asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to clarify the circumstances surrounding the recent decision to halt the erection of an Esat mobile telephone mast at Kerrykeel, County Donegal, the contact he had with Esat regarding arrangements which his Department has with this company, discussions with Independent Deputies in relation to this matter and if he will give details of the financial implications arising from contracts already entered into with Esat Digifone.
Private Notice Questions (Resumed). - Communications Masts.
Dr. Upton
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the reason he interfered with the Garda Síochaná which led to the Garda being withdrawn from the scene of the erection of a telephone mast and antennae at Kerrykeel, County Donegal, and if he will make a statement on the matter?
On the basis of information previously provided in reply to a number of Dáil questions, Deputies will be aware there is a contractual agreement with Esat Digifone which was signed by the previous Government on 25 June 1997, allowing it to install mobile telephony equipment at specified Garda stations, subject to certain conditions. These conditions include a requirement that Esat Digifone comply fully with planning requirements, 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.
Including a tight vote.
If Radio Teilifís Rabbitte would allow me the opportunity to proceed I will do so. The Garda authorities consider that this arrangement provides benefits in terms of their own plans for the future development of their radio and telecommunications network. I understand that the thinking behind the arrangement was that it would offer financial benefits to the State in the form of full rental value payments by Digifone for the use of Garda sites——
Did the Minister take that phone call and, if so, what did he say?
——as well as the provision of other facilities and services for the Garda which are of operational and strategic value to the force. Under the agreement, access to Garda sites is subject to Digifone complying fully with all planning requirements and health and safety legislation.
I understand from the Garda authorities that Esat Digifone had made two previous attempts to install its equipment at Kerrykeel prior to last Wednesday. On 10 September work was called off because ESB cables making access to the site dangerous had not been removed. Apparently there were 12 gardaí and about 30 protesters present on that occasion. On 1 October a second attempt to install the equipment was called off because of concerns about a possible breach of the peace. There were, I understand, 40 gardaí and about 70 protesters present on that occasion.
On Wednesday morning last I was asked if I would contact Deputy Harry Blaney who was very concerned about actions which were under way to erect a new mast and install Esat antennae at Kerrykeel Garda station. When I contacted Deputy Blaney he explained a large number of gardaí had arrived in Kerrykeel to ensure that the erection of a Garda mast and antennae would proceed that day. A number of local residents, including women and children, were present, intending to resist. There was considerable agitation and clearly there was a reason for this. Deputy Blaney requested that the matter be resolved and said he did not propose to attend the Dáil that day unless he had an assurance that the erection of the mast and antennae would not proceed.
What did he say about the budget?
I informed the Deputy I would make inquiries straight away and come back to him because conflict seemed likely in which women and children would have been involved. I contacted the Secretary General of my Department and asked him to convey my concerns to the Garda Commissioner and my view that action on the erection of the mast and antennae should be halted. The Secretary General told me that the controversy at Kerrykeel was the focus of major attention on an RTE radio programme as we spoke, that suggestions had been made that women and children were forming part of the line of resistance and that allegations had been made by a local woman that she and other women had been pushed aside and injured by the gardaí. I emphasise this was a suggestion which had been made on radio, not something on which I had any other evidence.
The Secretary General then spoke to the Garda Commissioner who was aware of the controversy and was himself trying to assemble precise information about developments at Kerrykeel. The Secretary General conveyed to the Commissioner my concerns that the work at Kerrykeel should be halted. The end result was that there was local agreement about the erection of the Garda mast, which is essential for the maintenance of effective Garda communications, but the installation of the Esat antennae did not proceed. Deputy Blaney asked me to assure him in writing that the installation of the antennae would never proceed and I informed him that while I was prepared to take that position, I could not offer any guarantees in writing as other parties to the contract had contractual rights and would naturally have to be consulted.
Consultations are taking place today between my Department and Esat Digifone and as the matters at hand relate to a commercial contract — agreed by my predecessor which continues to be binding on me — involving the State and other parties, I do not believe it would be appropriate to speculate at this stage on the likely outcome of these discussions.
I am sure these examples of contract law will prove very helpful to the IDA.
The installation of masts at Kerrykeel is not the only case about which concerns have been expressed to me. I have had representations from public representatives, including Opposition Deputies, about the installation of Esat masts in other locations. In view of the particular circumstances applying to the situation at Maam, it was agreed that the erection of a Garda mast would proceed but that the installation of the Esat antennae would be postponed pending further discussion.
In my view, there was ample justification for intervention in the case of Kerrykeel against a background in which a potential for serious conflict existed. To have done otherwise would have been irresponsible and would have left me open to genuine criticism in relation to the manner in which I discharged my responsibilities as Minister.
Dr. Upton
Did the Minister hold any discussions with the Taoiseach in regard to this matter prior to his intervention? Will he outline the extent of the discussions he held with the Government Chief Whip which I understand resulted in the Minister telephoning Deputy Blaney? Has he given any assurances to Deputies Fox and Gildea in regard to masts? Have any estimates been made of the financial implications of effectively tearing up a contract with Esat Digifone and ordering a halt to the erection of the mast?
Prior to my discussions with Deputy Blaney I had no conversation whatsoever with the Taoiseach in regard to this matter.
What about afterwards?
I did hold discussions with the Chief Whip, Deputy Brennan, who requested that I contact Deputy Blaney, which I duly did. I have not given any assurances to Deputies Fox or Gildea. I do not believe there are implications in regard to the tearing up of a contract for the simple reason that no contract has been torn up.
What assurances were given to Deputy Blaney?
(Mayo): Does the Minister realise how serious this matter is? Does he realise his interference in this matter was hamfisted and wrong, given his position as Minister? The Minister effectively admitted that zero tolerance has given way to anarchy. Does he realise he has seriously compromised the independence of the Garda Síochána and that this smacks of an old style Fianna Fáil attitude to the Garda in which they are used as political instruments? Did the Minister discuss this matter with the Garda Commissioner before he gave a commitment to Deputy Blaney? Is the Minister now prepared to give a guarantee to this House that the erection of the antennae will proceed and that the necessary protection will be provided by the Garda to the company in question to allow it to fulfil its contract?
The Deputy is grossly exaggerating the position. The handling of the situation was neither hamfisted nor wrong. The independence of the Garda was not compromised in any way. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I, due to my predecessor's decision to sign a contract on 25 June 1997 on his way out the door, am bound by a contract entered into with Esat Digifone and a number of other parties.
Does the Minister repudiate the decision?
Was it an incorrect decision?
As a party to that contract, I was perfectly entitled to make my view known in regard to the erection of the mast and the antennae.
(Mayo): Did the Minister discuss the matter with the Garda Commissioner?
Even if I were not a party to the contract, I firmly believe it would still have been proper for me to make my views known——
To whom?
——because of the fact there was a genuine danger arising from tensions having been raised to the level pointed out to me by Deputy Blaney.
That is not a matter for the Minister to assess.
I had discussions with the Secretary General of my Department who, in turn, had discussions with the Garda Commissioner to whom he conveyed my views on the matter. The question of whether the antennae should be erected, whether the Garda should be withdrawn from Kerrykeel and other operational issues were clearly matters to be weighed up by the Garda Commissioner. As to whether the erection of the antennae will now proceed, Esat Digifone and officials from my Department are currently holding discussions on the matter.
Dr. Upton
The manner in which the Minister replied is the clearest possible example that this Government is beholden to four Independent Deputies and is operating at their mercy. What transpired at the Minister's meeting with Esat today and what assurances, if any, were given to the company?
In regard to the Deputy's comments about the Independent Deputies, there have been other difficulties in relation to the erection of masts and antennae throughout the country.
They were not ordered to stop.
Did the Minister issue any other directives?
I have received representations from several Members of this House in regard to those matters. I was asked whether I intervened in any other particular case; to the best of my recollection work was postponed on at least two other occasions following strong representations to me. This occurred at Maam and Castlefinn.
Were the representations made by the company or the Garda?
Deputies should not interrupt the Minister. If they indicate they wish to ask a question, the Chair will seek to accommodate them. They should not be disorderly.
It is bad enough that the Independents interrupt the Minister's sleep.
It is bad enough to have Deputy Belton interrupting his own sleep.
I asked that Esat Digifone would postpone erecting antennae on the new mast at Maam as an examination requested by a Member of this House had not been completed.
The Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands?
I met a delegation from Castlefinn and it transpired that planning exemption terms might not be met, as a result of which work has not proceeded in that matter. I have also received representations from Members of this House, including Opposition Members, in regard to a number of other locations.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware he has created a very serious situation? He has effectively set a precedent that operations must stop if there is a prospect of a public protest. Does the Minister recall informing this House on 25 June last that under the terms of the contract concluded with Esat Digifone, he was not at liberty to refuse the company access to Garda sites except for a contravention by the company of any of the conditions associated with such access? There were no ifs, buts or maybes in that. Why did the Minister decide to personally intervene in this instance to have the Garda forces withdrawn? What exactly did the Minister tell the Secretary General of his Department to tell the Garda Commissioner? Is the Minister aware that a committee of this House, chaired by a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, has in its possession an expert report giving a clean bill of health to such masts. I understand this information was conveyed to the Minister in no uncertain terms. What assurances has the Minister given to other Independent Members on the erection of masts? If he continues to capitulate to Independent Members on this and other issues, he is effectively handing over the reins of office to them. He should pack his bags and get out.
The Deputy's words appear strange. I understand from some of the said Independent Members that he and his party were far more generous suitors, to the point of munificence.
The Minister should do his job.
The Minister for bluster.
Where does the Minister stand?
On whether there is a precedent, the position is clear. As was widely reported, there was a danger to public order on the day in question.
Disgraceful.
On the comment made in June, I am not at liberty to refuse access. The question of erecting masts or antennae is not decided by Esat Digifone. It does not decide where or when they are erected.
The Blaney mast.
It is not a question of refusing access, rather it is a question of making my views known in a conversation with Deputy Blaney.
What did the Minister say to him?
I stated why I intervened. I also informed the House what I said to the Secretary General of the Department and what the Secretary General said to the Garda Commissioner. I have not given assurances to other Deputies. I said to the Secretary General that, in light of what happened, it would be best if——
Harry came to Dublin.
——the erection of the mast and antennae could be halted.
(Mayo): Was that not an operational matter for the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána should advise the Minister.
I was entitled to communicate that view through the Secretary General to the Garda Commissioner. I am a party to the contract which was signed by the rainbow coalition Government on its way out the door on 25 June 1997.
Does the Minister repudiate the contract?
The reason we are having this discussion is that Deputy Owen signed the contract without public consultation.
The Minister has done nothing in one and a half years.
That is happening now. The Deputies opposite are shedding crocodile tears.
Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for Ireland's economic success, apart from our low corporate tax rate, is that we are able to say to other countries that we have the capacity to enforce contracts with the aid of the civil power in a fashion that is not subject to political interference? Does he agree that his political interference in the enforcement of this contract sets an extremely disadvantageous precedent given the publicity it will attract, making the work of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the IDA more difficult in attracting industry because it suggests that political caprice influences the way in which contracts are enforced?
The Deputy is missing the central point. The Minister for Justice of the day is a party to the contract——
The Minister set it aside.
——which was signed by Deputy Owen on 25 June 1997.
There were no telephone calls in the night.
As in any normal commercial transaction, it is open to a party to the contract to make his views known and, where difficulties arise, to engage in dialogue. Any change to the contract would have to have the assent of all parties. There is specific provision for the deletion of a site and the substitution of an alternative. I strongly refute the suggestion that a precedent has been set and that I am interfering with Ireland's attractiveness as an industrial base. I am a party to the contract. It would have been wrong of me to ignore what was happening in Kerrykeel on the day in question. There was the potential for a riot.
That was for the Garda Commissioner to decide.
O'Donoghue's decree equals banana republic.
Does the Minister agree that his actions on the day in question in interfering in Garda operational matters were a gross misuse of his powers and position? Does he agree that if he wanted to interfere, he should have contacted the company concerned, Esat Digifone, as he did on a previous occasion, to discuss whether it wanted to proceed with the erection of the mast? Does he agree that he is reviving the view among the public that the Garda Síochána is not independent and is subject to political interference as and when it suits Fianna Fáil?
I reject everything the Deputy said.
The evidence is there. A vote was needed.
Concern has been expressed throughout the country about the installation of masts and antennae. This may be due to the fact that the Government of which the Deputy was a member did not engage in public consultation prior to signing a contract on its way out the door on 25 June 1997.
Disgraceful.
I have received many representations——
The Minister will receive many more as a result of his actions.
——and have replied to many parliamentary questions on this issue.
The Minister invited them.
A Kerryman living in the past.
The Minister said he would not get involved.
I am a party to the contract. It is my duty to intercede and state my view whenever there is a threat to public safety.
It was all about Harry's game.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the date on a contract make it null and void? Does the Minister accept that every protest group will be encouraged to oppose the Garda Síochána on the basis that he will interfere?
Do not go to war without your buggies.
The date on a contract does not make it null and void. I have never suggested that this contract is null and void, the opposite is the case.
Deputy Howlin made much noise today on the issue of the 201 exempt sites, yet when he was Minister he introduced regulations to ensure they would be exempt to facilitate the contract entered into by Deputy Owen when she was Minister, which in turn has given rise to this debate. Esat Digifone has completed equipment installation on 161 Garda sites and I understand these are operational.
A number of other sites have given rise to difficulty. Some of the contributions made by Deputies on the opposite side of the House would have been generous were it not for the fact that they made this contract in the first instance.
Is the Minster against it?
I ask the Minister to correct himself on that point. The Green Party had no role in making this contract. Does he not agree that his actions have given support to the many groups throughout the country who are not willing to be used as guinea pigs in testing the health risks or otherwise of these communications masts? Would he support the call for a debate on the latest report on non-ionising microwave radiation emissions from communication masts made by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport? Will he allow such a debate to give rise to a new set of guidelines which he could stand over with, perhaps, the co-operation of the Independent Members?
The contract has been signed and, as such, may not be breached without the consent of each party to it.
The Minister breached it.
With regard to the telephone masts about which people are still concerned, I have, since taking office, always been amenable to Members of the House and delegations from around the country to discuss their problems.
Does the Minister accept that his direct political interference to secure a budget Vote for a minority Government has caused widespread anxiety throughout the country where mobile telephone masts are a source of controversy? Does he accept that his actions and the consequent anxiety required him to review the matter? What plans does he have to deal with these situations, especially in the midlands, where we are lesser beings without the benefit of an Independent Deputy to represent us? Does he intend to undertake a review with reference to the planning process and the exemptions already granted?
Deputy Flanagan should have voiced those concerns at meetings of the Fine Gael parliamentary party, because it appears there was no public consultation with regard to this contract. This is a cause of grave difficult with regard to some sites. As I have already stated, the masts and antennae have been erected in many of the sites and they are not giving rise to the kind of difficulty to which the Deputy refers. I reject the allegation that I improperly interfered in this matter, for all of the reasons which I have outlined.
We have spent over 30 minutes on this question and we must conclude. I will allow Deputy Joe Higgins a brief supplementary question to be followed by a question from the Deputies in whose names the question was submitted.
(Dublin West): Given that Kerrykeal is at least the fourth small community to face large numbers of gardaí imposing these masts against its will, does the Minister agree that the contract negotiated by the Department of Justice under the rainbow Government was done in an undemocratic fashion, behind the backs of the communities and with no discussion?
A new ally for the Government.
Sign him up quick.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister agree that because development was exempt in dozens of these sites, local communities were given no say through the planning process, that this was insensitive and irresponsible——
I allowed the Deputy a brief question. He must conclude.
(Dublin West): Many studies have shown that there are grounds for fears, which Deputy Jim Higgins cannot allay. Will the Minister renegotiate the contract so that no such mast is within 500 metres of a residence, school or such institution? Will he join with me——
The Deputy was given the floor on the basis that his question would be brief. We have spent well over 30 minutes on this question. The Deputy must resume his seat and allow the Minister to reply.
(Dublin West): Would the Minister join with me in asking all parties in the Dáil to divulge the finding they have received from Esat Digifone?
The Deputy must resume his seat.
Objective One status on the back of mobile telephone masts.
Why do I get the feeling that many of questions put by Deputy Joe Higgins are rhetorical? While I do not question the integrity of the contract I do not understand why Deputy Owen and the rainbow coalition Government decided that it would have to sign it on 25 June 1997.
Fianna Fáil did it in the case of Eircell.
(Interruptions.)
One would have thought that the incoming Government, which would have been involved in the enforcement of the contract, would have been given the opportunity to consider it. It would have been more desirable if the outgoing Government had become involved in public consultation, but, as in so many other matters, it did not bother with that. The date 25 June 1997 will long be remembered as a red letter day in the history of the rainbow coalition Government. Many matters were expedited in a manner that had not been done previously.
I will ask Deputy Upton and Deputy Jim Higgins to ask the final questions to which the Minister will give a single reply. Many Deputies are offering, but we have spent almost 40 minutes on this question. I have distributed questions fairly among the various groups.
On a point of clarification——
There is no such thing.
Is it unfair to say that the Minister has left the House and the country with the impression that on the basis of his listening to "Morning Ireland" or radio programmes, wherever three or four people are gathered around the country he directs the Garda Commissioner to intervene? I understood the reason he gave for his gross interference in the administration of the gardaí was that there was in existence, or might be, a public affray in Donegal. Is that the excuse or is it that he is questioning the policy formulated by his predecessor and the existence of the contract she signed on behalf of the State? Which is it?
We must conclude on this matter. I call Deputy Upton.
The Minister should answer that question first.
The Minister will then reply to the Deputies' questions.
Dr. Upton
Will the Minister give full details of the verbal commitments he made to Deputy Blaney some of which the Deputy announced on radio? Do they amount to a binding contract? Will the Minister tell the House if his agreement with Deputy Blaney means that this mast will not be erected on the Garda station in Kerrykeel or has he entered some temporary little arrangement to get him out of a political difficulty? Will he specifically tell us if the arrangement is permanent or temporary?
(Mayo): Is the new position that in future possible breaches of the peace should be reported directly to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform rather than the Garda Síochána? Are those the new procedures?
Only on budget day.
Only when the Independents are involved.
(Mayo): Is it the position that if a gun is put to the Minister's head again in a vote, he will interfere in operational matters?
Only if it includes Independent Deputies.
The gun is being put to the Minister's head.
Order, please.
Many of the questions posed are repetitive.
The Minister will recite his mantra.
I am sure many Members who believe that silence may be golden from the Opposition benches are bored by now, but at the risk of driving them out of the House——
The Minister is going to recite his mantra.
——I felt perfectly justified in the action I took.
What did the Minister say to Deputy Blaney?
I advised the Secretary General of my opinion with a request that he convey that view to the Garda Commissioner. That is what happened. A former Minister for Justice, Deputy Noonan, is present.
What did the Minister say to Deputy Blaney?
Deputy Noonan in a previous instance advanced the cause——
What contract does the Minister have with Deputy Blaney?
The Minister should answer that question.
——that there are occasions when the Minister for Justice of the day should become chief executive of the force. I am not saying that is something I agree with, but that is what Deputy Noonan said some years ago.
Regarding whether there is a contract or an agreement with Deputy Blaney or other Independents, the fact that Deputy Blaney indicated to me that he would not be in a position to attend that day unless this matter was resolved obviously had a bearing on the situation——
It had a heck of a bearing on it.
——but it was not the only consideration. There were other considerations and that has been illustrated.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I indicated in several replies what the precise position was on that day.
What did the Minister say to Harry?
If the Minister were to get a similar phone call from Deputy Fox would he take it?
Of course he would.
The reason we are discussing this matter is that Deputy Quinn, a former Minister for Finance and Deputy Owen, a former Minister for Justice, in the rainbow coalition Government, signed this contract on 25 June 1997 when that Government was on its way out of office. As far as the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and other Departments are concerned, it was not the only thing that was signed that day.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——