Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this motion because this is an important issue in the public domain. I thank the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, for coming to the House to take it.

It is important to acknowledge that EirGrid’s mandate is to be the statutory agency charged with delivering a safe, secure and affordable electricity supply across Ireland. Yesterday, I was struck by a report in RTE’s business news that energy costs for the average business are due to increase fourfold over the next several years. At current rates of energy price increases, fuel poverty is the most significant issue facing the average low-income family. If anyone doubts this, he or she can contact the local St. Vincent de Paul confraternity for confirmation. Fuel poverty is one of the single largest emerging issues. We all agree that reducing the risks to the delivery of a cost-effective and efficient electricity supply is a priority. The motion, however, suggests that there is only one solution - namely, undergrounding all electricity transmission cables.

I was struck by the findings of an independent report in the UK, endorsed by the Institute of Engineering Technology, on electricity transmission costings. It acknowledged that there were fresh calls for undergrounding given that new studies had found that the cost of so doing was considerably less than had previously been estimated. It did warn, nevertheless, that there were arguments against undergrounding, many of which are environmental. Undergrounding could damage the environment by disturbing soil, and it was unclear how the composition of the plastic cables sheathing the wires affected soil quality. There were also issues around the cost not just of constructing the lines, which was acknowledged to be greater, but also of compensation to landowners when lands have to be dug up, as well as the impact on agriculture and crops and the rural environment. When underground cables go wrong, they are less accessible and significantly more costly and time-consuming to repair and replace.

Much of this is an urban-rural debate, because many of the negatives have a far greater impact on rural areas than they would on urban areas. It is important to acknowledge some of the arguments made on the health front. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, overground electromagnetic cables were rolled out across Wicklow. There was a similar campaign to stop that project, as there was much concern about the health impacts of pylons. We need to acknowledge that while there is much concern among the public, the evidence suggests this is not the issue with which people should be concerned. While there are issues with regard to the effect of pylons on the physical environment, it is important to lay to rest the fears people have about the health impact of pylons. A significant amount of research has put these concerns to bed. In October 2005, the World Health Organisation convened an international expert panel to review the scientific literature on the biological effects of exposure to extremely low-frequency fields, ELFs, and assess any health risks. The group published its findings in June 2007, concluding there were no substantive health issues related to ELFs at the levels at which they are encountered by the public. In July 2010, the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government concluded it is simply not possible for the levels of energy associated with power lines to cause cancer. Most of the scientific peer-reviewed studies that the Department is aware of have concluded that ELFs have no detrimental effect on animal health, milk production, fertility, animal behaviour or carcass quality. This is basically not an issue.

Several points were made on both sides of the House about whether the consultation process was effective. Will the Minister take on board that there is a lack of confidence in the consultation process? By the way, that process is by no means over for many of the proposals for the electricity grid. Will the Minister take these concerns back to EirGrid? If there is a lack of public trust in EirGrid, I am sure the Minister, more than anyone else, would wish to rectify that matter.

It is important to consider the international aspects of this matter. There are concerns about ensuring Ireland has a cost-effective energy transmission network. There is much to be gained from the potential this country has for wind energy export. However, it has been made clear that our current transmission infrastructure is not fit for purpose for today, let alone for tomorrow. We must acknowledge that we must build a grid system that will be able to deliver renewable energy, particularly from our offshore wind resources, and realise our export potential in this regard.

Above all, we must be very conscious of the importance of security of supply. The motion is overly prescriptive in setting out how we must deliver this for the country. I have no difficulty with re-examining EirGrid's mandate and in asking what we want EirGrid to deliver for the country, but I am very much of the view that we cannot say, for example, that it must place lines underground wherever physically possible. That would be far too prescriptive and tie our hands in delivering what the country needs, namely a safe, secure, efficient and sustainable electrical energy resource.