Vol. 491 No. 6
22 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 34 of 2 April 1998, she will introduce legislation to force mobile phone companies to share their telecommunications masts rather than supporting the principle of sharing masts; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12844/98]
I reiterate the points I made in my reply to the question the Deputy refers to. The Interconnection Regulations (S. I. No. 15 of 1998), which I signed into law earlier this year, provide that in cases where operators cannot come to an agreement on facility sharing, the Director of Telecommunications Regulation is empowered to intervene to resolve disputes. The director may impose facility or property sharing arrangements after an appropriate period of public consultation, during which all interested parties must be given an opportunity to express their views.
I am satisfied that this approach maintains a correct balance between the freedom of operation of communications service providers, on the one hand, and the need to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of new communications masts, on the other.
Given the powers provided to the director under the interconnection regulations I do not consider that further legislation to force mobile phone companies to share their masts is necessary or practicable.
Is the Minister aware that at a recent meeting of the Committee on Public Enterprise, the Secretary General of her own Department said that it was legally impossible to enforce sharing of masts? In the Minister's reply today and that of 2 April she states that the director has the power to impose sharing of facilities. In other words companies could be forced to use one mast.
To share a mast.
Yes. Is the Minister aware of any mast in the country which Telecom Éireann and Esat Digifone share? Is it the case that if they do not apply to one another to share the mast there cannot be a dispute, which means the director cannot intervene, making the regulations useless? Is it the case that both bodies are going their own way, putting up separate masts in every town and village, and nobody has any power to do anything because the regulations are ineffective?
There are other kinds of dispute in other areas looming, as Deputies are aware. Communities are coming together to protest about this. However, the interconnection regulation is law and I do not feel another law would make the regulator more powerful. There is no need for more legislation.
Is the Minister aware that there is no mast anywhere in Ireland being shared by Telecom Éireann and Esat Digifone? Is she aware that the chairman of the Committee on Public Enterprise brought all the bodies, including the community groups, together for a daylong debate on this matter? Will she change the regulations to force Telecom Éireann and Esat Digifone to share masts, as per her policy decision, or will she give instructions to Telecom Éireann to apply to share every Esat Digifone mast in the country to stop the proliferation of masts?
Proliferation of masts is undesirable.
Do something about it.
This is a matter for the Director of Telecommunications Regulation. I cannot take to myself duties that are given by law to somebody else. In cases where operators cannot come to agreement on sharing facilities, the Director of Telecommunications Regulation is empowered to intervene. I am not empowered to intervene.
The director is empowered to resolve disputes. There are no disputes because the companies do not apply to each other.
I support Deputy Stagg. We had two days of oral submissions, including one from her Department and the Departments of Health and Environment and Local Government. It seems that some coercion is required from her Department on Telecom Éireann and Esat Digifone to oblige them to share. They are not co-existing. She should reconsider the reply she gave, which was quite surprising. In England and elsewhere there are very effective environmentally sensitive masts that look like trees or street lamps. Will she consider introducing guidelines in consultation with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that there are fewer objection to these masts because they will be designed to a new environmental design?
I saw most of the discussion on television. It was a good exercise because the various interested parties were present. However, people remain in a state of anxiety regarding the proliferation of masts.
The two culprits also stonewalled on that occasion.
The latest concern is that masts housing more than one antenna will have more serious effects than those which house only one. I am informed that a UK study to be published next week will show that the usage of phones, not masts themselves, causes most difficulty. I am familiar with environmentally friendly masts that are designed to resemble trees, etc. However, community groups are not concerned with masts being environmentally friendly, the are concerned about their effects.
I will reconsider the regulation governing interconnection to see if it is adequate. It is a European directive and I had assumed it would contain the relevant powers. However, I assure the Deputy that I will reconsider its provisions.
Is it the Minister's policy that masts should be shared, for whatever reason?
Yes.
Is it not correct that Telecom Éireann is required to have regard to the Minister's policy? Is it also not correct that the regulator is obliged to have regard to her policy?
She implements it.
She does not seem to have implemented this policy. Will the Minister inform Telecom Éireann it is her policy that masts should be shared and that it should apply to share masts with other interested parties? Will she also inform the regulator of her policy on this and ask her to prepare a scheme requiring ministerial approval — which she will then be required and obliged under law to present to the Minister — for sharing masts?
The Deputy is aware that the regulator is independent.
She must have regard to the Minister's policy.
Yes, but the Deputy established her office when he was in power. She is a fine individual and she works in an independent——
Mode?
No, she is independent. That independence has not been——
I gave her as little independence as possible.
I do not know about that. Ms Doyle is a professional and committed individual. I applaud the establishment of her office. As already stated, in consultation with the relevant parties I will reconsider the interconnection regulation to see if and how it can be strengthened.
