A government plan to temporarily block mobile phone networks to prevent a bomb being set off in Northern Ireland by a call or text message in the Republic was opposed by some telecom companies due to the impact on customers and potential technology costs involved.
Instead, the companies said they could only "defend this course of action" which would involve "denying service to their customers" if it was ordered by a new law and if the State paid for any technology needed to introduce the safety measure.
The situation is outlined in the latest annual release of State Paper files to the National Archives of Ireland, which have been made public for the first time today.
Among the files is a confidential 11 January 2005 An Garda Síochána briefing note to then-minister for justice Michael McDowell before his meeting with Britain's then-secretary of state to Northern Ireland Paul Murphy.
The note stated that "for some time now authorities in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom have been in consultation with authorities here concerning the possible implementation of techniques to counter the threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs)".
The briefing note said these devices "use mobile phone technology as a means of remotely controlling detonation", and that as such "a voicecall, text message etc to the mobile phone provides the necessary trigger for the detonator of the device to which the mobile phone is physically attached".
Officials said the threat posed by the devices could be mitigated by either "isolating" the specific mobile phone meant to receive the message, or by "withdrawing mobile phone services within a specified geographical area".
The briefing note said option one is "only an option where the mobile phone number is known with absolute certainty", meaning in reality option two "is the only means of ensuring detonation cannot be effected".
Due to the fact mobile networks cross the border, officials said Northern authorities were "anxious" to extend the "Operation Amber" network blocking technique to both sides of the border in rare and extreme situations.
However, despite the briefing note saying this discussion had taken place since 2002, it explained: "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."
The note continued: "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 said while Section 110 of the Postal and Telecommunications (Services) Act 1983 allowed the State to direct phone companies to take decisions for specific crime-prevention related reasons, in early 2005 the attorney general had advised government this law "could not be used in relation to Operation Amber and that new primary legislation would be required".
The note continued that the situation was "further complicated by the question of funding", with officials saying "one of the Irish service providers [Vodafone] has already indicated in writing that it would not countenance developing the capacity to effect the techniques of Operation Amber without full reimbursement by the State".
While the latest annual State papers files release to the National Archives of Ireland is under the 30-year rule, meaning documents specifically related to the Republic are from or before 1995, files related to Northern Ireland can include those up to 2005.
This is because Britain release its files, including those on Northern Ireland, after 20 years.
Read more: How to explain the 1995 divorce referendum to Vatican?
[Based on document 2025/120/37]
