Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1998

Vol. 498 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Mobile Telephone Masts.

Dr. Upton

We have seen a remarkable development in recent days. In many ways it is unique. Yesterday the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the House that Deputy Blaney requested that the difficulties in Kerrykeel, County Donegal, be resolved. He told the Minister if this did not happen he would not be prepared to attend the Dáil on the day in question. Indeed, the Deputy went further and asked the Minister to assure him in writing that the installation of the antennae would never proceed. The Minister informed him that while he was prepared to take that position, he could not offer any guarantees in writing as other parties to the contract had contractual rights and would have to be consulted.

These two positions are puzzling. On the one hand, the Minister appears to have given a verbal guarantee. I have no doubt he is a man of his word and that he would not give such a guarantee if he was not in a position to honour it. On the other hand, he appears to imply that because there is a contract in existence, this verbal guarantee may not endure.

Will the Minister clarify the scope and dimension of this verbal guarantee in the context of the contractual obligations which exist? He indicated that the other party, Esat Digifone, would have to be consulted, which appears to be reasonable. Yet, there was no question of consultation in terms of the definitive, absolute guarantee which was given to Deputy Blaney, who put a remarkable degree of pressure on the Minister. To be fair, the Minister was frank in acknowledging that yesterday when he said Deputy Blaney had indicated that he would not be in a position to attend the House on the day in question unless the matter was resolved and that this had a bearing on the matter. It was a nice way of understating the pressure the Minister experienced.

It appears the Minister has given a commitment that the contract will be broken. Will he confirm the position and advise on the exact nature of the contractual arrangements between himself and Deputy Blaney and whether they will endure in the context of ensuring that the mast is not erected at the Garda station in Kerrykeel? How can that be reconciled with Esat Digifone insisting that the mast should be erected? Having heard what a spokesperson for Esat Digifone said on a radio programme one day this week, that is the position as I understand it.

Has the Minister assessed the financial implications that would arise from breaking the contract that exists between his Department and the company? Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister is a distinguished lawyer, to what extent did he take legal advice on the position he took? To what degree did he take into account the legal aspects before he took this decision?

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

In replying to the matter raised by the Deputy, I will, of necessity, be somewhat repetitious because I dealt with this issue fully in my reply to the Private Notice Questions from Deputies Jim Higgins and Upton yesterday.

I take this opportunity to firmly refute suggestions made by some in the House yesterday that my role in the events at Kerrykeel last week was, in any way, an interference in a Garda operational matter or was otherwise inappropriate. It was the only reasonable and responsible course of action to take in the circumstances, given the potential that existed for serious conflict in Kerrykeel last Wednesday. My responsibilities, not only as Minister but as one of the signatories to the Esat agreement, fully justified my intervention in events at Kerrykeel. I did not undermine, in any way, the Garda Commissioner's operational independence. It was and remains a matter for the Garda Commissioner to judge whether and in what circumstances Garda resources should be deployed when a breach of the peace is anticipated. That most certainly does not mean it is inappropriate for the Minister of the day to do what he or she can to lower and ideally remove the concerns giving rise to the public order threat in the first place.

We are dealing here with the implementation of a commercial contract. As is the case with any such contract, it is perfectly legitimate where implementation difficulties arise for parties to pause, reflect and discuss. That this should happen in no way compromises the operational independence of the Garda Commissioner.

I wish to address directly the issue which Deputy Upton raised in a gracious way. Last Wednesday morning I was asked if I would contact Deputy 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 Blayney, he explained to me that a large number of gardaí had arrived in Kerrykeel to ensure that the erection of the Garda mast and antennae would proceed that day. A number of local residents were there intending to resist; there was considerable agitation and clearly the potential for conflict. Deputy Blaney requested that the matter be resolved and said that 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. I informed the Deputy that I would make immediate inquiries and come back to him.

Because conflict seemed likely, 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 then spoke to the Garda Commissioner, who was aware of the controversy and was trying to assemble precise information about the developments at Kerrykeel. As requested, the Secretary General conveyed to the Commissioner my concerns that the work at Kerrykeel should be halted. The end result was that local agreement on the erection of the Garda mast, which is essential for the maintenance of effective Garda communications, would stand, but the installation of the Esat antennae did not go ahead.

Deputy Blaney asked me if I would assure him in writing that the installation of the antennae would never go ahead, and I told him that while I was prepared to take that position, I could not give any guarantee in writing, as there were other parties to the contract who had contractual rights and would naturally have to be consulted.

As I stated in the House yesterday, the installation of masts at Kerrykeel is not the only case where concerns have been expressed to me. I have had representations from public representatives, including Opposition Deputies, about the installation of Esat masts in other instances. In one of these cases — at Maam — because of the particular circumstances applying, there was agreement that the erection of the Garda mast would proceed, with the installation of the Esat antennae being postponed pending further discussion.

In my view, there was ample justification for intervention also in the case of Kerrykeel — against a background where I was informed that the 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 discharge my responsibilities as Minister.

It was not as if any of this could not have been foreseen. On 27 February 1997 or thereabouts I categorically stated to the then Minister for Justice from the Opposition benches that it was desirable that there should be consultation with the public before matters regarding antennae and masts should proceed. That is on the record. That was my position then. Events have been overtaken by the contract which was signed by the Minister for Justice and other members of the Government on 25 June 1997 when the Government was on its way out the door. That is the legacy with which I was left and I am not sure whether it could be described as a very valuable heirloom.