Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus cuirim fáilte mór roimh gach éinne. The witnesses are very welcome and I thank them for their clear, concise presentations. There is very little with which I would argue, except one sentence, which says that nobody listened. I must say that the Sinn Féin councillors and Deputy Ó Caoláin have been bending my ear to make sure that I listened at every stage. It is great to see the councillors here today.

I was surprised at the very last word before "Thank you" in the witnesses' submission. After my last discussion with Deputy Ó Caoláin I would have said they would write "and we sincerely hope it will not lead down the road to insurrection rather than resurrection." The witnesses made it clear that feelings are running very high in the locality.

We have had a lot of discussion about this with various groups. I always try to simplify things in my own mind and look at the main factors. The first question in my mind, which has not been fully answered despite all the discussion, is that of immediate need or urgency. We are being told that unless this is done more or less immediately, the whole economy is going to collapse.

I have not yet seen any conclusive evidence of that.

The second issue about which I am unclear is capacity requirements, now and in the future. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I have stated that we have the benefit of time on the issues of need and urgency. Figures were quoted five years ago based on projections of Irish society and industry growth rates which are not being achieved and my party has argued that we have the luxury of time on this. Time is a significant asset because it enables us. It enables technology and energy companies to come up with the best possible solutions. Rushed decisions are generally bad decisions and if we rush a decision now that will be in place for the next 30 years, we will regret it. Those who will most regret it are those who are most immediately impacted - the witnesses and those they represent. My party's position on that is clear. We have the asset of time and we should use it.

An area which ties in with that is the capability of the technology, which is improving year on year. It is now possible to do technically what was not possible two years ago, or so we are led to believe. Again, using the asset of time to consider and to study, undoubtedly there will be further technological and capacity improvements.

The group is correct in stating that there are serious question marks over figures that are quoted for the additional costs. Those costs have not been established. There may be additional costs, but what we have not looked at is the financial, never mind the social and other, impacts of the imposition of these pylons on the landscape and on the people in the community. At the meeting with EirGrid last week, I asked the question, how could it be called public consultation when the design papers, which are not cheap, have been done over the past several years, have been submitted in support of a planning application and were not open to change following the public consultation? To me, that is not consultation. That is telling people this is what they have done and this is why one should like it, but it is not public consultation where those who are being consulted have an opportunity to influence the direction or design of the project. It certainly was not that.

A point I have made previously, not only in the context of pylons but in the context of any onshore energy developments, is that we do not have a proper landscape management policy in this country. This means that every time, whether it is hydraulic fracturing, pylons or wind turbines, we have to start looking afresh or, more often, not looking, at the impact on the landscape and the people who live on that landscape.

We need a landscape management policy that examines the interests of home owners, families, businesses, towns and villages and considers the impact on agriculture, tourism, road maintenance and the additional cost of that, insurance costs, the protection of our heritage and so on. That is not being done and it needs to be. In the absence of that landscape management policy, we will continue crisis planning. I am not sure Government is completely in control of it.

We do not have a comprehensive energy strategy. Government has only lately acknowledged that by producing a paper on energy and a renewable energy strategy. We need a comprehensive strategy to cover cross-Border, British and possibly European interconnectors and should proceed only when we have that agreed energy and renewable energy strategy and when we have a comprehensive landscape management policy, including the kind of impact analysis I have outlined. The very preparation of those three pieces of work will inform Government, the companies and communities on how best to address whatever problems there are in energy provision.