Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Mullen for tabling the motion. I also thank the Minister for being here because it is important to have a full debate on this issue. I am not going to go into the technology or health issues, about which I am not an expert. However, I will give the Minister my observations regarding what is happening on the ground, in an effort to be helpful. While the Government can be criticised for some aspects of this, one of the positive aspects of its policy statement was the acknowledgement of the need for community engagement. That is stated clearly in the policy statement issued in July when the Minister asked Eirgrid to recommence these projects and again in the response to the motion before us today. However, the blatant fact of the matter is that there has been zero community engagement and zero community acceptance on the ground. That is a fact and the reality of the situation. The Government must grapple with that reality.

People have been burned by Eirgrid in County Meath, literally, with the disgraceful collapse of the planning application in 2010. What happened there was absolutely outrageous. Eirgrid withdrew its planning application, presumably at massive cost to the taxpayer but also at massive cost to the communities, objectors and voluntary groups which had fund raised for years. It cost them a six figure sum. While there was a small settlement with Eirgrid, it still left them with substantial debts. The view is that Eirgrid came into the area, took over and did not try to engage with the public. Admittedly, it held formal meetings in places like Navan and so forth, which allowed it to tick the boxes on community engagement. The company can tick boxes for community engagement in the context of a Bord Pleanála application but it is not happening on the ground.

The controversy over the project in County Meath has been going on for six years. In that time I have noted that the technology keeps changing and the cost keeps coming down. However, that information is never forthcoming from Eirgrid on a voluntary basis. The data is never offered up by the company but comes from other sources, including, in fairness, the study commissioned by the Department. That document moved the debate on quite considerably when it was published in January 2012. Other studies were carried out before that one, including the Tepco report for the previous Government and there is a growing acceptance that at least some of the transmission cables can be put underground. Denmark provides a good example in that regard. Since the Meath project started, Denmark has changed its policy and is now moving towards putting all transmission cables underground, not just the 400kV ones. I do not know why we cannot take a lead from that and at least investigate it further to determine whether it can be done and what the real cost will be.

There is an enormous amount of fear in communities. The principal of a school which will be in the shadow of a pylon, for example, is worried that pupils will stop attending the school once the pylon is erected.

The public does not accept the policy on the siting of pylons. I recently attended a public meeting on wind farms at which some were for them and some against. Opinion is divided on wind farms, but not when it comes to pylons. There is 99% opposition along the route of this project. People are not willing to engage with EirGrid. While I recognise that we cannot allow power supplies to be disrupted, it is a fact this project was first proposed publicly in 2007 in County Meath, yet nothing has happened since because the planning application collapsed. Meanwhile, the lights are still on and there has been no risk to electricity supply. In 2007, the major selling point of the project was that it would allow for the export of wind power from northern and western areas to England. However, all the wind farm projects have said they will use their own power lines and underground them. EirGrid, privately, will admit that wind energy is not the significant aspect of this project, which is about keeping the grid together and the lights on. I am sceptical about this as it is over six years since it was first proposed, yet there has been no apparent extra threat to our power supply.

Twelve years ago, controversy arose over a smaller transmission line going across Cork Harbour. An independent mediator was appointed at the time and the project was suspended. This is what we are proposing. It would be sensible for the Minister to appoint a mediator whom the public can trust to determine this matter. Up to now, the public has felt it cannot trust EirGrid because the information has had to be dragged out of it. I accept that EirGrid employees are public servants and claim they are doing their job in the public interest. Someone needs to arbitrate in this case, however, and it cannot just be An Bord Pleanála. I am not criticising the incoming EirGrid chairman, Mr. O’Connor. He is probably the man for any other job in the public sector - an excellent candidate. The problem with his appointment to EirGrid is that there is a perception that he is just going to ram projects through the planning process or give advice based on his previous expertise. I am not suggesting there would be any wrongdoing. However, the public perception is that the purpose of his appointment is to ram pylon projects down people’s throats, and EirGrid is not on their side. Those in EirGrid are doing a job for the State as public servants. I do not feel comfortable criticising the company, but it does not have the public’s support for this project. The Minister has acknowledged time and again that this project needs public acceptance. However, it has absolutely zero support.