is 12 under the exemption limit for planning, how does the doughnut translate in terms of distance? Is it possible to express it in those terms and, if not, what type of questions need to be put to have that answered? Where is the doughnut? How close to the mast is the empty bit of the doughnut, where does the substantial piece start and how far does it spread?

Mr. O’Neill

I appreciate Deputy Gilmore's comment. I reassure him that the advisory committee will not cut cloth to measure. We have asked the expert group to review the latest international research and to return to us with scientifically-based recommendations on each of the committee's recommendations, including the question of the proximity of masts which, as I stated earlier, is a planning issue for which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local planning authorities have responsibility. I cannot say what might happen on the planning front in this regard and whether the question of retrospection might arise, as I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the expert group's deliberations.

Dr. Staines

I can answer part of the Deputy's question because the gory details of what happened regarding telecommunications masts are best referred to a telecommunications engineer. With regard to the effects of exposure to radiation from masts, the greater the exposure, the greater the effect. Exposure from masts does not spread with the visibility of the mast. I understand it is site specific but others may be better suited to comment on that and the exposure from the mast on site needs to be considered.

Chairman

The expert group will examine emissions from handsets and will have regard to Sir William Stewart's report, referred to by Deputy Broughan. I would not like to focus entirely on antennae, as mobile telephone standards and handset coding are important issues. Senator Finucane referred to the testing of masts. The committee strongly recommends to Mr. O'Neill that the Radiological Protection Institution of Ireland be given the responsibility of testing and monitoring masts. I acknowledge the RPII has responsibility for ionising as opposed to non-ionising radiation but it would be relatively easy to bolt on this additional function, provided the necessary resources are given to the body, as was stated in our report. That would mean a State institution would address the matter rather than buying in expertise from overseas. The committee thought long and hard about this and it felt the examination of mast antennae should be conducted by the RPII. We are not happy with the level of testing. Only 400 out of a total of 4,000 masts are tested and that is not enough to ensure public confidence, which is paramount. In the absence of certificates for every antenna on a five-year basis, non-ionising radiation emissions from a mast must comply with international standards or those laid down by ComReg or whichever body is responsible. We strongly urge that the RPII has regard to recommendation No. 3 because it would fit well within its work.

Deputy Broughan

The planning and health issues are inextricably linked, similar to energy and climate change. A number of planning applications require an environmental impact study and, for example, a hydrology report might be required for a major development. It is incredible that these bird cage structures, which are like mini-Eiffel Towers, could be expanded, given they also impact visually on the environment. No attempt has been made under planning criteria to evaluate the overall impact on the population, which is bizarre. The committee would like a scientist or medical authority, such as Professor Stewart in the UK, to evaluate the current position, to which we could revert in future, given the technology is so new. Studies have found that the prevalence of acoustic tumours among 20 to 30 year olds is greater now than previously. The impact of masts should be constantly evaluated. It will be difficult to address these issues without adding them to the planning mix, which is fundamentally necessary. The Chairman has been involved in two reports and when the Government parties leave office after two terms, we will be none the wiser nor will an adequate regime be in place to address health and environmental concerns. Is it likely that Dr. Staines will address the targeting of children, which Dr. Stewart deplored in his reports?

Deputy Durkan

When the expert group publishes its report, could the committee include an addendum to its recommendations that would incorporate the main findings with particular reference to health and environmental issues?

Chairman

I will consider that.

Dr. Staines

I cannot say what the recommendations and conclusions will be because we are meeting to go through them tomorrow. However, we will consider all the issues raised by the committee.

Chairman

Was Dr. Bonner employed by the Department of Health and Children in 1998?

Dr. Colette Bonner

No.

Chairman

In 1998, the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise made a number of recommendations to the Department of Health and Children. It recommended that the Department should form a panel of experts to examine electromagnetic sensitivity in patients and so on. Has the Department done this?

Dr. Bonner

No work has been done in that area. This group will be my introduction to electromagnetic radiation but, prior to joining the Department, nothing had been done in this regard. This is a good start and given the Department is represented on the group, it will take responsibility in this area and produce policy guidelines, where necessary.

Deputy Durkan

We have discussed only the telecommunications area. Similar problems occur at electrical installations, particularly where high tension lines are involved. The recommendation would be beneficial regarding planning matters. For example, a school was built in the past five years under a 400 KV line. Are emissions from such lines measured? The public needs to know because there could be serious consequences. When the group provides us with this information, at least we will be able to give an opinion.

Mr. O’Neill

That issue will be covered by the expert group.

Chairman

Will Dr. Bonner search the archives of the Department of Health and Children to ascertain whether there have been cases relating to electromagnetic sensitivity and how many people have made complaints? If those statistics are not available, perhaps it is time the Department started. Will she get back to the clerk to the committee in this regard? I do not want to have to invite the Secretary General and officials of the Department of Health and Children to attend to answer these questions given the committee's heavy workload. Perhaps the delegation could assist us with this complex issue which involves the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Health and Children, as well as other agencies such as Eircom. I am glad somebody is taking responsibility for it and that advisory and expert groups have been established to assist with it. I hope the Department will continue to take the lead on this and will put in place a structure similar to that which exists in other countries in Europe. This will allow us, as information becomes available, to take whatever action is necessary. We must introduce best practice in terms of mobile telephone handsets and telecommunications masts

Deputy Broughan

We met with members of the industry during research for our latest report. Are members of the delegation aware of the level of spending, if any, or research being undertaken by companies which dominate the mobile market in Europe, the United States, Ireland and so on? Are they aware of what action is being taken to address the public's concerns about the network and handsets when inappropriately used?

The Moriarty tribunal is continuing its investigation into the awarding of the second mobile telephone licence which turned out to be a licence to print money. This committee has also considered issues such as termination rates and has signalled its unhappiness about the overall cost of mobiles in this country, an issue to which I have no doubt we will return. Is this profitable industry making any serious attempt to address people's fears and grave concerns in terms of the rollout of its resources?

Mr. Alan O’Sullivan

I can only partly answer the Deputy's question. I cannot give exact figures in terms of what the industry is doing but I can tell members that manufacturers of handsets have set up a forum entitled the mobile manufacturers forum which contributes to an international fund which co-ordinates much of its research through the World Health Organisation. A specific example would be in the UK where operators have co-funded a research programme on a 50-50 basis with the British Government. The operators contribution is £7 million.

Chairman

Perhaps such a project could be developed in Ireland. There will obviously be a requirement for funding for different types of research. It is a good suggestion.

Deputy Durkan

The sum of £7 million is not a vast amount.

Chairman

I agree. However, mobile telephone operators may be only too delighted to contribute to research and development in this area.

Deputy Durkan

We should not forget that £7 million is a small amount in a multibillion industry. I am a little uneasy about this.

Chairman

We will let the officials deal with that issue. Dr. Concannon from the Environmental Protection Agency is also present today. Does the EPA have any difficulty with the number of masts and antennae around the country?

Dr. Colman Concannon

The Chairman may be aware that the EPA does not have a specific role in this area. However, it does take an interest in environmental issues generally. Principally, the state of the environment report which the EPA is charged to produce at least every five years under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 mentions matters which do not come directly within its remit, namely, matters related to radon, UV light and so on. This is an issue in which the EPA would take an interest and would probably mention — I am not in a position at this stage to verify this — in its next state of the environment report in the context of other issues.

Chairman

It is important to note that we have a mobile telephone penetration of 104% to 110% of our population. Some people have two mobile telephones. This issue will not go away. The mobile telephone is an important device though sometimes it is a nuisance. We must ensure these devices are used in a safe environment. I am delighted an advisory and expert group has been set up to examine these issues.

I thank Mr. O'Neill and his officials for attending today.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 June 20065