Vol. 475 No. 6
5 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the level of consultation, if any, which took place between her Department and people living near Garda sites and masts where Esat Digifone has been granted permission to locate its equipment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5552/97]
Esat Digifone, the second licenced mobile telephone operator, approached the Garda Síochána with a proposal to co-locate mobile telephony equipment on Garda radio masts or sites, on the basis of paying the full rental value of the sites and providing facilities and services to the Garda Síochána which would be of significant operational and strategic value to them. The Government has approved the proposal, subject to finalising an agreement which will take account of all legal and planning requirements as appropriate.
The agreement reached with Esat Digifone on the use of Garda facilities, which will require it to comply fully with planning regulations, health and safety legislation, the Radiological Protection Act and all relevant guidelines which may be set down from time to time by the International Radiation Protection Association, is designed to ensure full protection for the public. The question of my Department engaging separately on a consultative process of the kind suggested by the Deputy does not arise.
I should have prefaced my last question by correcting the record of the House. There is no parallel between what happened in relation to Deputy Reynolds at the Goodman tribunal and what happened in relation to Question No. 2.
Let us not return to a question which has been disposed of.
It is important that the record of the House be corrected. It is very important from the point of view of Deputy Reynolds' integrity to say that——
We are dealing with the reply to Question No. 5.
——the beef tribunal cleared his name. The Minister should not try to tarnish it by making excuses for her own actions.
On a point of order, I was not trying to tarnish his name.
This relates to a previous question.
There is no parallel whatsoever.
The Deputy implied that I should pay some bills that were incurred because of an administrative mistake in my Department. I just said "Show me where anybody else has paid such bills?"
With respect, I have called for the reply to Question No. 5.
The honourable course of resignation is the usual way.
I did not see Charlie Haughey or any Minister from the Deputy's party resigning.
When I call a question it should be responded to.
I have already read my reply.
I repeat, there is no parallel whatsoever.
Please, Deputy O'Donoghue.
There is considerable concern in the community about the erection of large masts and their possible health hazards. The people living near the proposed sites for the location of these masts should have been consulted prior to the Government's decision to accept the plan presented by Esat Digifone. Will the Minister ensure, even at this late stage, that a level of consultation takes place to reassure the people concerned?
In regard to the agreement which will be reached with Esat Digifone to use existing Garda masts or to replace them with stronger masts of exactly the same size and shape, half of the sites concerned will be subject to full planning permission and those that will be covered under the new planning regulations will have to comply with health and safety regulations and the guidelines set down by the International Radiation Protection Association.
There is no need for my Department or the Garda Síochána to enter into consultations because processes exist for people to make their case if they wish to do so. Some of the masts will be exempt from planning permission. I do not intend to enter into a consultation process with individuals because it is a matter for Esat Digifone to fulfil all the requirements under the agreement.
Will the Minister accept that because these masts are now exempted from planning permission, the voices of the people who will be most affected by them are silenced? Will she tell the House to where they should turn? They cannot turn to the local authorities or An Bord Pleanála. Is the Minister advising the people concerned to go to court?
They can turn to those authorities in cases where planning permission is required for the erection of masts. The issue of planning permission is not a matter for me as Minister for Justice but for the relevant local authorities. My role was to ascertain whether an arrangement between Esat Digifone and anybody else who applies to use masts on Garda sites, either for additional antennae or the replacement of the masts, could be implemented without interfering with the Garda system. The planning and technology aspect was examined by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the Department of the Environment. As matters stand, under existing planning regulations which have now been amended for clarification purposes, a number of other telecommunications organisations and radio operators have already put antennae on masts under an exemption. Planning permission is required for the erection of some masts but not for others. The Deputy is correct in saying that in cases where masts are exempt from planning permission, the people concerned will not have any recourse to the planning authority under the planning code, but they can comment if they believe there are health and safety considerations. I am not sufficiently expert in the health and safety legislation to inform the Deputy in that regard.
Will the Minister not accept that a cosy deal was done between Esat Digifone and its friends in Government in relation to providing masts? Esat Digifone was allowed to circumvent the planning code despite the fact that the Minister for the Environment stated publicly that would not happen. In July last year the Minister for the Environment published a document entitled Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures. Paragraph 4.5, which refers to sharing facilities and clustering, states: “Support structures used by emergency or other essential services are not suitable for sharing with public mobile telephone services”. That is now happening. Will the Minister accept that what happened was not a clarification of the existing law but a change of the planning law in relation to Esat Digifone?
Let us not charge this Minister with responsibilities that are clearly not hers. The Deputy referred quite a lot to the Minister for the Environment.
I accept that but I presume the Minister for Justice is subject to guidelines issued by another Minister. This document specifically refers to support structures used by emergency services.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for protecting me. I realise that at times I bear the brunt of the criticism of every element of Government policy, but I am not the Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. A cosy deal was not done with Esat Digifone. There has been a clarification of the regulations dealing with exempted development, and the Deputy can shake his head all he wants. It emerged that the existing regulations did not cover——
Suit.
Facilitate.
——in the way they should the clarification of what was exempted development. Those regulations have now been clarified. I remind the Deputy that when his party was in office and Eircell was awarded the contract, the then Minister for the Environment gave it six months' clear exemption for all their masts under planning law specifically introduced for that purpose. I could use the Deputy's term to describe that arrangement as a cosy deal but that was the correct approach at the time to get that system up and running. The agreement that will be reached in this instance will ensure Esat Digifone does not have control over the masts, that anybody can apply to use a Garda mast and that there will be capacity on those masts. A special deal has not been done with Esat. It has been given a facility to use the Garda masts to fulfil a contract awarded by the Government to provide a second mobile phone licence. When the third mobile phone licence comes on stream, that company will have the benefit of the exemptions on existing masts if they want to erect up to 12 antennae. I am not the Minister for the Environment and if the Deputy presses me on questions of planning I may not know the answers.
The Minister may be in danger of inadvertently misleading the House with the statement she just made. The six months period to which she referred was allowed as a result of laws passed in this House. I was directly involved in that as a result of the Mullaghmore case. Specific exemptions were granted in cases where the structures for masts were already in place. The company was given six months to finish that work, following which all masts were to be subject to full planning permission.
That was done to allow Eircell to finish its works. I am not making any case about that.
It was done to allow time for the works to be finished, not to facilitate Eircell. Will the Minister answer the question I asked about the guidelines issued? What happened since last July to change the policies of the Minister's Department and the Department of the Environment to allow support structures used by emergency or other essential services shared with the public mobile telephone service?
I do not have a copy of those guidelines. The Deputy should table a question to the Minister for the Environment on the guidelines issued by him last year.
The Minister is briefing them, not Minister Howlin.
The Garda Síochána has informed me that in reaching an agreement with Esat Digifone for the equipment it wishes to put on Garda masts, equipment will not interfere in any way with the Garda Síochána's services on that mast.
When were the negotiations finalised to secure this deal for Esat Digifone? Who negotiated on behalf of her Department? Was it the Garda authorities or departmental officials? Were any other Ministers involved in the negotiations?
I understand the first approach was made to the Garda Síochána last July arising from the publishing of the document by the Minister for the Environment on the desirability of co-sharing as a means of preventing the proliferation of masts around the country. Most Deputies will agree that is a good objective. The discussions proceeded from July between Esat, a technical expert from the Garda Síochána and some staff from my Department. The Department of Transport, Energy and Communications was involved in the technical issues, the Office of Public Works was involved in the sites that might be shared and the Department of the Environment was involved in examination of the planning laws to find the lacuna and where it is possible to amend the regulations. There was involvement by the Departments of Justice, the Environment and Transport, Energy and Communications as well as the Office of Public Works and the Garda Síochána.
I will not ask the Minister for Justice what the Mullaghmore man, the man in the iron mast, Minister Michael D. Higgins, thinks of this. Will the Minister tell the House whether consultation took place with the health authorities to ensure there is no risk to people's health as a result of the erection of masts? People are entitled to such reassurance from the Minister and to expect that at least that level of consultation took place.
The International Radiation Protection Association prescribed maximum emission levels for base station sites. These are included as an appendix to the guidelines for local planning authorities on the siting of telecommunications antennae and support structures, issued by the Department of the Environment last year. Esat Digifone will be required to comply fully with these standards. The fact that developments on some sites will be exempt from planning permission does not mean Esat Digifone will be exempt from the need to fulfil other guidelines laid down by the Radiation Protection Association and health and safety legislation. I am not aware that my Department was involved in discussions with the health and safety authorities, but Esat Digifone, was made aware in all the discussions, that it must fulfil all requirements relating to health and safety standards and the guidelines laid down by the Radiation Protection Association.
Why did the Department of the Environment, in its guidelines, state that there should be no sharing of masts and antennae? There was clearly a very good reason for that, and the Government should alleviate people's fears in that regard. I am not suggesting that the deal reached may not be of benefit to the Garda Síochána, but it is of fundamental importance that people be reassured in terms of their health. That is the very least they are entitled to from the Government.
I repeat that Esat Digifone and any other company that may in future seek permission to use a Garda mast, an RTÉ mast or any other mast will be bound by all the guidelines. If the Deputy wishes, I will read the statement of the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, dated 12 February 1997, which I am sure was circulated to all Members, outlining the position. I am being asked questions about the planning process, but my role in this matter is to see if an arrangement can be made with Esat Digifone, leaving aside capacity for a third telephone licence. Esat Digifone should be able to share masts, subject to the provisos in the agreement.
That is the appropriate way forward rather than a proliferation of approximately 460 new masts, which would be required to provide a second mobile telephone service. I think everybody is in favour of competition and if masts are not shared, 459 new masts would have to be erected throughout the country, as well as perhaps another 459 masts for a third mobile licence. As the Minister for the Environment said, the concept of co-location on existing radio masts and mast sharing by different operators is a good and effective policy. If Deputies are against that they should say so, or are they trying to pretend they are in favour of it while telling the public they are against it? They must decide whether they are for or against it.
I am against the total inconsistency of the Government.
On a point of order, the Minister for Justice should not try to pull the wool over people's eyes. There would not be 459 masts. People would be entitled to apply for planning permission.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy is eroding the time of other colleagues who have tabled questions.
I have the information from Esat Digifone on what is required to complete its network, and that would involve the erection of 459 masts. When Deputy O'Donoghue is in the Department he can look at the files.
I would not expect the Minister to leave anything on the files.
The Deputies should make up their minds on whether they are in favour of a second mobile telephone licence. They are playing politics with the issue.
We want consistency.
The Minister is playing politics with it. Will I send her a copy of the Department of the Environment guidelines? She probably did not get them in the post.
