Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to share time with Deputies Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, John Halligan and Mattie McGrath. There is much concern across the country about EirGrid's Grid25 scheme. There is much worry that not enough is known about the project, especially from the point of view of the people in the country. EirGrid would like the cheapest option and this concern is of the highest priority, with the people and the environment secondary. This is hardly a new phenomenon as the austerity of the past few years was hardly geared towards the people's concerns. It was geared more towards the financial markets. The strategy of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, states, "The development of renewable energy is central to overall energy policy in Ireland. Renewable energy reduces dependency on fossil fuels...".

A few weeks after his publication, the Minister was speaking at an event telling more than 70 companies and 100 participants how they can be supported in accessing the major business opportunities linked to current offshore oil and gas exploration activity. The International Energy Agency is at pains to tell us that, if we are serious about limiting climate change, two thirds of fossil fuels that we have already discovered should be left in the ground. The Minister spoke this morning in the House about making environmental targets and the prospect of generating revenue for the State in the process from selling wind generating power to the UK. It is fair to surmise in our current trajectory that the Minister has little interest in alleviating the problems of climate change and is more interested in the financial end of the renewable energy scheme.

The progress of EirGrid's Grid25, Shell's activities in the Corrib Gas project and the proliferation of private windfarms throughout Ireland directly contravene the requirements of the United Nations Aarhus Convention, the aim of which is to promote citizens' access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making, and access to justice. There are serious questions to be answered. Why is wind making up 90% of our renewable energy when it is regarded as volatile? Why are we not spending more on wave and geothermal energy? Why are we wasting so much money and increasing emissions by heating poorly insulated housings and buildings? Why is there not more retrofitting? Do we really need EirGrid's Grid25 scheme or is it a business venture to grow exports and profits? Will we abandon tourism? Will we put the health of our people and our environment at risk in the interest of big business?

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The consultation process began yesterday at the committee meeting when John O'Connor, the incoming chairman of EirGrid, was asked if he would live beside a pylon. He said he would not like to live close to a pylon and asked who would. That started the consultation process because there has not been a consultation process, especially in the area in which I live, where 10,000 leaflets mysteriously did not arrive at the people most affected by the matter under consultation.

It is obvious at this stage that we will have to go back to the drawing board. We must talk to people first. Doing so will establish whether people are agreeable to the pylons being overground. If not, the possibility of going underground must be examined. After that, we decide the terrain of the route. Overground routes require different terrain from underground routes.

The Government does not seem to understand consultation. If the Government were running a matchmaking agency, with the hope of marriage for its clients at the end, it would start off by marrying them without getting them to talk to each other. Then, it would put them into marriage counselling and try to sort out the problems after the contract was signed. That is not the way to proceed. We must have all the knowledge before signing up to the contract. That is the reason for the current mess. Jim Higgins, MEP, is going to solve it in Europe at a petitions committee. There is a political circus around this. All the Government Deputies and some of the rebel Labour Party Senators will solve the problem when the solution is in the Minister's hands. The Minister can solve this by making the decision to go back to the beginning and start consultation where it should begin, at the beginning. He should listen to the incoming chairman who said he would not like to live close to a pylon. He said he would not like his view damaged or that it would be a disamenity. He thinks people should be compensated if affected but he has already confirmed that people will be affected. This must all be thrown into the pile and the Government must go back to the beginning. That is where things usually start.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One wonders at the reasoning behind Mr John O'Connor's comments yesterday in light of the amount of fear, concern and anger of thousands of people, particularly in rural areas. I have addressed two meetings, one of which was in the Comeragh Mountains, with 1,500 attendees, expressing their concerns. We are still unsure about the potential impact of overground pylons on the general health of the population. Concerns have been expressed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, which is part of the World Health Organisation, about the non-ionising radiation that comes from pylons. The IARC concluded it is possible there are health risks associated with overground pylons. In 2006, it reported that if pylons are put overground, they should be kept away from populated areas. If a respected organisation like the IARC is making comments like this, we must take on board what it is saying. It claims there is the potential of serious health risks because of pylons.

I have spoken the EirGrid and its consultation process is abominably poor. That is accepted by Deputies on all sides. EirGrid had an idea that it could pick out the areas and then had to make statements in the newspaper before proceeding. It underestimated the uneasiness in the population in many rural areas. I urge the Minister to go back to EirGrid. I do not accept the EirGrid assumption that going underground would increase the cost sixfold. That is inaccurate.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted that the Fianna Fáil Party tabled this motion. I am exhilarated to see the Minister in the House to listen and reply to the debate. I tabled a parliamentary question two weeks ago and I thought I was back in the era of Mary Harney, with the idea that the Minister has no responsibility for EirGrid. He evaded responsibility.

I am delighted he is sitting up and listening now. Is that because he was grilled at the Labour conference last week? I am saying to the Minister and any supporter of his amendment that this is going nowhere. As I stated this morning, if this does not go underground, the project will be buried anyway. There is a feeling that EirGrid has been cavalier and arrogant, and to add insult to injury, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has decided to appoint the former chairman of An Bord Pleanála - now retired - as the gamekeeper in EirGrid. He knows every nook, cranny and pigeon hole in An Bord Pleanála, where the planning process has been subverted. The process will not go to council level and it must go to An Bord Pleanála, so who better to put into EirGrid than Mr. John O'Connor? He waltzed before the committee yesterday and told me, among many others, that he never asked for a job specification when the Minister asked him to take on the role and he did not ask about remuneration either. He would not need to as he is already on a healthy pension from many other places. He is retired and I have nothing personal against the man but there are plenty of young people with expertise who can listen to and deal with people while being accountable to them.

We are accountable here and I am a Teachta Dála, which equates to a messenger boy. I do not mind that and I am proud of it, as I have been elected by the people of south Tipperary to tell the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, that their blackguarding of the people will not continue. We had Cromwell in Tipperary and bloody blackguards of all kinds but we will not put up with these mobsters, as I call them. They think they can insult and lie to people while scoffing at them. They have never taken off suits to put on wellies to engage with the public. They have come here to say they had engagements at marts and race meetings. As I stated today, one goes to a mart to buy or sell a beast and one goes to a race meeting for a punt. People do not go to talk about EirGrid. All this is to satisfy the Aarhus Convention provisions on consultation. These people are not consulting at the moment but they will have to engage with the people. They will not get away with this.

The Minister is wilting under the pressure. He might say that promises are made at election time and he can talk about Mrs. Murphy's bull, Mrs. Brown's cow or Mrs. Keane's dog but they are coming back to bite him at the heels, the knees and further up as well. We are not going to have this in rural Ireland as there has been no engagement. What has it all been for but to take wind energy from big business and export it to Her Majesty, if we do not mind, so that the country can get over its Kyoto promises? The Minister has signed the memorandum of understanding to help meet the UK's obligations with regard to fossil fuel use and emissions. The Minister should think long and hard and ask Mr. O'Connor to retire to Cork. He should make a new appointment of somebody who will consult and listen to the people before it is too late and the project is scrapped. I introduced a scrap metal Bill to the House but I will not need to do so again if this project goes ahead, as it will be consigned to the scrap heap.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputies McEntee, Connaughton, McNamara, Ann Phelan, Anne Ferris and Coffey.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have seen tonight that this is a very emotive issue. We have heard how many people are very upset and angry and they want to know where things are going and what is happening. We cannot blame those people as the issue is very contentious; we are wondering if the lines should be put overhead or underground and if it is feasible for the lines to go underground. We are also asking what is the cost for both options. There are also the splinter issues stemming from the main issue, including health, community gain, visual impact, tourism and heritage, as well as property value. All these questions must be answered. As Deputy O'Mahony has stated, although many issues have been raised, there have not been many answers. That is why we have seen panic, confusion and anger throughout the country, and there is a vacuum and a lack of information.

The expansion and upkeep of our grid is very important. EirGrid is in charge of that and it has an extremely important job but it should be careful in how it does it. There is much talk about keeping the lights on, which is fine.

It is not too long ago that we were told in Meath that if the North-South interconnector was not completed by 2012 the lights would go out. We are not in darkness now. I do not know whether that is due to the downturn in the economy of the fact that we do not need as much energy. Either way, we do not need to become hysterical and we do not need to exaggerate. That goes for both sides of the argument. EirGrid has an important job but public representatives have an equally important job, namely, to represent those who elected us. Currently, a significant number of people are not happy with the manner in which EirGrid has rolled out the project. Lack of public acceptance is the one factor that could delay a project of this size. One of the main reasons for the lack of acceptance is the lack of public consultation and the inability to take on board the views of people on the ground.

Earlier today, EirGrid came before the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. Its representatives spoke about the importance of the public consultation process and how they give everybody involved a chance to have their say. They said the process is ongoing and that every matter raised would be addressed. I can only speak for those connected to the North-South interconnector and those in Meath and possibly Cavan and Monaghan but the consultation process has come and gone and the issues raised were not addressed. Years of hard work were invested by many people and hundreds of thousands of euro were spent by the same people but undergrounding was not properly addressed. It is the single biggest problem faced by EirGrid in the roll out of the GridLink project and it was not publicly addressed by EirGrid. I find that incredible. The issue must be addressed. The situation has been ongoing in Meath for six years. Sometimes when an issue does not relate to one’s back garden, one does not pay any heed but now the issue affects everyone’s back garden and it is being raised much more. The Minister accepts the need to address the concerns brought to him by Members. I am not an expert in health, property valuation, the environment or how much a project would cost. My purpose is to raise the issue. I am delighted to contribute to the debate.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Heydon. We will take two minutes each.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Electricity transmission and distribution networks are a vital element of public infrastructure and that is why the Government is committed to retaining the network in public ownership. Part of the commitment involves ensuring the infrastructure is properly maintained and developed and it is its development that is at the heart of the debate. We all recognise that in order to ensure a secure and safe supply of electricity ongoing investment must be made in the national grid. Electricity is a key element in helping the Government to achieve its aim of using 40% of renewable energy by 2020 and achieving a constant reduction in dependence on imported fossil fuels. Transmission infrastructure has been identified as being of strategic importance but people - families and communities – are paramount when it comes to putting any piece of infrastructure in place. Careful consideration must be given to its siting and the impact it will have on communities, not just now but for many decades to come. Public consultation is vital and must not be a token exercise. I call on EirGrid to engage fully with the communities that will be affected by the decision.

Too often to date, alternative solutions were not properly investigated because companies were too focused on the additional cost that would result from alternatives. It has been estimated that putting cables underground would cost three times the overground method. I query such costs. Has the option of running electricity cables adjacent to motorways been properly investigated? Surely, with Government backing, the land necessary for that would be much cheaper than the running of lines through private land and the building of pylons all over the country. Would the maintenance of such lines also prove to be more cost effective?

Community life is a cornerstone of Irish life and we cannot on the one hand promote involvement in communal activities and community life if we do not balance it by taking proper cognisance of the fears and worries of local communities where such fears are expressed. Consultation with local communities must be of paramount importance in terms of updating our national electricity transmission infrastructure.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased the issue has been raised in the Private Members’ debate because it has a significant impact on my constituency of Kildare South. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions through parliamentary questions, in a Topical Issue debate and engaged directly with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications. I commend my colleague, Deputy John O’Mahony, for his chairmanship of the committee and the work it has done.

I stated on the record of the House previously that an independent, full cost-benefit analysis of all the options must be carried out so that we can adequately examine the position on undergrounding cables or placing them overground and the technical and cost implications of both in order that we can make an informed decision rather than the current situation in which EirGrid has said it is too expensive and that it will not examine the option. It is evident that improved consultation is required because to date it has not been up to scratch. I welcome the extension of the consultation period to 7 January as it will provide extra time. We must listen to people’s genuine concerns about the erection of large pylon structures in their area on health, the environment and the impact in terms of the devaluation of one’s property.

We also need a full, independent analysis of the existing 400 kV line we have in the country that stretches from Moneypoint to Dunstown in Kildare. It has been in place for 30 years. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, for example, could examine the health impacts, if any, on people living in areas adjacent to the line. Such work would be useful.

I concur with what Deputy O’Mahony said, that we should not abandon the process of ensuring that our electrical infrastructure is fit for purpose both now and in the future but we need an open debate about our energy needs, including wind energy, to find out where we are heading.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just two years ago, the Government, in particular the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, invited the public and interested parties to have their say on a national landscape strategy for Ireland.

Is there an unusual echo in the Chamber or is that my imagination.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, there is.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Anyway, I will continue. At the time the Minister said the European landscape convention was adopted in 2000 as a new Council of Europe instrument with which to guide the management, planning and protection of all landscapes in Europe. Ireland, in common with 34 other countries, has signed and ratified this convention. The Minister said:

The aim of a national landscape strategy will be to put in place a framework to achieve balance between the active management, forward-planning and protection of our internationally renowned landscape as a physical, economic and cultural asset. A core objective of a national landscape strategy is for the sustainable management of change affecting landscape and not the preservation or freezing of the landscape at a particular point in its continuing evolution.

County Clare possesses world-class renewable energy potential. It has some of the best wind speeds in western Europe, a long Atlantic coastline and a valuable estuary resource. It is also one of the most afforested counties in Ireland. These resources present excellent opportunities for investment in wind, wave, tidal, hydro and biomass energy. The county also has an excellent modern grid distribution network with two 400 kV power lines strategically traversing the county providing potential for new connections.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I am glad my colleague spoke about the need for balance because we certainly need it in this area. With four optional routes in County Carlow and one in County Kilkenny, there are many very unhappy people. I will not play politics because I believe this issue is too important to be preying on people's fears and circulating misinformation to promote fear for political gain.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, I have had the opportunity to voice my concerns and those of the constituents I represent from counties Carlow and Kilkenny. We have had the newly appointed chairman of EirGrid, Mr. John O'Connor, and the CEO, Mr. Fintan Slye, before the committee. I understand the importance of upgrading the electricity transmission and distribution networks in public ownership throughout the country, but I believe the consultation process that has been in motion until now has not gone far enough in addressing the real concerns and fears of constituents or in actively engaging with citizens. In endeavouring to engage EirGrid appears to have had the exact opposite effect to that desired. However, we are now beginning to see real engagement. I thank the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, for extending the consultation period to 7 January 2014.

There is a perception that there has been a lack of transparency and clear-cut facts. There has been much talk about the effect the upgrade could have on regional economic development. If the project is to support job creation within the major towns along the proposed routes, EirGrid needs to outline how this will be the case. It is not that people want to be unreasonable for the sake of it; they are simply angry and afraid that their concerns are not being heard. Adequate facts are not being put in the public arena.

I raised this issue this morning with the CEO of EirGrid and asked him how, if we were to re-establish the sugar beet industry in Carlow, the proposed project would support that industry. Mr. Slye outlined that he was unable to go beyond the specifics at this stage. I did not expect him to have specifics at the committee meeting, but we need clarification on the local benefits. If there is none, what is the point of the entire project? How can we regain public confidence in EirGrid - it is severely lacking - if we cannot outline any benefit to the communities? If we cannot do so, they simply will not accept it.

I welcome EirGrid's clarification today that it has examined all of the scientific evidence regarding the connection between electromagnetic fields and health problems, with a particular focus on childhood leukaemia. An independent expert was present with EirGrid today at the committee.

The grid development must be based on the best available advice and expertise and must, unquestionably, avoid any human, environmental or landscape impact, particularly along the Barrow corridor in my constituency, which is rich in archaeological and historical significance and has a wealth of natural habitats. I certainly do not want to see pylons destroy the Barrow corridor or any part of counties Carlow and Kilkenny. In the words of the chairman of EirGrid yesterday, "Who would?"

I do not want to pre-empt the consultation process but believe the argument has now moved on to whether lines should be overground or underground. We must have the cost-benefit analysis if the public is to accept the project.

Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have deep concerns about the Grid Link line of pylons from County Cork to County Kildare. A new assessment of this aspect of the Grid25 project would be beneficial. However, a more fundamental assessment is needed than the “health and visual concerns” report that Fianna Fáil is seeking. I will return to the issue of the type of report needed. Today Fianna Fáil is asking for the wrong report and we must ask ourselves why that might be. A clue might be that two of the signatories to the motion - Deputies Michael Moynihan and Barry Cowan - are already on record as being strong supporters of wind generation projects for the export of energy supplies. There is, undoubtedly, a need for wind power to meet our national renewable energy targets but to spend a fortune on upgrading parts of the national grid for the primary purpose of exporting wind power supplies is another story. I will return to that issue. Fianna Fáil knows full well it is not possible to produce any kind of visual report on pylon routes that have not yet been identified unless the international consultants are the type that normally work with the assistance of a crystal ball in a tent at the Galway races.

EirGrid's plans are to proceed all the way to consultation with An Bord Pleanála without revealing the specific route of the pylons. This is very wrong, but it will not be corrected by the strangely worded motion Fianna Fáil has put before us today. It is kicking the can down the road and not doing so in the interests of anyone's health.

The pylon route that concerns me most is the D2 corridor which, for some reason known only to EirGrid, sweeps through an area of undeveloped natural farmland with high tourism potential in east Carlow and west Wicklow. It is miles away from the centres of industrial growth mentioned by the Minister yesterday. This corridor happens to run through an area designated by Wicklow County Council as being more suitable for future wind farm development than elsewhere in the county.

We must go to EirGrid's own project reports to see the link between the Grid Link part of the Grid25 project and the exportation of wind power. Page 9 of the lead consultant's stage 1 report of September 2013 states the drivers that mostly influence future or proposed network capacity are integration and future interconnection along the south-east coast of Ireland with either Great Britain or France. There it is in black and white. EirGrid's vision for the Grid Link piece of this project is not primarily about upgrading the national grid for national needs; rather, it is about upgrading the national grid for the export of power supplies. The Minister does not share this vision and has stressed the importance of improvements to the national grid in terms of EirGrid's obligations as a supplier of energy to Irish homes and businesses, not in terms of a subsidy for wind energy exportation. I can understand why. The exportation idea is losing appeal. Not only does Britain have two other interconnectors, to France and Belgium, it is planning three more to mainland Europe, in addition to a new nuclear power plant and a major increase in its number of wind farms. I cannot seem to pick up a newspaper these days without reading the views of eminent economist Colm McCarthy who points to the availability of Scotland as a much less costly source of wind power for Britain than Ireland.

I would welcome an up-to-date, fully costed assessment of the overall need for the Grid Link project at the scale proposed or at any scale at all.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is the responsibility of every public representative to advocate and relay on the floor of the Dáil the concerns he or she is hearing from constituents. I have already placed many of these concerns on the public record, at both Dáil and Oireachtas committee level. Many constituents were in contact with me this evening about the motion. It is very obvious that the soldiers of destiny, Fianna Fáil, were very busy this evening spinning a yarn that the motion involved a "Yes" or "No" vote on the suspension of the EirGrid project. This is disingenuous. It is preying on people's fears and playing politics with the genuine concerns of constituents. I do not know what Fianna Fáil is trying to achieve in putting that kind of message out. If one reads the text of the motion, one realises there is no message further from the truth. In 2006 Fianna Fáil introduced the strategic infrastructure legislation and it fully endorsed Grid25 in 2008. The latter is what EirGrid is pursuing today.

We have a responsibility in this Chamber to debate all of the issues surrounding this matter, including energy security, climate change challenges and the justification for and pre-consultation on projects such as the one in question. In saying "justification" I refer to the specific details of the economic demand for the power lines. Is the demand real or not? Is it based on projections from the Celtic tiger era or the realities of the economy today? We need to focus, in particular, on this area to determine whether the investment is justified in the first instance.

We also need to address people’s genuine concerns about the impact of pylons on health, land values, visual amenities and the environment. At today’s transport committee, EirGrid’s chief executive admitted it could have done more work on information and transparency around these issues. I challenged him that its consultation process is just about ticking the boxes and going through the motions. We have heard the same from many other Members across the country. There needs to be an impartial examination of EirGrid’s proposals.

The whole matter will boil down to whether these power lines can go overhead or underground. Is it technically and economically feasible to underground these cables? We need to have full transparency and the facts around this in any debate, as well as a full cost-benefit analysis including the full lifecycle of the overhead option versus the underground. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources conceded to me in the Chamber last week that he is open to the merits of this suggestion. I urge him to have that cost benefit analysis undertaken in the interests of achieving public confidence in this project. Unless we have clear and concise information on the Grid Link project rather than these generalities we have received so far, as well as the pros and cons of each option, we will meet much resistance to this project.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Deputy Michael P. Kitt who is sharing time with Deputies Ó Cuív, Smith, Troy and Dooley.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Moynihan on putting down this Private Members’ motion. I fully support his call for an independent international assessment of EirGrid’s Grid Link proposals. There are health concerns about the proposed power lines, as well as concerns about the visual impact of them, which need to be addressed.

One significant issue is the cost of undergrounding the transmission cables. I would like to see this matter examined. In several years time, undergrounding of transmission cables will probably be the norm. Already, we see what Tidy Towns committees can do in tidying up the electricity cables in their towns. I would like to see a cost-benefit analysis of the undergrounding option. I support the upgrading of the national grid to ensure security of energy supply. We also need to boost capacity for renewed economic growth and allow for the possibility of increased electricity links across the country.

Fáilte Ireland has raised concerns about the erection of overhead pylons and their possible impact on tourism. Their visual impact on the Comeragh Mountains has been raised on several occasions but there are also walking and cycling routes being developed, particularly in the west, that will also be affected by these power lines. Residents in these areas are concerned that EirGrid has not engaged in proper consultation on the project with many describing it as a farce.

I have read several reports of families in dispute with EirGrid because of the proposed siting of a high voltage pylon 25 m or 50 m near their homes. In one case, a family argued the pylons would have a devastating impact on their autistic daughter. If families go to great lengths to get a house in an appropriate peaceful location for their autistic child, it is unbelievable they could face this further imposition.

There is a level of arrogance in the whole pylon controversy. People get annoyed when they are told that as far as EirGrid is concerned the matter has been settled and they will have to get used to the decision already made. In today’s The Irish Times, an article stated the chairman designate of EirGrid, a former chairman of An Bord Pleanála, John O’Connor, may reconsider taking up the post. This was thrashed out yesterday at the transport committee when there were some suggestions that he might have a possible conflict of interest in his new post. Interestingly, Mr. O’Connor said there would be no backdoor telephone calls or anything underhand during his tenure. Instead of anything underhand, it is a pity these transmission cables could not be underground. Will the Minister confirm if Mr. O’Connor is taking up the post because he seemed to indicate yesterday he would be discussing it with the Minister?

EirGrid has stated there will be a €1 billion investment in the three areas designated for the project, the north east, the west and south east. High voltage pylons running through these areas will form part of the Grid 25 project. While it is designed to boost the network’s capacity and ship electricity from wind farms in the west and south to consumers in the east, a strong lobby has emerged claiming these plans will damage property values and the environment in the areas along the pylons’ routes, as well as presenting health risks. Local action groups want the lines placed underground. EirGrid claims three independent reports state such a move could cost three times more than overgrounding and create ongoing difficulties with maintenance. I would like to see that claim queried by an international independent study.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important we examine this issue in a comprehensive and analytical way. I was slightly surprised by the tone of Deputy Anne Ferris’s contribution which was more vitriol about Fianna Fáil rather than solving a difficult conundrum, one that is constantly moving forward. We often find that people oppose infrastructure projects that are badly needed for the greater good of society. We cannot always go with those who oppose the provision of infrastructure that discommodes them personally if the greater good of society is served. I recall a Fine Gael colleague of the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, putting it succinctly at a meeting I attended when he said we all want the waste collected but no one wants a dump near them, we all want mobile phones but no one wants a telecommunications mast near them. It is fair to say we all want electricity but we do not want the power lines that are attached.

Some of the power lines are being developed to facilitate wind farms. The north-south interconnector is creating the kind of grid we would have had if this island had never been partitioned. As there was a large generating plant in the North, it made a whole lot of sense that all generation plants on the island were available to the whole gird on the island.

The idea that the Government has eliminated wind farms totally and that there would be no new 440 kVA lines going up is fallacious, as far as I understand, and there will be a need for that type of line. I accept that Deputy Ferris has a point and that we need to look at the situation regarding wind farms and the export of energy. The second thing we need to look at is the required set back for wind farms from dwelling houses. When the 500 m limit was set, the height of wind farms was a lot lower than it is today. Therefore, a parallel debate is needed on the wind farm issue. Until that debate takes place, we will not get buy-in from the public on the various issues involved.

Is it right to have an upgrade of the grid? I believe we need to have a world class grid, and so I do not go along with the people who say that we should not future proof the kind of provision of electricity that we have. How often in the past have we complained that previous generations did not provide the basic infrastructure of roads, electricity, telecommunications and so on for a modern state? We must face up to the fact that we will have to put in high tension lines. The question then arises that if we have to put them in and if the basic plan is right, subject to looking at the wind farms, should these lines be totally overground, totally underground or a mixture of both? We know that the requirement to put them totally overground is a non-runner, because there are many 440 kVA lines that run underground, and the interconnector between Ireland and Britain runs underground. When there was an issue in the Cork Harbour area, lines were put underground because it was decided that they would be visually intrusive.

We have to make a decision on three grounds as to whether we go for the overground or underground option. The first issue is whether there is a health issue or not. The second issue is whether people are comfortable that there is not a health issue, because perhaps there is not a health issue. I remember a report was done on the telecommunications industry which stated that a particular mast affected people's health, not because of the mast in itself, but because it created fear and that had an effect on people's health. That those effects were there was accepted, even if they were not adduced by the radiation from the mast. The third issue is visual. Again, I differ from the point made by Deputy Ann Ferris because I think she was being a little bit simplistic. She asked why it was going near the mountains and near the low populated areas of County Wicklow and County Carlow. She tried to go into the big conspiracy theory that it is some wind farm that the Minister is contemplating.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is wrong.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I was going to say.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Her entire proposition that this is being built for export is wrong. It has nothing at all to do with that.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister has said that. I am trying to be balanced and reasonable here, but I was disappointed with the attitude taken by the Deputy. Debate in Private Members' business often takes a mature and reflective view. My understanding of the conundrum that is faced by anybody who wants to put in major infrastructure was clarified in a case when efforts were made to put a 110 kVA line into Connemara. On one side, we were constrained by the SACs, while on the other side we were constrained trying to keep the line away from houses. No matter which way we go, we tend to get into trouble. I imagine that one of the driving forces for moving into less populated areas is the very need to keep away as far as one practically can from areas of high population where the line would be running near to dwelling houses. However, when that is done, the lines run into areas of great scenic amenity.

Over the period of time that this has been debated since the beginning of the North-South lines, I have moved from a position that with community gain, there might not be much option in real terms, due to cost, to do anything other than put the vast majority of the line over the ground on pylons. A few things have swayed my view in a different direction, one of which is the already stated drop. It was a 10:1 ratio when it started, but now it is a 3:1 ratio. Some of these gadgets have more power than the kind of computers that only a major multinational company could buy 30 or even 20 years ago. If the EU was to take a decision that to preserve the visual landscape of Europe, it would put resources into developing the technology to do this underground, then I believe those ratios would drop dramatically. We must ask what is our landscape worth? We can say that we have to move these lines away from houses because there are all sorts of implications for people's well being, lifestyle and so on, but when we move in the other direction, we have to ask, with all of these landscape policies to stop building houses and other structures, if the cost of putting it underground totally outweighs the protection of the landscape.

As a nation, we need to know how far we can drive down the cost. We also need to know the absolute feasibility of putting these underground. That should be put to the people as a whole, and they should decide whether they are willing to pay the extra cost to do what I think the vast majority of Irish citizens want, which is to put these lines underground.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Ministers of State are here to listen to the debate tonight. The issues before us in this Fianna Fáil Private Members' motion reflect the serious concerns being expressed by communities in many counties throughout the country in respect of the proposed new power lines. From my own interaction with individuals and with representative groups in my own constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, I know they believe very strongly that EirGrid has not engaged in proper consultation.

The basic thrust of this motion requests the Government to provide for an international independent assessment of EirGrid's Grid 25 proposals to upgrade the national grid using overhead pylons. There has been widespread criticism of reports carried out in 2012 and 2013 on some aspects of the Grid 25 proposals. A constant criticism was the failure to factor in the very negative and widespread effects such pylons would have on areas and terrain that are an important and in many instances, unique feature for our tourism product. Not taking into account the impact on residential areas surely diminishes dramatically the value and the credibility of such reports. The loss of confidence in the EirGrid approach is driven by the inadequacy of those reports on the basis that their remit was too narrow. People believe that not taking into account their day to day concerns amounts to a total disregard of their own opinions on these issues.

People are realistic enough to accept and fully understand there will be a need to upgrade and modernise the transmission network. The project as envisaged to date would cast a blight on a large part of the countryside and be an unacceptable intrusion on countless individual homes. EirGrid needs to state very clearly to local communities that it will consider undergrounding the transmission cables, where possible. A large State or semi-State company must be conscious of the need to have the trust and confidence of local communities on whose grounds or lands it wishes to traverse and whose co-operation it needs. People are alarmed by the suggestions some pylons could be located within 30 m of a residential property.

There is a need for an independent international assessment of the EirGrid proposals. Undergrounding such transmission cables would not be a new departure, as such cables were placed underground in Cork in 2004, as my colleague Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív said. The undergrounding of these transmission lines followed from the work of an independent mediator. If large tracts of the countryside are populated with these large structures, a major visual change will have occurred in the countryside that we all value so much. Thereafter, there could only be a visual improvement by undergrounding cables.

The Fáilte Ireland comments are significant and referred to "the character of the landscape and the various aspects of the cultural heritage". Fáilte Ireland refers to the fact that damage could be done to those traits of the countryside by the erection of such structures near to those areas of particular cultural heritage and the character of their landscapes. The landscape was given to us. It should be nurtured and cultivated properly. As a society, we should do everything we can to protect the great strengths of that landscape. That does not in any way prevent modern developments carried out within certain parameters and with proper planning and consultation with the people who live in these areas.

The North-South 400 kV interconnector development has been in the planning and design process for some time. The project has been the source of major concern for many communities in County Monaghan, particularly in Corlea, Muff and Kingscourt and other parts of County Cavan. The people who spoke to me at the weekend strongly expressed their concerns that there was no proper consultation by EirGrid. One cannot win the trust of the people if they do not believe their views and opinions have been taken into consideration in advancing and planning a project.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. My colleague, Deputy Michael Moynihan, must become complimented because were it not for his bringing forward this Private Members' motion we would not be here discussing this multi-billion euro project in the State. As previous speakers said, there is widespread concern and anxiety across numerous counties about the construction of large overhead transmission pylons, the Grid25 project and the proposal to build three new 400 kV power lines.

While the Government welcomes and commends the decision to extend the public consultation process to 7 January 2014, this is not good enough as it does not address the huge volume of concerns. A number of the key decisions have been made. EirGrid has decided that the capacity of the new power lines will be 400 kV. It has decided that work on the upgraded network will be carried on single routes. It has decided against using underground lines owing to perceived costs. The costs, figures and information supplied by EirGrid has continuously changed. That is why Fianna Fáil has called for an independent, international assessment of the EirGrid proposals in order that the health and visual concerns of the public are fully addressed and that the cost of undergrounding transmission cables will be fully examined. The project which will cost the State billions of euro warrants such an assessment in order that we can be sure of the information and have absolute confidence in the information before us. It is critically important that as a country we have the strategic infrastructure in place. I do not concur with some of the previous Government speakers who say we should not examine this issue because we do not need the capacity now. We should examine it in order that we can future proof and ensure we will have the infrastructure in place, as the motion states, in order that we can "allow for a clean, sustainable and affordable supply to the public and to support all future economic and societal development".

We have ambitious renewable energy targets for 2020. The need for some of the new transmission pylons derives from the Government's ambitious targets for wind-generated electricity. Last night the Minister confirmed to the House that turbines planned for export would not be able to connect to the national grid. I ask for something more concrete than the Minister's word because it would not be unheard of for Ministers to say something one day and do something else the next. The manner in which the Government is pursuing the renewable energy sector is haphazard and that is fuelling concern and anxiety.

Earlier this year the review of the 2006 wind energy guidelines gave the public a two-week window of opportunity to make their submissions. When it became aware of the proposals for the industrial wind farms in the midlands, it took 12 months and two public marches, when more than 1,000 people marched to Dublin Castle and 2,500 people marched in Mullingar, before the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, agreed to develop an overall policy and planning framework to guide An Bord Pleanála on the export of wind energy. Why is it taking a 12 month process before that report will be debated in the House? People would be forgiven for cynically thinking the Minister was waiting - if he could listen, he might be able to answer-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is running out of time.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is nice, when one is contributing and asking a question, when the Minister listens. Why is it taking 12 months to produce the overall policy and planning framework to guide An Bord Pleanála on the export of wind energy? Why are we waiting until after the local elections to publish that policy? The Government has refused and continues to refuse to introduce a robust framework and legislation to deal with wind energy generation for export and domestic consumption. We need a strong legislative framework in place that will alleviate people's concerns and fears. It is not just Members on this side of the House who are calling for it but also Deputies on all sides of the House and local authority members representing all political parties. If the Minister engaged and listened more, perhaps there would not be the same level of anxiety and fear.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and compliment Deputy Michael Moynihan on giving us all, including the Minister, an opportunity to address this issue. As the Minister will be aware from his backbenchers and communities around the country, there is very real concern and fear. Some of the fear is unfounded and not backed up scientifically. The one certainty is that the spread of these towers around the country and the cabling that will follow will significantly impact on the environmental aspect of many communities and the amenity from which so many benefit.

I have little doubt the pylons will also impact on property prices. This issue requires a great degree of consideration from EirGrid and the Government before they proceed.

Recently, the Minister indicated he intended to appoint a Mr. O'Connor, the former chairperson of An Bord Pleanála, as chairperson of EirGrid. I do not know the reasoning behind this decision, but perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity to allude to it. In the minds of many, there is a perception that Mr. O'Connor was nominated because of his unique insight and knowledge of the planning process, having headed an Bord Pleanála, the independent planning authority for 11 years. Mr. O'Connor appeared before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications yesterday, where he set out his understanding of planning and his respect for the built heritage, the environment and all of that. When questioned as to whether he would exclude himself entirely from the planning process undertaken by EirGrid, he refused to confirm he would. He said he would not involve himself in the preparation of individual planning applications or in any communications with An Bord Pleanála, that he would not make any underhanded calls and would not involve himself in the various public hearings.

I have no question in regard to the integrity of Mr. O'Connor. I believe he was a fine civil servant, is a fine public servant and is a man whose reputation is beyond reproach. However, I think the Minister has made a bad call in this case. Mr. O'Connor's unique insight, his knowledge and his understanding of the planning process create the perception of an unfair advantage for EirGrid in its desire to get what it wants through the An Bord Pleanála process. This sends a negative message to the small groups of community leaders who are fighting against the goliath of EirGrid and its might, its financial standing and its capacity to have consultants and experts of all descriptions. Now, the Minister to proposes to appoint to the head of that organisation someone with a unique insight into the planning process.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot have any suggestion that there could be any improper behaviour on the part of the gentleman in question.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me clarify this further.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two ways of making suggestions, the direct way and the indirect way. I ask the Deputy to be very careful here.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am being careful.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an independent process for planning through An Bord Pleanála. The Deputy must respect that.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. However, what I am saying is that an individual who has a unique insight creates a perception of an unfair advantage for EirGrid.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should not respond to this.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think that is acceptable, nor do most of the committee members. People in the Minister's party and Fine Gael raised similar issues. Some took a particular view in regard to his NIMBYism about whether a pylon close to a home would impact on him. I will not get into that because it is a sideline issue.

Next week, the committee will vote on a motion I have put before it calling on the Minister not to proceed with the appointment. I call on the Minister not to make a decision or not to confirm the appointment until such time as the committee has had an opportunity to discuss my motion.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Deputy could stick to the motion under discussion here.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this for me this evening.

I had an opportunity to question the chief executive of EirGrid at the committee today on the issue of undergrounding and the associated costs.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is up.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just put this question. The chief executive said the additional cost was three times the cost of putting the cable overground, which is approximately €2 billion. However, what I have not been able to get from EirGrid is the figures on when that €2 billion is amortised over the life of a project like this, probably 40 or 50 years, and how that will impact on the unit of electricity. The Minister has said that if people want the cable underground, it will cost more. Can we be provided with the figures on the scale of the increase and the cost of a unit of electricity if these power lines are to be put underground.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I would like to assure Deputy Ferris that the Grid Link project has nothing to do with the export project. Grid Link is not being built to facilitate any traded sector that may emerge in the future.

I have listened carefully to the points made by Members from both sides during this debate and previous debates and to the concerns raised by the Oireachtas committee in the past two days and previously. It is clear the concerns articulated need to be addressed in a calm and collected manner and without circumventing the statutory framework processes already in place or interfering in any way with the role of the Energy Regulator or of An Bord Pleanála.

Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, made clear that EirGrid must, in the context of the existing framework, undertake and communicate a well informed and authoritative analysis, a thorough impact assessment and engage in pre-planning consultation in arriving at optimal routes, technology choices, design and costings. In addition, EirGrid must address and avoid, where possible, any human, environmental or landscape impact in delivering the best possible engineering solutions for our small and still isolated electricity system. It is important to re-articulate this, so that there is general understanding that EirGrid as the transmission system operator, with a statutory responsibility to discharge its functions responsibly, has confirmed that it recognises the emergence of several priority themes which are causing most concern in relation to the grid projects. EirGrid will reflect on these issues and, in the context of the extended Grid Link consultation deadline, revert with its considered views on how best to carry forward these projects, based on its mature examination of points of concern, and will outline to the affected communities its further thoughts and views.

The Minister confirmed last night that he will respond on behalf of the Government to the issues raised, after the close of the current consultation. EirGrid has also confirmed that it will update the Oireachtas through re-engaging with the committee early in the new year. In the meantime, EirGrid must be given the time and space to reflect properly over the next few weeks and give due consideration to all the points made, so as to minimise the potential impacts highlighted in many of the comments made to date. I repeat my colleague's encouragement to citizens and public representatives to make their input into the extended consultation process to enable EirGrid to capture all the concerns expressed in various fora. The consultation process is there for a purpose and must be allowed take its normal course.

I can only repeat previous reassurances that the importance of independent, impartial and objective analysis will not be lost sight of following completion of public consultation and there is no intention on the part of the Minister or myself to prejudge any issue. EirGrid has indicated it retains an open mind within the constraints of its obligation to deliver a safe, secure and affordable electricity supply for the benefit of energy consumers, having regard to the environment and a duty to produce least cost, most efficient, project specific technical solutions for transmission grid development.

Public confidence and access to information are key to implementation of the Grid25 programme and our focus, together with that of EirGrid, will be to offer the necessary level of reassurance to local communities in identifying a robust set of next steps which takes due account of valid concerns. Improved articulation of complex, technical and engineering issues must form an inevitable part of that consideration. The ultimate aim is to ensure that Ireland has a fit for purpose grid system suitably responsive to growing demand as economic conditions improve and sufficiently secure to attract inward investment. It will be necessary to take a long term perspective in all of the grid projects and to demonstrate that whole of lifecycle costs are being factored into project decisions.

We must, however, recognise that there is a sense of urgency in keeping the programme on track so as to prevent shortcomings in the system if there is undue delay caused to those elements of the programme which are already well advanced, for example, the North-South line, which is due to proceed to the planning process in the coming months. We welcome the opportunity to hold a debate on the critical points of concern on the Grid25 programme and its attendant projects. This debate has been a valuable exercise and I assure the House that all lessons learned will be factored into the project processes.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am amazed every day to learn what responsibilities I do not have.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can leave now so.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dowd holds all the power.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Communities throughout the country which are gathering to try to take on the might of EirGrid are faced with a State organisation funded by their taxes and international money which can employ the best consultants available. This has ensured the best engineering, planning and public relations consultants in the country are working to the Grid25 agenda. When they try to find people to make a case for them they are scrambling to fundraise to pay fees and they find the selection available is not what it could be if EirGrid were not in the market.

We are asking David to take on Goliath and David wants to know that his arguments will be assessed in an independent way. That is why we believe an independent analysis should be carried out in respect of the various factors involved, and this analysis should include input from all stakeholders. On this occasion, the stakeholders must be the communities that will be affected by the plans rather than just the usual suspects. People who may be affected should not only come to realise that fact after the event. They should not wake up with the arrival of a letter from EirGrid three or four years into the project stating that their homes are on a preferred route. It should not be the case that published routes can be changed and that more houses can be affected as a result. Those who were informed last March that they would not be affected by the Grid West project awoke one Monday morning in October to discover that their houses are now bang in the middle of the preferred corridor. When they sought reasons, they were given different answers.

During this debate and at meetings of the joint committee, Government Deputies have expressed concerns about both the consultation process and EirGrid's ability or willingness to manage the information flowing from it to the communities involved and to deal with the concerns of those communities. Those Deputies are now going to vote confidence in that consultation process and in an organisation which has not done well to date in the context of dealing with that process or disseminating information to the communities to which I refer. It has never been our intention to have the project suspended. What we are seeking is an independent analysis of the various aspects relating to it. To paraphrase the Taoiseach, Paddy should be given the clear information he requires. If that happens, matters might progress and people might begin to have confidence. None of the communities affected by the project have confidence in either EirGrid or its ability to respect their concerns or to take account of these in the final plan relating to Grid 25. The feeling among many in the communities in question is that EirGrid is going to proceed to use the powers already at its disposal - and perhaps additional ones it might be granted next year - to ram the project through, despite the concerns being expressed. This Oireachtas has a responsibility to provide reassurance to the communities involved on economic, health and other grounds. We must ensure that they are not blinded by spin and that they do not roll over in front of the EirGrid juggernaut. With its motion, Fianna Fáil has presented the House with the opportunity to do just that.

We all believe in the need to upgrade the grid. However, this cannot be done at a cost to communities and at the expense of community solidarity. Another nasty aspect of the project is that communities which are united and whose members are working well together are being split down the middle. EirGrid is handing out money to landowners in order to try to ensure this matter will be done and dealt with in the near future. EirGrid will eventually move on but the legacy relating to how this project is being implemented will be one of bitterness and division in communities which, to date, have been exemplars of the concept of meitheal and of working together. The Oireachtas is being given the opportunity to state that it wants a different perspective and that an independent review should be carried out. We extend to Government Deputies an invitation to join us in obtaining that which we seek.