Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Feb 1999

Vol. 499 No. 5

Other Questions. - Mobile Telephony Equipment.

Liam Burke

Question:

7 Mr. L. Burke asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the discussions, if any, his Department has had recently with a company (details supplied) with a view to resolving the dispute over the erection of antennae at Kerrykeel Garda station, County Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2937/99]

As would be normal in the case of any major contract, the parties to the contract in relation to the use of Garda sites and masts by Esat Digifone maintain contact in regard to progress in the implementation of the contract.

In this context, officials of my Department recently met representatives of Digifone to discuss progress in implementing the agreement providing for the co-location of mobile telephony equipment at a specified number of Garda masts and/or sites.

At this meeting, discussions took place in relation to progress in implementing the contract, including issues that have arisen from local opposition on certain occasions to the erection of Digifone equipment at certain Garda sites, including Kerrykeel Garda Station, County Donegal.

I understand that these discussions are ongoing and that my Department will shortly be meeting again with Digifone.

I would, finally, reiterate that such contact between parties to the contract is in no way extraordinary and has occurred in relation to sites such as Maam, County Galway and Castlefin, County Donegal.

(Mayo): Is the contract with Esat Digifone still intact and will it be delivered upon? Since our fracas in the House before Christmas relating to his intervention in Kerrykeel, supposedly in the interest of law and order and the preservation of public safety, has the Minister had any contact or conversation with Deputy Blaney in relation to the Kerrykeel mast?

In the first instance, the position with regard to the contract is that it was entered into by my predecessor and a number of other parties. Under the terms of the contract in question, Esat Digifone was allowed to enter into certain exempted sites and to put its antennae on Garda masts. This meant that very often local communities were not in a position to voice any objections which they might have had. This is a cause of concern in communities which do not want these antennae put on masts in their localities. The contract is a binding agreement made between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Esat Digifone and a number of other parties. It must be clear the contract cannot be set aside by anybody unilaterally. It would require the written consent of the parties to the contract to change it and I have not said otherwise. The contract is extant. Discussions on Kerrykeel and a number of other matters are continuing. In that context, it is a commercial contract and, as with all such contracts, it is possible for parties to try to renegotiate their positions. The contract cannot be changed without the consent of the parties.

(Mayo): Will the Minister respond to my supplementary query as to whether he had discussions with Deputy Blaney since the fracas here in November? Given that the Minister mentioned the possibility that any contract could be renegotiated, are discussions taking place on renegotiating this contract with East Digifone? Are talks ongoing on the possible renegotiation of some of the contentious sites?

Talks were held with Esat Digifone on the position at Kerrykeel and a number of other matters. I have not met representatives of Esat Digifone to discuss this with them, but officials from my Department have. I have had the pleasure of a number of conversations with Deputy Blaney, but I do not recall specifically discussing the position at Kerrykeel in recent times. Any discussions I have had with the Deputy have been amiable and courteous.

In the context of ongoing discussions between officials of the Minister's Department and various interested parties, will the Minister confirm the extent to which officials of his Department have discussed with the Garda authorities the precise question of planning permission for a proposed extension and the circumstances under which planning permissions might be exempted in relation to masts?

I trust Deputy Flanagan is not suffering from selective amnesia. It is a disease that affects some Members every now and then.

Answer the question, Minister.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister is filibustering.

I did not sign this contract.

I know the Minister did not sign it.

(Mayo): The Minister stands over it.

Some months before the contract was signed I stated to the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, that I held the view that she should be careful to ensure that consultations were held with community groups before moving ahead with the contract.

(Mayo): It is a good contract.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister has got a good deal of advice and he should put it into practice.

Deputy Owen chose not to do so. That was her concern. There are exempted sites upon which Esat Digifone is legally entitled to put its antennae pursuant to the contract. All the antennae have not been put up yet. There are cases where planning permission is required. Applications have been made in regard to many of those sites and they are at various stages of the planning process. It must be clear that it would not be possible for me to interfere in that.

Given that the Minister refused to answer and evaded my question in a way in which the record will show, did he or officials in his Department discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or with officials from that Department?

To the best of my memory and recollection—

I want to know about the Minister's knowledge.

—these sites were not exempted sites at one time.

That is not the question I asked.

The then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, cleared the way for the contract. He introduced the regulations to make the sites exempt and Deputy Owen—

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Was a good Minister.

—signed the contract. I am not saying that anybody did anything wrong, but we should make sure we do not get involved in some kind of historical revisionism because Deputy Flanagan would be foolish if he were to believe I would become engaged in that.

Regarding the 400 sites encompassed by the Digifone agreement, approximately half of those require Digifone to make full planning applications to the local planning authorities for mobile telephone developments. I understand these are at various stages of the planning process and their eventual resolution will be a matter, in the final analysis, for An Bórd Pleanála. Of the remaining 200 sites, mobile telephone devel opments are classified as exempted developments under the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations, 1997 introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Howlin.

Are officials in the Minister's Department discussing this matter with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or have the Garda authorities asked for further exemptions? Those are the questions the Minister is refusing to answer.

I accept that local communities do not have available to them the opportunity to lodge objections with local planning authorities in the manner that is the norm under the full planning process. In these cases it might be accepted by some that there is a requirement on public representatives to address the concerns of local communities. I have met this obligation unfailingly whenever and wherever I was required to do so. There is a substitute list of sites in the contract. I understand it is the wish of at least one party to the contract to substitute some sites for others.

Now we are getting to the question and we are moving along rather nicely.

There is no difficulty in moving along, but like all good stories one must start at the beginning. At the beginning, I understand the schedule referred to was inserted in the contract not by me but by the then Minister Deputy Owen.

Top
Share