Seán Conlan (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses from the Monaghan anti-pylon committee and commend them on their work over the past seven years in getting the real message out there to the public and the rest of Ireland about what this project is really about, how it is affecting the community, the lack of fairness regarding how EirGrid has dealt with the community and the lack of equality of treatment of people in the north east by EirGrid compared to what has happened in the west and south of Ireland in terms of public consultation.

I support the goals of the Monaghan anti-pylon committee. These people are not against progress. They have said all along that they are against the overgrounding of power lines in the absence of any underground options being put forward to the public for public consultation. They have carried out considerable analysis of issues surrounding security of supply, or rather the lack of security of supply that exists. I expanded on that last week regarding the position in terms of energy production in Northern Ireland, what this new proposal proposes regarding the transfer of energy from North to South and the cost of going underground versus that of going overground. I did not get the chance last week to expand on the actual cost of a 220 kV underground route compared to a 400 kV overhead line or a 400 kV underground route. We never got those figures. Ms Marron stressed the dubious cost savings of going ahead with the project on an annual basis.

It is quite clear to me that there are no operational bottlenecks at the moment. The current North-South interconnector between Louth and Armagh is operating well below capacity. It has the capacity to be a double circuit interconnector but is not being used as such. It could be expanded significantly. Could the witnesses tell the committee and the public the personal impact of this project on them, their families and their community and the attitude of the landowners in County Monaghan towards EirGrid and its proposal? Could the witnesses expand on what level of engagement has taken place between landowners and EirGrid over the past number of years? Could they comment on the level of public participation regarding the projects of common interest, PCI, process engaged in by EirGrid because it is a key tenet of the PCI process? We hear about public meetings, including the one in Aughnamullen. At the previous oral hearing and all the public meetings so far, we have heard the health concerns of members of the public and concerns about family members with special needs. There are a number of very significant and worrying cases relating to the proximity of this project to families. Farming families and people living along the route have concerns about the devaluation of property and there are concerns about the visual impact, the project's effect on tourism and the lack of local and regional gain from the project.

One of the specific provisions of the planning Acts 2000 to 2007 was that in any strategic infrastructural project there would be a regional gain. A 400 kV overground power line without any convertor stations brings no regional gain, because it is not possible to tie into it. Given that there is no proposal in the application to have convertor stations along the route, there can be no regional gain in Monaghan or Cavan whatsoever. I would like some comments on this.

Further to our previous meeting, I have contacted the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy White, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and asked them to bring the issue to the Cabinet. We were concerned about what they were telling us about going ahead with an overground project, and it must be addressed. The issues raised here about the cost implications and the lack of consultation are so major that EirGrid should halt the application until it has addressed the issue of providing a properly costed underground option to the community for public consultation. Then, people can have a proper appraisal of the merits of the project, which we have not had. The people of the north east demand such a consultation on a specific underground route. As Fintan Slye admitted to me here last week, there has been no public consultation on an underground route in the north east. It is fundamental to public participation and public consultation. EirGrid has admitted that it is feasible and technically possible to put the lines underground, as confirmed several years ago by the international commission. Could the witnesses expand on the personal impacts for them and their community, the attitude of the landowners to EirGrid and their level of participation thus far, the level of engagement between EirGrid and the landowners on the project of common interest, PCI, and the concerns around health, property devaluation, visual impact, the effect on tourism potential and the lack of regional gain?