Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues on all sides of the House who contributed to the debate over the past two evenings; I thank the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, for being present on both evenings; and I also thank Deputy Moynihan for giving us a chance to discuss the project and the impact it is having on communities throughout the country. It is regrettable that despite the spirit of general unity and concern in the debate, the Government will divide the House on the motion. The motion does not seek to precipitate any consultation process; it seeks to introduce one which is real, because speaker after speaker on all sides of the House derided the EirGrid consultation process as weak and ineffectual, and there is acceptance of this at Government level and in EirGrid.

I pay tribute to Deputy John O'Mahony for the way in which he has chaired various committee meetings in recent days. EirGrid management attended a meeting today and it was clear they did not have answers for many of the concerns expressed not only at the meeting but during the consultation process. The consultation process on which the motion and the Government amendment seek to lay their hat is flawed and has been judged to be flawed by many Deputies who will support the motion. It seems to lead towards one outcome, which is no matter what happens the various elements of the Grid25 project, and only the Grid Link element has been extended in terms of consultation, it will end up overground and will end up along the routes currently being proposed.

A number of key decisions were made in advance of the consultation process presenting an outcome. EirGrid decided the capacity would be 400 KV; the upgraded network would be carried in single routes; and the various DC lines. EirGrid also decided against underground lines, initially because they were not technically feasible but as the process evolved over the years EirGrid now states, because it has been challenged by community groups, that it is feasible but has raised the issue of costs. When this started the costs were up to six, seven or eight times as much depending on the part of the country and now they are down to three times as much.

The difficulty with EirGrid's consultation process is it is proceeding to implement the plan during the process. This is very evident in Mayo, where it is proceeding with its agents to try to engage with people along the preferred corridor for Grid west. EirGrid has been asked not to call to people or to telephone them, but it continues to contact people to engage with them during a so-called consultation process. It has got so bad some people are complaining of being harassed by EirGrid, particularly by its agents on this issue. This is not a consultation process.

An independent review would deal with all of these concerns, including the costs concerns, and would have to examine a number of issues. It is EirGrid which suggests it would cost three times as much. Deputy Dooley referred to the question he and many other Deputies posed today regarding how spreading this over the 25 to 30 year life scale of the project would affect bills and consumers. The impact the project will have on other sectors should also be taken into account. I tabled a parliamentary question with regard to the Fáilte Ireland to ascertain its views, and unusually for a semi-State body it quite directly stated it is concerned about the potential effect on our landscape amenities. Grid west has the potential to put 400 pylons through Mayo and Leitrim on the basis of four pylons per kilometre. Why would somebody wants to leave the Ruhr Valley to see 400 more pylons in the west of Ireland? This country prides itself on its landscape. If we replace this landscape, which is a magnet for the tourism industry the income from which we are severely dependent and which employs hundreds of thousands of people, with a project surely a cost benefit analysis would include the impact on tourism jobs and the tourism investment.

Property values will be affected and the remarks made yesterday by the chairman designate were important. He stated he did not want one outside his house. All experts agree property values will be affected by these pylons. Affecting people's biggest asset and biggest loan in way over which they have no right will have an impact on the economy and people's ability to move on with their lives. This economic impact should be measured in any cost benefit analysis.

There is still considerable ambiguity with regard to health issues. EirGrid's report and the documentation it has published is quite comprehensive. It includes the views of the World Health Organization, WHO, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, which state the impact is minimal. The WHO does not conclude magnetic fields cause any long-term adverse health effects. The documents also state national and international health and scientific agencies have reviewed more than 30 years of research and none of them has concluded that exposure to electromagnetic fields from power lines causes long-term adverse effects on human health. This is fine, but the document also states agencies have recognised a statistical association between estimated higher long-term exposures to magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia in epidemiological studies, but have not been able to rule out the contribution of chance, selection bias and confounding factors in these associations with reasonable confidence. This should be put in tandem with the statement from the EU scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, which was updated last week. It states a fair number of studies have been published since the previous opinion but the conclusion drawn then still stands, there is still a lack of adequate data for a proper risk assessment of static magnetic fields, and that more research is necessary particularly to clarify the many mixed and sometimes contradictory results. We cannot be ambiguous when it comes to human health and there can be no buts. EirGrid is coming up with corridors which will force people to live adjacent to pylons. Children will go to schools in these corridors under pylons. People will spend six to seven hours a day near these pylons. We need zero ambiguity about the potential effects. Unfortunately EirGrid's own documents and the documents from the EU Commission do not give absolute clarity.

I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, clarified the impact of the project on our export strategy. There is a challenge because other companies in the Department, namely, Coillte, Bord na Móna and the ESB, are developing similarly grand renewable energy schemes, and County Mayo seems to be the target for many projects. These definitely have an export element. When one considers the amount of power in the planned projects there is far too much for our use. At a meeting today of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications, Mr. Slye absolutely ruled out any notion of the current grid investment being considered for export and this is welcome. If the planned investment will be used predominantly or totally for our domestic economic use then an international assessment would have to consider demand in the next ten years and whether the investment is still justified and will be repaid in the context of where the economy is going.

Some people have asked why we are looking for an international assessment. The difficulty is EirGrid employs many of the consultants who would conduct such an assessment for communities. At the committee meeting Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked Mr. Slye how much EirGrid had spent on fees to various professional organisations. He replied it was a commercial issue and he would not provide the information even though it is taxpayers' money. I tabled a question to the Minister on what EirGrid spent on professional fees but because he apparently has no responsibility to the House for EirGrid it was not answered.

See this speech in context