Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I represent Sligo-North Leitrim, which is not as badly affected as other areas. However, I have no doubt that what the delegates are going through will be experienced in the area I represent in respect of hydraulic fracturing. We will face exactly the same fight and we need to learn from the delegates' experience.

There are two or three key points. My first question concerns the meaning of consultation and the difference between consultation and dictation. It is not consultation if somebody says to me, the delegates or a member of a community that while there will be full public consultation, the lines will go overground. That is not consultation; it is dictation.

We are dealing with the legacy of an absence of strategy on national power. Nobody has considered the whole picture, including the impacts on tourism and health, the costs of delays that will inevitably arise if the overgrounding goes ahead, the cost for agriculture and the impact on property values. People get worried when so-called experts say there is no evidence that property values are affected by overhead lines. If I wanted to buy a house, I would pay less for one with a pylon behind it than one with no pylon nearby. It is self-evident and common sense. People get worried when the nonsense in question is put forward as a rationale for proceeding with overhead lines. We need a national power strategy. It should be a 20 or 30 year strategy, not a strategy to get the power infrastructure in place now.

People are dismissive of health concerns regarding overhead pylons. A housing estate near me has two houses that were built too close to an existing pylon. The houses have small backyards. The children in one of the houses used to play in their backyard but staff from the power company said to the parents they should not allow them to play there. The mother said there is a big fence and the children cannot get near the pylon but she was told that was not the issue so much as what is coming from the overhead wires into the children. Let nobody say to me there are no health effects; of course there are.

There are two points I find unusual. Mr. John McCusker said the driver of the proposal is not the objective of keeping the lights on, which is what the company says. Mr. John McCusker is the first person to have said that, bearing in mind that most people will recognise we need a secure energy supply in the country. I ask Mr. McCusker to clarify his point.

The second point was made by Mr. Cian Moloney, who said it should not be left to the concerned citizens to fight for their rights. I disagree in that what the delegates have done is sterling work. What they are doing represents democracy in action. If the legislative, planning and political processes are not looking after the delegates' rights, of course they should stand up and fight to ensure they are protected. While it should not be left to the delegates, it is great they have stood up to defend their rights. I have no doubt that people in the area I represent will do the same when the discussion arises on hydraulic fracturing. Well done all.