John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on an issue that is affecting communities throughout the country. I have no wish to contribute to a circus but I am earnestly seeking a solution that is acceptable to the communities throughout the country. I was not aware until last night that the issue of modernisation and upgrading the grid has not been discussed at length in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to be part of this debate tonight.

There is an acceptance on all sides of the House and even on the ground that there is a need for long-term planning for sustainable energy and future grid supply. We are in the middle of the Grid West controversy and there are communities and organisations which came into being five or six years ago, when the project was mooted by the previous Government. There was a suggestion at the time that the west should not be left out again and the issue has clearly taken a new turn in recent weeks. It is important we address it in the correct fashion. This process must take place in a way that is sensitive to affected communities and done with their support and acceptance.

There are two extreme solutions but none is acceptable. One option is to abandon the project and leave the grid as it is while the other is to steamroll the project through without listening to or taking on board the concerns of the people. I am old enough to remember rural electrification and I often wonder if we had started that from scratch recently, how would its impact have been accepted in the community? There must be a better way than the second option. Having read the Fianna Fáil motion and the Government amendment, both, by and large, show a clear path between the two extremes.

I have sat through three four-hour meetings in recent days and weeks, listening to communities first, the chairman-designate being interviewed yesterday and the representatives of EirGrid today. It is clear that the process up to now, such as it is, has not worked. There has been consultation but it has not been as meaningful as it should be. EirGrid has taken that issue on board and it will be interesting to see how that will work on the ground. The replies to questions have not been clear or concise, and there were mixed messages and different answers from different officials. The undergrounding issue has not been addressed in clear and precise terms, as in some cases the cost is six times that of overgrounding and with other cases the cost is three times as much. There is also the question of whether technology could be upgraded before the pylon projects go ahead, and could the cost be brought down as a result. Clarifying these questions would help all sides, including EirGrid. If it is independently established that undergrounding would be three times the cost of overgrounding, people must be willing to answer the question of whether they would be willing to pay three times their energy bills in coming years.

In Mayo there is the question of an inability to deliver the grid because of restrictions surrounding special areas of conservation. Deputy Calleary is aware that work on the N26 was turned down a few years ago because it interfered with a few Whooper swans but it is now proposed that the pylons will be put through exactly the same area. The suggestion seems to be that the birds and bees are taken account of but people and their homes are not. Those issues must be considered.

At the outset I indicated that I very much welcome the debate tonight on the motion and amendment. I also welcome the fact that EirGrid established that there needs to be better consultation and more independent information on health and cost issues, as well as matters of undergrounding, the environment and the implications for tourism. It is important to realise that this will be a long process and nobody in any of the affected areas will wake up tomorrow to find a huge pylon outside their front or back door. No single event will decide this but the process must be examined. I look forward to a fine-tuning or refining of the issue to allow the process to go ahead while taking on board the sensitivities and concerns of the communities.

See this speech in context