Dr Paisley, I am not sure that I have heard a question. Do you have a question for the Minister?

The whole thing is a question, and I think that the Minister knows that. Does the Minister think that throwing large sums of public money at dissatisfactory aspects of the Health Service, or any public service, will remedy the situation? Public services require radical surgery so that they have the staff and the ability to cope.

I thank Dr Paisley for his contribution, although I was beginning to wonder if I had lost my job. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges my honesty, and I trust that that honesty will be acknowledged in the House and beyond, because, as a Member of the Executive, I believe that we must put the facts and the situation, which the Member described graphically, before our people. I agree with much that he says, but I am not someone who curses the darkness. Rather, I acknowledge the opportunity to achieve the progress that is necessary for investment in all public services.

The Member referred to the need to address public services generally. The review of public administration that is under way will address many of the issues that are implicit in the Member's reference to public services. We have some additional resources for health, although, as I have underlined often, they are insufficient. We will ensure that those resources are allocated and invested effectively, and I am sure that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would wish to express her intention to ensure that that happens so that improvements will be made.

However, we continue the battle and the debate with the Treasury. In addition, we commit ourselves to considering to what extent our own sources of revenue are administered fairly and whether they adequately meet some of our needs. They will never meet all of our needs, but they can contribute to doing so. We will continue to explore other possibilities. We can complain that the money is insufficient, but I am not one to be churlish or to curse the darkness. I accept and welcome the implications of the allocations and the opportunities that they provide, but I will fulfil my responsibility to point out that we need much, much more.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. I hope that he has lit a candle, rather than cursed the darkness. Does the Minister agree that it is a well-established phenomenon that when any organisation, company, or even country, receives a large sum of additional money to spend in a short period, often that money is, perforce, used inefficiently in the circumstances? The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel asked whether there was a strong case for independently auditing the extra spending, particularly on health.

Secondly, is there not also a strong case for educating the expectations of the public? In many cases it will take several years, perhaps four or five, to appoint new personnel in order to achieve outcomes from the additional health spending.

The Minister said that there was a Barnett consequential of approximately £0·5 million relating to the Investors in People spending in Great Britain. Given the Minister's implication that all the consequential funding relating to additional health spending in Great Britain will be spent on health in Northern Ireland, should not the £0·5 million relating to the consequential from the Department of Education and Skills be earmarked for the Department for Employment and Learning?

Dr Birnie is the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, so I appreciate why he makes that point. We will be considering which services will receive additional allocations as the result of the consequential funding that he highlighted. There is a significant challenge to inform the public about matters that affect our public expenditure, such as the funds that are available and how they can be acquired.

I trust that Members will contribute significantly to promoting greater understanding of the constraints under which we operate, through their approaches to issues such as those in my statement, when making departmental allocations and in their work outside the Chamber.

I accept the point that we may need more external arrangements for auditing. There are mechanisms in place, but I assume that Rev Robert Coulter was referring to a mechanism that would be closer to the Departments. The Committees have an important scrutiny role, although they may need expertise to help them to carry it out. They have that responsibility; they have been contributing to scrutiny; and they will continue to do so. The Executive will give serious consideration to this.

I congratulate the Minister on his cogent, comprehensive and honest statement. I note Rev Dr Ian Paisley's comments that it was also a serious statement. It is a timely reminder about the grave situation that we face with regard to public expenditure. The Minister said that we will require approximately £6 billion in extra funding over the next 10 years.

The Minister and his Department are trying to negotiate a reformulation of Barnett with the Treasury, and Members should support that. However, that is not solely the Minister's responsibility. It is the collective responsibility of the House and the Executive. If a reformulation of Barnett that is beneficial to Northern Ireland is achieved, it will improve public services significantly.

Finally, if the Minister fails to get a beneficial reformulation of Barnett, does he have a plan b?

The Member's comments are helpful.

The role of a Minister of Finance and Personnel is, in many respects, invidious. The Minister has an overview of all Departments in the Administration and overall responsibility for examining their spending requirements. He must highlight some of the difficulties associated with acquiring and allocating the resources that are available to the Executive. The Member rightly stressed collective responsibility, but the whole Executive cannot speak in chorus.

It falls, therefore, to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to be the Executive's voice on these matters. Negotiating the Barnett formula is not a process that I am involved in on my own. At present the Executive are fully apprised from meeting to meeting - because the process is under way, because of what is transpiring and because of the emerging possibilities and difficulties. Advice is sought, and the negotiations are essentially led by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

All of my ministerial Colleagues, including those who are not in regular attendance - or any attendance at all - at the Executive meetings, are aware of the issues as they emerge. Their advice, and the advice of the latter, if not available directly to the Executive, is available through correspondence and meetings with me, so that I can ensure that the Executive are fully aware of their needs and circumstances. I am not making any special pleading for the position in which I find myself. I am emphasising my role and responsibility and showing the collective approach that I am taking. The Executive and I are taking forward Members' concerns and those of the people we represent in the Treasury negotiations in as collective and concerted a way as possible.

With respect to the point that Mr Maginness makes on the Barnett formula, let us not contemplate failure now. Let us not try to predict the end of the race - if that is how Members want to describe the process. It is always tantalising to speculate. The block grant is by far the major source of Northern Ireland's public expenditure, and we must maximise the allocation of it. As I said at the conclusion of my statement, the understanding and support of Members for the enterprise that we are engaged in on their behalf are deeply appreciated and necessary to reflect - without silencing our different views - and demonstrate support for the objective of achieving the best possible allocation and, therefore, offering the best level of investment in Northern Ireland's services and infrastructure, which is what the people deserve and expect.

I welcome the Minister's statement, and especially his comments on the small business sector, which is important to Northern Ireland. There are several other sectors in Northern Ireland that were missing from the statement - particularly agriculture - and I hope that that is not deliberate. Perhaps it will be raised on another occasion. It is important that it not be omitted. What incentives are being offered to encourage small businesses to start up self-help schemes? Apart from VAT schemes, what else is being offered? Small businesses are the big businesses of tomorrow.

The Member has invited me to stray into an area that might be addressed more fully and effectively by his Colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Although the statement focused essentially on the Chancellor's Budget and its immediate implications for us, especially on health consequentials and other, more minor, consequentials, it is inevitable that the debate is taking on a flavour that allows us to range over other issues. In my statement I welcomed several of those measures.

We are keen to support entrepreneurship and the development of local small and medium-sized enterprises. I am almost echoing what my Colleague Sir Reg Empey would say. Those businesses are at the heart of our economy, and they require considerable support. For the precise answers that are needed to answer the Member's question on other measures, I must defer to the superior knowledge of Sir Reg Empey.

Mobile Phones

TOP

I remind Members of the Speaker's ruling that a maximum of five minutes has been set aside for each contribution.

I remind Members that confession is good for the soul. With regard to mobile phone technology, I am a Luddite. I neither own one nor rent one nor use one. In that respect, I claim to practise what I preach.

Most Members will recall that, prior to March 1996, the general public was reassured consistently that it was safe to eat beef. Precautionary advice was effectively downgraded, and the Government and so-called experts gave the distinct impression that BSE was not transmissible from an animal to a human being. A certain Government Minister appeared on television alongside a young child who was, presumably voluntarily, eating a beefburger. No doubt that piece of footage was broadcast in order to instil confidence in the message that the so-called experts were promulgating: namely, that it was safe to eat beef.

Most Members will, therefore, remember the deep sense of betrayal that was felt subsequently by the general public when, on 20 March 1996, it was announced that BSE was likely to have been transmitted to human beings. It is now a tragic fact that scores of people have died from variant CJD, and I express my sympathy to the Democratic Unionist Party on the loss of their councillor Mr Hunter as a result of that tragic disease. The link between BSE and variant CJD is now clearly established and is a tragic reality. A key finding of the Phillips Report that examined BSE and CJD was that precautionary measures should be enforced strictly, even if the risk that they addressed appeared to be remote.

Some Members will recall the feeling of wonderment when, accompanied by our parents, we went to shoe shops and were encouraged to stand on large pedestal-type machines to watch the skeleton of our feet move as parents and shop assistants decided what size of shoe we required. That large pedestal-type machine was an X-ray machine. It was considered safe by the so-called experts, and we were subjected to X-rays as a matter of form. How things have changed in 40 years. In hospitals today, X-ray machines are located behind reinforced concrete walls and radiologists don lead-lined vests because the potential dangers of X-rays are now recognised.

I looked at Dr Paisley. No doubt he can recall the days when sheets of asbestos were used in the building and shipbuilding industries, and in other trades. The experts also considered it to be perfectly safe. It was hammered, cut and sawn into all sorts of shapes and nobody gave a toss because it was "safe". The experts of 60 or 70 years ago saw no harm in it. However, we are left facing claims for compensation that run into millions of pounds, and many people's quality of life is impaired because they suffer from asbestosis.

Are mobile phones, and the technologies associated with them, the equivalent of the asbestos of yesteryear? Are the experts as wrong about mobile phones as they were about the possible health hazards associated with BSE and with X-rays?

When will our society ever learn to put the health of our people at the top of our agenda? When shall we learn to stop taking risks with people's health because of economic and financial pressures? It strikes me that a greater emphasis is given to what I would call aesthetically environmental concerns, such as siting a mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty, than is given to siting a mast on the top of a school in the middle of a built-up area, on the top of a leisure complex or, as was mentioned earlier, on good agricultural land where emissions enter the food chain. The Stewart Report recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects is clearly available. That must be our role as legislators. I have seen young children who suffer from leukaemia - we must put them at the top of our agenda.

I support the motion. The issue of mobile masts is an emotional one, and a balance must be struck. On the one hand, there are businesses that wish to generate profit both for the telecommunications companies and for those who have paid huge amounts of money to acquire the licences to operate third-generation phones. Other companies also use telecommunications to improve their businesses and to benefit the wider community by creating more jobs. On the other hand, in the absence of concrete evidence to support the safety of the systems used, it is necessary for legislators to ensure that the general public is kept safe from harm.

A cautious approach should be taken on the issue until proper evidence shows that mobile phone masts are safe. Contrary to many representations made by mobile phone companies to councils and others, there seems to be no such evidence.

We should follow the precautionary approach already indicated by Mr Close and by the Stewart Report. Article 130r of the EU Treaty of Rome (as amended) states that the precautionary principle should be uppermost in the minds of all legislators in the Parliaments of European Union countries. Parliaments are urged to protect not only the environment but, more importantly, the populations therein, especially young children who, due to their low body weight, are likely to be more affected in their growth years by the emissions.

The problem is that the technology is so new that there is little complete research. A few quotations from the 'Communications Technology in the Community' conference in March 1998 highlight the absence of a definitive policy on the issue among professionals in radiation and engineering fields. Mr John McAuley said that

He is responsible for most of the non-ionising radiation hazard monitoring carried out in Ireland in recent years. Russell Owen, who is head of the radiation and biology branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration, is noted as saying that the jury is still out. The fact that people in such positions are not clear and unequivocal on the safety of the masts raises questions.

The main thread that runs through all research and through the opinions of independent experts is that although there is nothing positively to identify health problems now, many cancers do not present until there have been many years of exposure. Therefore the problem may start only in the next few years. In the meantime, there should be full public consultation before the erection of masts in controversial urban areas in which there are schools - it may be fair to say that all areas are controversial. Planning departments must respond to genuine local concern and not pay lip service to that aspect of the process.

As I said earlier, the Government will acquire significant finance from the sale of licences. Mobile phone companies will also make huge profits. There is no doubt that many individuals, including landowners and farmers who may diversify in order to receive money from mobile phone companies, will benefit from the erection of the masts - an issue that can be raised with councillors who oppose such schemes. Other companies and organisations in Northern Ireland will also benefit from the income generated by the mobile phone companies. However, it is the duty of each Member to ensure that, although benefits in the form of the accumulation of huge profits are available, the health of this generation and of future generations is not put at risk. I support the motion.

I thank the Member for Strangford for highlighting this important issue, about which complaints will have been received in each of the 18 constituencies. Unlike the Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Close, I am not a Luddite when it comes to mobile phones. I use a mobile phone, which gives my constituents access to me after hours. Although, given that I live in north Belfast, perhaps I should not have bought a mobile phone.

We must focus on the Stewart Report in order to encourage a precautionary approach. Although the legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. There are several points that we must consider. If we do not introduce legislation to implement safety zones for masts, we are not adopting the necessary precautionary approach, and Members must realise that.

Telecommunications companies approach sports organisations, such as tennis and bowling clubs, in the knowledge that they may be short of funding. They offer the clubs money in exchange for permission to erect a mast. A similar situation has occurred with Irish League football clubs. It is the responsibility of the committees that run such clubs to recognise that they may be situated in built-up areas in which children may play for long periods. When researching his report, Sir William Stewart studied schools because that was where he felt that children were for most of the day. However, Members can identify places in their constituencies where there are children about for many hours during the day.

If we do not recommend that an independent agency be set up to investigate the health complaints that result from the use of telecommunications equipment such as the masts or the telephones that are used by children, that will be a waste of legislation. Any Member who thinks that full planning legislation will resolve the issue is fooling himself or herself.

We all know that it is difficult to persuade the Planning Service to refuse permission, even when the community and the councillors are agreed that the application is wrong. Those of us who have served on councils know that particularly well, and we must be careful about that approach to solving the problem.

An independent agency must be funded by the mobile phone companies as well as by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The situation must be checked every three years. Boyd Douglas was right to say that there is very little information on mobile phones because the technology is new. We need to update our knowledge regularly to ensure that mobile phones do not pose an increasing health risk.

The Minister should have come to the Assembly to make a statement instead of giving it to the media. Having read the statement, I thought that the Minister was defending the service even in the event of there being a health risk. He said that a health warning should be given but that it is important that we have high standards in telecommunications. Of course those high standards are important. I have said already that I am a mobile phone user, and I want to ensure that we have the best technology, because that will ensure that we attract companies that will provide jobs. However, we must also look at the disadvantages. If there are health risks, we must accept that and ensure that we protect people from those risks. Belfast City Council has decided not to allow any masts to be erected on its property. Other people will have to consider that option if the legislation does not go far enough.

I remind the Minister that the proposal for full planning implementation will not resolve the problem. The only way to resolve the matter is to establish an independent agency that will check the health risks. Zones must be established to enable us to move masts away from certain areas, and several other health checks must be put in place. Without those, full planning implementation will not resolve the problem.

I support the motion. I welcome the new legislation that the Minister announced, but I agree that it should come before the Assembly, because there are many questions that we must ask on behalf of our constituents. Answers are needed, and fears must be allayed.

What happens to the masts that are already in place and the masts for which planning applications have already been submitted? There is no proper understanding of how the legislation will have an impact retrospectively. As the Minister knows, people are alarmed that mobile phone masts have been erected under prior planning approval without neighbourhood notification. That is a serious matter. The planning advertisements for the masts have been tucked away in small print on the back pages of local newspapers where people do not see them. Is that "consultation"?

In response to those concerns, the Women's Coalition is calling for an immediate review of the masts that have already been erected under prior planning approval and for an end to that practice. Neighbourhood notification and consultation must take place.

In my constituency of North Down, a mast has recently been erected on the High Donaghadee Road. I am not a great judge of distance, but I believe that it is no more than 50 metres away from housing and a children's playground. I understand that in Russia masts must be 2,000 metres away from housing. I agree with the call for safety zones. Some 35 masts have already been erected in the north Down area, and a further 14 sites have been proposed. What are we doing about that? In south Belfast, residents from the Belvoir estate approached Monica McWilliams because they were not consulted about the erection of a mast on the top of their building, which is owned by the Housing Executive.

Since that mast went up, residents have complained of headaches and nausea. The same problem exists with Breda flats, a location also owned by the Housing Executive. Then there is McCracken Memorial Church, for which a public petition has already been lodged with the Assembly, and Lagan Meadows. All Members have had complaints from people in constituencies throughout Northern Ireland. In Omagh, Beragh is where there is serious concern - despite objections planners have granted permission for the erection of a mast. Also the area near a primary school in Richill is causing serious concern. These are just some examples of the issues we have been approached on.

I agree with Mr Kennedy who said it is disappointing that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not here to hear the concerns of Members. We should be agreeing distances from residential housing, children's schools and playgrounds for the erection of masts. Masts are not tested in the way that pharmaceutical drugs are tested and monitored, and Séamus Close, Billy Hutchinson and Boyd Douglas mentioned this succinctly. We need monitoring here. Our acceptable levels of low pulse microwave radiation are much higher than those in Canada, for example. Greater studies are needed of the dangers involved so that the health concerns not only of the masts but of the phones themselves are properly addressed.

Finally, I want to touch on money. We hear about clubs, et cetera, being given money for renting their property for masts. If masts are being put up on land owned by the Department for Regional Development or the Department of the Environment, can the Ministers tell us how much money is being paid for this use of footpaths and so on?

As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment I support the motion. As Members know, the Department has been considering what to do about the planning issues with mobile phone masts since issuing a consultation document in November 2000. My Committee studied that document closely. We gave earnest consideration to the matters contained in it and issued a comprehensive response to the Department on 5 April 2001 after taking evidence from a wide range of parties. Our response included significant recommendations, one of which was to introduce full planning permission for the installation, alteration, and replacement of all mobile phone masts and associated structures.

We also recommended introducing appropriate references to the Human Rights Act 1998 into policy planning statement 10 (PPS 10), which is guidance used by planners when considering applications for mobile phone masts. We also suggested introducing discretionary measures such as exclusion zones of up to 500 metres, which actually goes further than the motion, a hierarchy of preferred sites for masts that avoid locations near residential areas and schools and some form of incentives to encourage mast-sharing.

The Committee welcomed the Minister of the Environment's announcement in July 2001 that he intended to introduce legislative changes, which would require full planning permission for all new mobile phone masts. After some delay and prevarication from the Department, my Committee is at last looking at the proposed changes to the legislation and the revised PPS 10 document. I must add that we took grave exception to the fact that the Department clearly had plans to go public on both the legislation and the new PPS 10 without any further consultation with the Committee. Although some might say that this was an oversight, it was due only to the intervention of staff from the Committee secretariat that the Committee and, subsequently, the House was told of the Department's plans on this important legislation before everyone else.

What has the Department asked us now? The Committee has had officials before it for the past two weeks - and they have been invited again this week - to explain the contents of the proposed legislation and the PPS 10. Members should note that although the proposed legislation will come before the House in the form of a negative resolution, the PPS 10 has been published already without the Committee's having been able to comment on its contents. To date, we have been able to consider only the proposed legislation, and we have had plenty to say about that.

The Committee's proper and full consideration of the PPS 10 is about to start. Although I do not want to anticipate the views or opinions of the Committee, initial consideration has not left me with much confidence that the Department has even tried to address the serious health concerns of the Northern Ireland public on the siting of masts. Sir William Stewart concluded that there can be an indirect adverse effect on people's well-being in some cases, and that

I can find little evidence reflecting these concerns in the document before us. Instead, the Department's approach seems to be to continue to pass the buck on health issues to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the basis of scientific readings of emissions against International Commission guidelines. This appears to ignore genuine public fears and health concerns about masts whether emissions fall below international standards or not. The Committee will consider this point and others in more detail.

I do not wish to pre-empt any consideration by the Environment Committee, but the House can be assured that we will do everything to ensure that people have the mobile phone service they need - we must accept that this is required - as well as the appropriate level of protection and proper consultation on the siting of mobile phone masts, which is equally needed. I ask Members to support the motion.

I welcome this debate and support it to a certain extent, because this is an important issue. As I often do, I would like to introduce an agricultural note. When I read the report by Sir William Stewart on mobile phones and the siting of radio masts, I found the same precautionary approach advocated that was taken too late with the BSE crisis. We should put the brakes on these masts until we have proof that they are safe. That is the prudent thing to do. If we had been prudent at the beginning of the BSE crisis, it would never have assumed the proportions it did.

Stewart wrote of the "subtle biological changes" caused by masts and said that the effects of these changes were not clear. In the absence of clarity, we should take precautions. We have a model for action in the Scottish Parliament, our sister Assembly. Its legislation is the strictest in the United Kingdom: all phone masts, both above and below 15 metres high, require full planning permission and so are subject to the full rigours of the planning process and public consultation. A similar measure here is the least we can expect in the light of mounting public concern.

I want to see a freeze on all new masts, particularly those sited near schools. I want to see some kind of intervention to stop or suspend the operation of radio masts erected before any new and more stringent legislation comes into force, which we may introduce. I have heard all the arguments about retrospective legislation, but they hold no water when public health is, or may be, at risk. The safety of the public must be a primary guide for lawmakers. The operation of phone masts, erected under prior, less stringent planning rules must be suspended. Much thought must go into this before there is any proof of safety.

I am concerned about a mast in County Armagh that was erected without any public consultation. In this day and age that is not good enough. It has been the cause of much public concern, and the public has a right to be heard. I always support the public on health matters.

The recipe is simple - a freeze on contentious existing masts, the full planning process for all new masts and a ban on all masts near schools, houses and hospitals until the research gives us clear answers one way or the other. That is the right way for us to proceed.

Phones are very important, and I can give examples. Two weeks ago there was a car accident on a very quiet road, and no one saw it happen. A car went over the hedge and rolled four or five times down the field. If the young girl in the car had not had a mobile phone, she would have been burnt to death because the car was about to go on fire. People came from about three miles away to rescue the girl. There are pluses and minuses.

When our local vet was out on call recently, an emergency call came through, and he was able to be on the spot within two minutes. Doctors can respond likewise. Mobile phones are essential. However, the Minister has a great deal of responsibility in relation to where the masts are sited. I do not want to press him too much, but the onus is on him and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Members of the Assembly cannot take this decision lightly.

Since my election, and that of other Members, to the Assembly in 1998, no other issue that I have dealt with can match the public concern expressed about the long-term unknown implications of the erection of telecommunications masts throughout Northern Ireland. No one in a position of responsibility has yet arrived at, or expressed, a positive view regarding the health fears that exist because of the nature of the masts. Jane Morrice has already mentioned the health fears in relation to the phones themselves.

I am sure that all 108 Members of the Assembly have been lobbied about mobile phones. Some will probably have been lobbied more than others - particularly those who represent rural areas where the masts are being erected. People in towns may not be as aware of the masts as those in rural areas.

There are masts in my area in Glassdrumman outside Annalong, Killowen outside Rostrevor, Ballyholland outside Newry and Barnmeen near Rathfriland. I want to speak most about the one at the Corgary/Beech Hill area of Newry. The Minister is aware of the concerns of the Corgary and Beech Hill residents, and I thank him for meeting them at short notice and giving them a fair and reasonable hearing. I share their concerns.

The Sheepbridge area of the main A1 road about four of fives miles north of Newry has a plethora of masts. One lady that I know looks out on five masts from her home. She has a small family, and it is impossible to understand her concerns unless one lives there. When she looks through every window she can see a mast.

The Minister is early into his portfolio, and I thank him for taking the concerns on board, and for the recent legislation that he has introduced. I hope that it is another step in addressing the concerns; it is not the final decision.

I support the motion. However, in doing so, I point out that in accepting the 300-yard limit referred to in Mr Shannon's motion, I am in no way putting that before the wishes of Newry and Mourne District Council, which I serve on.

For more than two years, Newry and Mourne District Council has continued to recommend an exclusion zone of 500 metres, and that remains my preference. I accept the motion without compromising my role as a Newry and Mourne councillor or its view on the preferred exclusion zone. The debate is timely, but we have other things to do. Every day our work is being taken up by the subject of telecommunications masts.

The biggest single problem is that the owners of the masts have money, while the protestors do not. The owners have access to Queen's Counsel, King's Counsel and every kind of counsel under the sun. However, the people protesting do not have any money to fight them. It is as simple as that. Councils can be sympathetic, but they do not have the money to fight the telecommunications providers. I support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Although I support the motion, I have to ask the Minister why he did not include a statutory safe zone, which would have meant setting down a criterion that all masts should be built 500 metres from any dwelling, residence, hospital, school or commercial property.

We all know about the growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and masts. Although nothing is conclusive, why take the risk of bringing in weak legislation? The long-term health effects of non-ionising radiation being emitted from mobile phone masts has yet to be fully ascertained. The Minister should have adopted the requirement of the Maastricht treaty, which introduces a precautionary principle. Masts should be sited away from schools, hospitals and homes as a precaution. Children, because of their size, act as resonant aerials. Therefore siting masts close to schools increases the risk to children.

The Minister of the Environment, Dermot Nesbitt, has failed to develop an approach that will protect communities. The criteria proposed will not protect people's health and safety. We must take on board the general public's uncertainty and fear of potential health problems.

Masts sited on farms by contract with the telecommunications companies do not give a farmer a get-out clause when there are objections by the local community, and this is causing ill feeling and dissension in local communities.

I know that the Minister has taken on board the issue of the mast at Jerrettspass. I hope that it will be relocated. Does he understand the concerns of Jerrettspass residents, and that in order to relocate the mast, he should take into consideration the recommendation of Newry and Mourne District Council that it should be located 500m away from homes and dwellings?

There are many points to be taken on board. I recognise that the Minister is considering a change in the legislation. However, it is important that all new masts, regardless of size, should require full planning permission. It is unfortunate that the changes in the legislation are not retrospective. There will be a great rush of planning applications for phone masts. Full planning permission only requires that two criteria be taken into consideration. The first is domestic amenity - the effect of a proposed mast on property value. The second is land form - the impact on the appearance of an area. Even then, objections on either ground will not guarantee that a planning application would be rejected. There is an absolute requirement for planning to take into consideration the concerns of the community.

Several countries, such as Australia and Russia, have statutory safe zones. That means that no phone mast can be built within 500 metres to 2,000 metres of any residential dwelling or commercial property.

There is growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and phone masts. While nothing is conclusive, we should not take risks by bringing in weak planning legislation. We are moving into the third generation of transmitters where masts such as the new BT Tetra mast are four times stronger than many of the early phone masts, and we need to be very careful.

We also need to tighten up the legislation around the monitoring of microwaves from phone masts. There is no point monitoring the output of a single mast. We need to monitor the output of mast networks to look at the compounding of microwaves, and we need to measure the impact inside dwellings, not just at source. Legislation is to be brought in by Statutory Rule; therefore, it will not be scrutinised as thoroughly as a Bill.

In conclusion, if the mobile base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure -

Order. Time is up.

- the planning authority will not have to give any further consideration to the health aspects of the station.

This is without doubt the most controversial planning issue in my constituency of South Down. I am aware of 15 contentious masts in the constituency, all of which are opposed by residents' groups. I have attended meetings about most of them, and the clear message is that many constituents feel that the legislation does not go far enough. The vast majority of objections to masts are based on health concerns, and nowhere in the proposed legislation is there a definite commitment that those concerns will be taken on board. Amenity and traffic are taken into account but not health. Until that bridge is crossed, the public will be most concerned.

There is a solution to this problem, and it has not been suggested by any of the Members who spoke in the debate. There are sufficient telephone masts in Northern Ireland to cover all the needs of the telecommunications industry. The fundamental problem is not that there are not enough masts but that there are five companies that all want to have their own masts serving small areas. It is rather like Northern Ireland Electricity and four other companies being given the right to supply electricity in the Province and having five sets of poles and five sets of wires, when we know that we need only one set of poles and one set of wires.

The simple solution to the problem is to say that there is no need for any further masts in Northern Ireland and to force the present companies to share bandwidth. If I travel through Europe my mobile phone will roam from one mobile phone mast to another and one mobile phone company to another. When I come home I will get an itemised bill that will have five or six different companies on it because of the iniquitous roaming charges. They will all charge me for the use of their masts because my phone can roam on to the strongest signal available. We should force the mobile phone companies in Northern Ireland to adopt a similar policy. If I were in Annalong and could not get a signal on the Orange mast, I could roam on to the Vodafone mast, pick up a signal and use that. I have been to site meetings where companies have insisted that they need a mast, but then my mobile phone rings, and I discover that there are a full five bars on some other company such as Orange or Cellnet. There is, therefore, already full provision for that area by one mobile phone company, and another company wants to duplicate that coverage. There is no need whatsoever for it, and we simply cannot tolerate a further proliferation of masts.

Four companies have been established in Northern Ireland, with Hutchison 3G coming along. The Republic's phone company, Eircom, also wants to establish itself in Northern Ireland. We could have six companies wanting six sets of masts. That is absolute nonsense and is not required. Some cognisance should be taken of the special situation in Northern Ireland. In England it is perfectly possible to site a phone mast 500 yards away from the nearest occupied dwelling. In fact, you could site it three miles away from the nearest occupied dwelling because of the nucleated form of settlement in England and Wales.

However, the dispersed rural community in Northern Ireland makes it difficult to find a dwelling in the lowlands that is not within 300 metres of a mast. If we forced telecommunications companies to roam within bandwidths and to share bandwidths, the problem would not exist.

I wish to raise two other issues that are especially relevant to South Down. I am concerned about a recent proposal to install a telephone mast in a grain silo. That is an unacceptable attempt to disguise the mast. Phone masts should not be permitted because they are hidden behind other buildings; they must be considered on the basis of their impact on health.

In a more insidious example in Annalong, about which I wrote to the Minister, a telephone company described its application to erect a telephone mast as an installation of telephone communications apparatus. Local residents who read the Planning Service advertisement in the newspaper were none the wiser and assumed that the application concerned a switchbox, but it was to erect a mast. All advertisements sanctioned by the Planning Service must be accurate. Local residents must know exactly what is being considered and should not be hoodwinked about plans for their area.

In summary, health issues must be considered in the legislation, and companies must be forced to share bandwidth to ensure that there is no further need for controversial mast applications, which create so many problems and so much work for Members.

A modern communications system creates massive benefits for people, including industry and businesses. The use of mobile phones has increased dramatically in Northern Ireland in the past few years. We have enjoyed the convenience of mobile phones; however, we are also concerned about the location of telecommunication masts. It is vital that masts are designed and sited sensitively, so that their environmental impact is minimised. There are too many telecommunications companies, and we must encourage them to share masts. There is much public concern about the possible health effects associated with mobile phone technology, and the tougher planning control of mobile phone masts would be a major step towards tackling the issue that affects my constituency of Mid Ulster and the whole of Northern Ireland.

The planning recommendations in the Stewart Report, which was carried out by an independent expert group on mobile phones, have taken into account the fears of the public about the erection of masts close to built-up areas, schools and hospitals. Those fears must be addressed, and more stringent planning controls would help to do that. Although we cannot confirm the exact risk to those who live close to base stations, a full template of protocols for the erection of masts is needed. In addition, there must be an ongoing report detailing the position of all masts across the country, and an audit of each site to ensure that companies continue to comply with the agreed specifications and exposure guidelines. I welcome the recent planning policy statement on the matter, which will help to develop legislation to introduce the full planning control of mobile phone operators' telecommunications developments.

Mobile phones have been in our pockets for nearly 15 years, although they used to weigh almost as much as a brick. If mobile phone operators had foreseen the popularity of such a necessary device, could satellite systems not have been introduced? The cost of satellite technology would have been redeemed ten times over, and I presume that it would have been a superior and healthier system.

We live in an electronic age. Although mobile phones were once a luxury, they are now a necessity, not only for ourselves, but for teenage, and younger, children; health considerations are, therefore, paramount. The Stewart Report recognises the lack of research on mobile phone radiation and its health effects. Therefore, it would be wise to take a precautionary approach until more research is carried out. It is important that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety takes this issue seriously and gives good advice on the matter. Mobile phone manufacturers must be encouraged to ensure that the health of all users and those living close to masts are guaranteed. I recommend the report to the House.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>