Resistance to bomb-blocking scheme from Irish telecoms providers 'deeply troubling' says MLA
The revelation that telecoms provides in the Republic of Ireland resisted a scheme designed to block bomb detonation signals has been described as “deeply troubling”.
DUP MLA David Brooks made the comments in the wake of the news, which was revealed in declassified Irish state papers, that the Irish wings of big mobile network firms had raised misgivings about the scheme in 2005 – unlike their UK counterparts, which had been willing to take part.
In addition, TUV legacy spokesman and press officer Samuel Morrison said that the companies involved had shown “callous disregard” for the lives of people on the receiving end of bombings.
Their criticisms were put to Vodafone, which was the only one of the firms involved to be identified by name, and it declined to comment.
In the News Letter on Saturday, UUP MLA Doug Beattie had described the revelation as a "shameful episode”.
DUP MLA Mr Brooks told the News Letter: "These state papers are deeply troubling.
"At a time when mobile phone technology could have helped prevent terrorist attacks and save lives, companies in the Irish Republic seemingly were unwilling to cooperate in blocking signals that could have been used to detonate bombs.
"The more we learn from the official record of the Irish Republic, the clearer it becomes that there are serious questions still to be answered and why the Irish government are so reluctant to provide transparency.
"Families who lost loved ones deserve absolute truth about the role played by those south of the border in the Troubles and in the unnecessary loss of life.
"There can be no selective memory or hidden chapters when it comes to justice and accountability.”
And Mr Morrison said: “The latest revelations illustrate that the callous disregard for the lives of ordinary Protestants and Unionists was not confined to a few rogue individuals but was endemic within southern society where commercial convenience and political complacency were repeatedly allowed to override the most basic duty to protect life.
"We now know that telecom companies operating in the Irish Republic prioritised maintaining service to customers over taking steps that could have disrupted Republican bombings in Northern Ireland.
"The danger posed by the use of telecommunications to detonate devices was well understood at the time, yet there was a clear reluctance to act where doing so might have caused inconvenience or financial loss.”
He added that “decisions taken in boardrooms, government offices, and regulatory bodies south of the border had real and lethal consequences for innocent people going about their daily lives in Northern Ireland”.
The declassified document in question is dated January 2005, and was released by the National Archives of Ireland.
It gave details of how gardai briefed the Irish justice minister at the time ahead of a meeting with the UK’s then-NI Secretary.
The document discussed Operation Amber – a project aimed at getting firms to either isolate a specific phone if it was suspected of being used to trigger a bomb, or to withdraw mobile service to the general area where the bomb was believed to be.
But because coverage from service providers can extend both ways across the border, the relevant mobile phone could “roam” into the Republic if it was blocked in Northern Ireland and remain viable for use.
The briefing note stated: “Unlike their UK counterparts, which were prepared to participate in initial, practical exercises of service withdrawal without legal or financial indemnity, the Irish telecommunications service providers are unwilling to countenance any such action.”
It added: “The Irish telecommunications service providers argue that as they may be required to interrupt network coverage to specified geographical areas, thereby denying service to their customers, they consider that they could only defend this course of action if it is performed under a legal obligation imposed by the state.”
The note went on to say that “one of the Irish service providers”, identified as Vodafone, had indicated “it would not countenance developing the capacity to effect the techniques of Operation Amber without full reimbursement by the state”.