JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 2005

Bantry Concerned Action Group: Presentation.

Chairman

Before welcoming the representatives of the Bantry Concerned Action Group, I wish to acknowledge that it was Deputy O'Donovan who requested that the joint committee hear this presentation. Even though our programme for the year was complete, we had to readjust it to accommodate the member and the action group. I ask its members to be brief in their presentation. As I propose to finish this part of the meeting at approximately 3.25 p.m., if the presentation is not completed within five to ten minutes, I will need to ask the members of the group to conclude and allow for questioning.

From the Bantry Concerned Action Group I welcome Mr. Joe Burke, chairman; Mr. Roger Alison, secretary; Mr. Pat Cronin, Mr. Gene Lynch and Mr. John Heney of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. We will hear the presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session.

Mr. Joe Burke

I am a dairy farmer in Bantry, west Cork. A wind farm is being built close to us. We did not object to its construction as we are not against green energy. The reason we are here today is that a power line runs from the wind farm to the power station 14 km away. When we looked at the planning application for the wind farm, we decided not to object as the line was taking a completely different route which would not have troubled us in any way. I make it clear again that we are not against green energy.

When an official from the ESB advised that a line would pass through our property, I said that was a mistake as I had seen the plans which showed the route running in a different direction. He said that was false, that the line was to run in the way advised and that was it. He said he had powers under the 1927 Act to come through any property and that we could do nothing about it. When I asked about the planning application for the line, he advised that it was a matter between him and Cork County Council. When I asked him if he meant to tell me that Cork County Council had more rights to my property than I had, he said it really did. I took this very badly.

Chairman

Mr. Burke's presentation should centre on the difficulties with cables traversing farming land rather than on his own personal problems. Does he wish to make recommendations to the joint committee on how the law should be changed or the ESB should conduct its business?

Mr. Burke

The ESB should treat landowners with some respect. We are happy to allow its engineers to enter our property and put the cable under our ground but it will not agree with us. We are giving it the chance to enter our property and put the cable underground but it will not do so. However, if the developer will pay the costs, it will do so. When we asked the developer, he said it could be done. I have seen cases where this has been done and was even in such a trench where I saw this being done over a longer distance. It is unfair on the people of the country, not just the Bantry Concerned Action Group. I have received many telephone calls from people living in Limerick, Castlebar and Wexford who have experienced the same problem. It is very unfair and will not stop here.

I want to make it clear again that we are not against wind farms or green energy. The problem is the way the ESB and developers are treating us. I want the committee to listen to us and to understand that we want lines to be provided underground.

Deputy Broughan

Why did the ESB change the direction of the line with which Mr. Burke was originally satisfied?

Mr. Burke

I do not know. The public was shown where the line would emerge from the wind farm but when planning was granted, the position changed. It appeared that it was a set-up to obtain planning. No one objected to the wind farm. According to the plans, the substation was to be located at a point where there are several hundred acres which do not have houses on them. When the ESB sought planning permission for a line into the station, I asked it for the map it submitted to Cork County Council. My house was built in 1964 but I was provided with a map which was approximately 100 years old. I removed hedges ten years ago and my house and farm buildings were not included on the map. What kind of map is that?

Deputy Durkan

We all support green energy production but where a planning application is submitted, ancillary information can predetermine the outcome. If any aspect of the information is inaccurate, the validity of the application is called into question. All documentation relating to a planning application submitted to a local authority is public and every file can be examined in detail.

Mr. Burke

The ESB has the option to place the line underground. We cannot be any fairer than that.

Chairman

Does Mr. Alison wish to contribute?

Deputy O’Donovan

The group should be allowed to make its case first, after which we can hold a question and answer session. Otherwise, we will never complete our deliberations. Members are interrupting the flow of the presentation, which should be completed first.

Chairman

We were trying to direct the presentations to ensure they are helpful to the committee.

Deputy O’Donovan

I accept that but we should allow delegates to make their points before we ask questions.

Chairman

A number of allegations were made in the statement about the ESB but the company is not represented here to put its side of the case. We are, therefore, trying to find out exactly what is the difficulty and whether contraventions have occurred. We wish to know if changes are required to take into consideration the points Mr. Burke raised.

Senator Finucane

Is it the Chairman's intention to invite the ESB to attend to respond? I am familiar with the Limerick location which has exactly the same problem. It is a national issue.

Chairman

In the energy module we will consider the transcripts of this meeting, which will be available. The questions raised will have to be asked of the ESB when its representatives come before us. I wish to be fair to both sides.

Deputy Ferris

Did the matter go to An Bord Pleanála?

Mr. Burke

Yes. It refused to hold an oral hearing or to consider what we said.

Deputy Ferris

Were all the group's objections logged and forwarded?

Mr. Roger Alison

The first appendix contains detailed information on our submission to the appeals board.

The line under discussion passes through my neighbour's land. I became involved in this matter because — knowing that I am a veterinarian and have worked in cancer research for 24 years with, among others, the US Government — people asked me about cancer safety. I asked an ESB official where the line would go and he asked me why I was worried as it was going through my neighbour's property. I asked him how close it could come and he said while he could put it 1.5 m from a house, he would be happy if it were 5 m away. There have been many reports on the BBC and in newspapers about links between cancer and electricity lines. There have been two major studies which demonstrate that the incidence of childhood leukaemia doubles in children living in a field of 0.4 microteslas, which extends approximately 25 m from a 38 kV line. Some of the newspaper reports have been included in the appendix to our submission.

ESB representatives say there is no link with cancer and produced a document to this effect in 1999. In appendix 4 of our submission, I compare the $60 million programme the US Government recently completed to examine electric fields and cancer with a publication of the National Radiological Protection Board in Britain, which invited a panel of experts to explore the matter. Apart from the fact that it dates from before the carrying out of the two major studies which point to a link with cancer, an immediate problem with the ESB publication involves its figures which do not agree with those set out in the corresponding US and British documents. The ESB figure for the magnetism directly underneath a 400 kV line is 11.5 microteslas whereas the British figure for a 400 kV line is 40 microteslas. The ESB says fields from power lines are lower in intensity than those of common household appliances and provides a figure for a hair dryer of seven microteslas at 1 ft. whereas the US study provides a figure of 0.1 microteslas. It is a significant difference. The references are provided in the appendix. The Americans use the milligauss measure which must be converted to microteslas.

Chairman

Is Mr. Alison making the case that, on health and safety grounds, all cables connecting to wind farms should be laid underground?

Mr. Alison

There are safety grounds for siting cables at minimum distance from a house, which is certainly not 5 m. A distance of 25 m should be used for a 38 kV line and a greater distance for 110 kV line.

Mr. Pat Cronin

My property is the next one from the 110 kV station at Ballylickey. There is already a 110 kV line over my entrance at the side of the road three miles from Bantry. Until this happened, that was a building site for one of my family. That is no longer the case. We cannot do anything about it. It is proposed to bring out another line 150 m on the Bantry side of the existing line between the house of my neighbour, Michael Hutchinson, on a site I sold in 1984 and a site I have obtained for my son, Michael. My house is 37 m from Michael Hutchinson's house. While I am not here to insult anybody, the representatives who approached me originally were very arrogant. They said I would have to move the house as they intended to put up the line in any event.

Chairman

Is Mr. Cronin referring to ESB officials?

Mr. Cronin

Yes.

Chairman

Did they cite 1927 Act?

Mr. Cronin

Yes. I was told they intended to position the line 6.5 m or 7 m from the house and that they would feel comfortable if it were 5 m. I am not used to being in a place like this and may be a little off the mark but I must say that the representative on the ground two years ago did a very poor public relations job on behalf of the ESB.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin.

Mr. Gene Lynch

The proposed power line will run directly through the middle of my farm. The developer and the ESB propose to sterilise an area extending to 25 m on each side of the power line. They will sterilise approximately 160 acres between the power line and the wind farm making the land unsuitable for any kind of building. As I live in a scenic part of Ballylickey, I cannot understand how the council gave planning permission to the ESB without sending someone to stand on any man's land to see where it was proposed to site the poles.

Chairman

They did not send someone to see how the line would affect the surroundings.

Mr. Lynch

Exactly.

Mr. John Heney

I am rural development chairman of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, which became interested in the issue as it involves an attack on the interests of farmers. I find the attitude of the ESB disappointing and shocking. Its consultation process is reminiscent of a totalitarian communist regime and its research seems to be very slack. Many of its figures on health and safety appear to be out of date, as the figures presented today indicate, while its figures on cost do not appear to tally with figures which are well known in other areas.

As regards the 1927 Act, there has always been a great relationship between farmers and the ESB. Nobody has been left without electricity because of farmers and by and large their relationship with the ESB has always been good. It saddens me to hear what we have heard today. The Act was introduced to ensure everybody, homes and businesses, would get an electricity connection. While I admire and take my hat off to the entrepreneur who has built a wind farm, the Act is being misused to transport electricity from a private enterprise to the national grid and the landowners in the middle are being asked to subsidise or help. Why should one small group have their health, property and rights walked on through the misuse of the Act on the grounds of the perception of what is the common good?

This issue will have to be resolved sooner rather than later. Members have all received a copy of the map showing all proposed new wind turbines, of which there are nearly 100. This issue will continue to arise and will develop into a spider's web. Our case offers an opportunity to resolve it once and for all. The farmers present are positive and do not wish to block wind enterprise. They support it. We never lodged any objections to the wind farm but argue that the power line should be laid underground and that respect must be shown towards our property. We want to go along with the project.

Chairman

I assure Mr. Heney that this is a very important presentation as it will form part of the joint committee's report in the energy module it is undertaking. It also allows members to engage with various groups from throughout the country. The presentation will provide important information for inclusion in our report. I am sure members will have questions. I thank Mr. Heney for coming all the way from west Cork today.

Deputy O’Donovan

I compliment the Chairman and members of the joint committee on showing magnanimity by allowing the Bantry Concerned Action Group to appear before us. When I first raised this issue, the Chairman stated a meeting could be arranged for nine or 12 months later. I appreciate that he and the clerk had to bend the rules to allow the group to appear. Time is of the essence.

The position is that the developer in question received planning permission and the ESB subsequently obtained planning permission for a power line. The latter decision went before An Bord Pleanála which upheld it.

As I have stated previously, I am in favour of green energy. However, the planning regime for building wind farms is archaic. A person would not be allowed to build a house with no road access or sewerage facilities. Wind farms must be developed in tandem with the connecting power lines. This is a fatal flaw in the current system. I have already informed Cork County Council that it must marry these processes in the review of its development plan. It is a disgrace to build a wind farm and second guess the location of the power lines.

The ESB's approach to the farmers has been characterised by the use of a stick and no carrot. It has acted disgracefully and, as I stated, I could hardly believe some of the tales I heard. Having met a large number of people on this issue, I have complained at the highest level of the ESB. It would not tell people such as Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Annan that it planned to put poles down their chimney stacks.

One of the conditions attached to the planning permission was that the large 38kV power lines must be located at least 25 metres from houses. The distance should be at least 100 metres.

The ESB had an opportunity to construct an overhead power line or routing it in different directions to minimise the harm done to farmers but refused on the basis that this would impact on a special area of conservation and a scenic route. In another area it stated it could not touch a derelict famine grave. It used many excuses but should have listened to people living in the area and taken the more appropriate option.

Chairman

Is the Deputy indicating that the ESB gave consideration to old graveyards rather than to public health?

Deputy O’Donovan

Yes, the council, in response to the ESB application, stipulated that a certain route must be taken and indicated that special areas of conservation, derelict ruins and scenic routes were more important than health and safety, which is a ridiculous assumption. This decision could be severely tested if a judicial review were taken to the High Court.

I also support the group's contention that the power lines should, as far as possible, be routed underground. If the project had been planned properly, the line could have been laid underground and would have interfered with almost no one. By taking the selected route the ESB has maximised the damage and inconvenience to everybody concerned and is interfering with farmers' rights.

I have no doubt that a woman was refused planning permission to build a house, having decided to retire from farming and give her farm to her son, because the authorities did not want her to interfere with the planned route of the line. No consideration was given to her health and retirement plans. Although I am not an expert, Mr. Alison raised pertinent health issues which would be of concern if there were any element of truth in them.

Approximately 200 wind farms, many more than Mr. Heney indicated, are planned. If the Government, local authorities and the ESB do not produce a strategic plan for a system of substations into which the power lines will feed, we will have chaos throughout the country which could lead to major opposition to wind power.

I thank the Chairman for permitting the group to appear before the committee. It made valid points. Consumption of fossil fuels is increasing and we have a major energy problem. In addition, we have few domestic sources of energy, with no oil and coal supplies and just a small amount of natural gas. While we must examine alternative energy sources, the current position is unfair. In this instance, my criticism is primarily levelled at the local authority rather than the developer who, as Mr. Heney noted, is an entrepreneur. I am also critical of the approach taken by the ESB. If it continues to act in this manner with regard to 200 or 300 more wind farms, it will cause uproar.

Deputy Kelly

I welcome the Bantry Concerned Action Group and have looked forward to meeting it. Deputy O'Donovan appears to have been under fierce pressure as he spoke of little else in recent months other than the need to invite the Bantry Concerned Action Group before the joint committee. There is no hope of an invitation to the Longford action group.

Chairman

The Chairman must be a Cork man.

Deputy Kelly

Hindsight is a great thing, particularly given that the group did not object to the planning application. People are not happy with the local authority in question and a semi-State body. I am from County Longford where the planning authority is people-friendly and encourages people to examine the file of planning applications, regardless of their nature. People do so and I am sure this is also the case in Bantry, although I may be wrong. All members of the public are entitled to examine any planning file during office hours and scrutinise every slip of paper, map or other detail. It is a pity this was not done in this case.

Now that a problem has arisen, the joint committee should warn others to check out planning applications for proposed developments in their area before the horse leaves the stable. Everybody should be on the ball by looking out for developments in their area and trying to solve potential problems before they get out of hand or reach a point such as this. Even at this late stage, the joint committee should encourage the local authority, the ESB and the residents to meet in an open, friendly manner to try to resolve the problem and avoid an "us versus them" scenario of which we have had too many.

Laying an underground cable would appear to be a simple solution. What would it cost? We are also very concerned about our health, as we should be. We should probably block altogether anything that would jeopardise our health. Is Mr. Alison positive that these lines will definitely cause cancer? Can he say to me that if allowed to go ahead, these lines would cause cancer and leukaemia? Is he positive about that or is it the case that he can provide reams of information but no definite solution?

I am shocked to hear that 160 acres of land will be sterilised. I do not know who could do that to anyone's land. Some years ago Longford County Council got a new planning officer who said he would sterilise the land if he gave planning permission. Perhaps my fellow members are all for sterilisation but I was never in favour of it. I do not agree with it. What will happen to the man with the 160 acres? Will he be compensated and what form will that take? I do not know how 160 acres could be sterilised. I find it hard to believe. Did the planning authorities or the ESB say that?

I wish the group well with its case which I hope will reach a successful conclusion. If that does not happen, we will have to listen to the man who is second on my right. He will not be able to sleep. Whatever about wind farms, the group has got the wind up him.

Senator Finucane

I welcome the group. I come from County Limerick and the area referred to in that county is Tournafulla. I am aware that the group from this area approached the Bantry action group in recent times. I was told by a group member that it was aware of the Bantry action group. It is a most invidious position for everyone.

Like the group members and most people here, I am not opposed to wind energy; I favour it. However, if it is not handled carefully by the ESB, it can drive a wedge between farmers and the local rural community, between those who are pro-wind energy and would derive benefit from the turbines and other people. These people see it as an extra source of income over many years.

The case referred to in Limerick is similar to the Bantry case. Local people did not object at the planning stage because it was their understanding that the lines were to run along an old railway line and that they would not inconvenience anybody. Regarding its change of approach, the ESB stated that it is trying to embrace several different wind farms for the future from a 38 kV one to a 100 kV one. The group's problems date to that point. The ESB invoked the 1927 Act. As Mr. Healy stated, 1927 is a long time ago and wind energy was not envisaged at the time. One could not then foresee giant transformers on the land, pylons or other such structures. This area of the legislation should be revisited to bring it up to date.

It has been said that in many countries the cables required for wind energy have been laid underground. That would appear to be the solution. Bord Gáis went through the country systematically over a to lay down its pipeline. That was practical. The group's visit is timely. Every local authority receives applications for wind farms. It is necessary for the committee and the ESB to develop a proper policy approach for this area.

Farmers in my community have informed me they do not object to other farmers being granted permission for the construction of wind turbines but it is another thing to be told out of the blue that there will be a transformer outside their house or on their land. They are concerned that there will be other transformers or pylons on their land. They want reassurance from the ESB on such matters.

I recently sought information from the ESB on its approach and how it implements the legislation. Although it is a few weeks since I wrote to the person involved in the ESB, I still await written confirmation.

Chairman

How long has the Senator waited?

Senator Finucane

I am probably waiting five weeks for a reply.

Chairman

Has Senator Finucane had any acknowledgement from the ESB?

Senator Finucane

I have had no acknowledgements except verbally over the phone. I asked a gentleman if he could expedite matters. He had previously appeared before the committee in regard to wind energy.

Chairman

Would Senator Finucane be kind enough to forward a copy of his letter to the clerk? I can guarantee the Senator he will get a response.

Senator Finucane

I intended following up the matter again.

There are concerns in regard to several issues. I accept that there are concerns regarding the 1927 Act but one must be equally concerned about the type of compensation paid by the ESB. The amount of compensation for accepting a pylon on ones' land is derisory. It is closer to 1927 prices than those in 2005. The sum may be equivalent to €50 for a pylon. In fairness, the ESB cannot get it every way. A policy decision must be taken on this issue. We must also find out if the ESB is seriously interested in wind energy, a matter which we have discussed on many occasions.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome the action group and commend it on its efforts. We had a similar occurrence in my county recently which involved a protracted struggle between county councillors and the local community who were united against the ESB. They were successful in so far as they had the support of a major co-operative which did the underground work for the ESB, which was of benefit to itself anyway. That has set the standard for what has taken place since in regard to wind farms and overhead power lines. A system of negotiation was put in place because of the action taken by local residents with the support of the elected representatives. Unlike in this case, negotiation is upfront and there is a willingness to reach accommodation between the parties. From what I have heard from the group, it would appear that no such concern was extended to the community in Bantry.

We also had a problem with mobile telephone masts. We included a clause in the county development plan to the effect that these could not be located within a kilometre of a home. An Bord Pleanála tested a case and it is not worth the paper on which it is written. It does not matter what is done at local authority level; it is what is done at national level that counts. The 1927 Act is the problem. I subscribe to the view that all power lines should be underground where there is a potential for coming into contact with humans or animals. The jury is still out in regard to the effects on people living in proximity to power lines.

Another aspect of the matter is that power lines going over or through one's property substantially devalue it. I am glad the group brought this matter to our attention. It will open a debate at this level which may filter into any future legislation that will arise in this regard. I agree with Deputy O'Donovan's suggestion that taking a judicial review could be a way forward. However that could be an expensive option and a great deal of community support would be required.

This case is a terrible indictment of the legislation which considers health and safety matters as being secondary to planning decisions. There is no concern for health and safety. I wish the group well in its campaign which I hope will be successful. I am pleased to offer whatever support I can.

Chairman

I remind members that it is 3.20 p.m. and we have another session at 3.30 p.m. I ask them to be brief in their comments. I call on Deputies Durkan and Broughan and Senator MacSharry, in that order.

Deputy O’Donovan

Unfortunately, I have another commitment and must leave. I thank the Chairman for accommodating me.

Chairman

The Deputy is welcome.

Deputy Durkan

Everybody would empathise and sympathise with the position in which people find themselves in these circumstances. We should all support alternative energy — particularly wind energy — because we must use resources that are renewable. Having said that, it must be noted that the 1927 Act, to which I have referred on countless occasions, is somewhat like a general wayleave for the ESB. What it says is true: it has almost unlimited powers. However, it should also be remembered that if the ESB had not been able to draw on this Act in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, for example, many parts of the country would not have electric power to this day. We must balance one side against the other.

Reference was made to a judicial review. The judicial review can only succeed if due process has not been followed in terms of any aspect of the planning application — in other words, if the people who are affected by the application have not had full information, such as that connected to the process to be followed and the public notice, relating thereto. The next question that obviously arises concerns whether the wind farm involved a free-standing application or a separate application to that associated with the rest of the project. One could have a judicial review of the entire project or part of it. The court will not overturn a planning decision but it can deem that due process has not been followed if the information required under the Planning Acts has not been made available, as has been suggested.

Other members referred to the question of electromagnetic fields. I have read about these over the years and know the differences between the US and European standards. I also know there were many court cases on this issue in the United States. Some aspects of the argument are still in the balance but it should be noted that to validate one's case, irrespective of the planning application aspect, one needs to be able to outline emphatically and without doubt the factors that are detrimental to health. Unfortunately, there is much argument, both for and against, in this area. I am totally sympathetic to people who are disadvantaged in this way.

If a local authority grants the ESB or another body planning permission for a pylon that consequently requires sterilisation of a property, the property owner is entitled to compensation in respect of that sterilisation under the planning Acts. This was determined long ago. An Bord Pleanála does not have to observe the county development plan at all and can completely ignore it. What is contained therein is irrelevant as far as it is concerned. Its perspective is that the Planning Acts must apply universally. It can disregard other considerations. However, there is a case to be made in this regard on the part of the ESB.

We need independent medical evidence on electromagnetic fields. From my studies in this area, I note that this is a wide and thorny issue.

Senator MacSharry

I do not want to be repetitive. I support the case and agree with much that has been said already. Regarding the double poles that are being erected, what level of compensation is being offered per pole?

Deputy Broughan

I thank the delegation for an important presentation, which we have had a chance to read in recent days. I apologise for the absence of my colleague, Senator McCarthy. He was attending a meeting in Cork and has been delayed. However, he is very interested in the issues that have been raised.

This committee has examined wind power in a general sense and has received terrible complaints from Meitheal na Gaoithe and all the other groups that there are not enough wind energy projects and that there has been a moratorium thereon. It seems that the action group's figures on undergrounding are in profound contrast with those of the ESB. From where did it obtain its figures? Is there an independent reference source which indicates that the ESB could carry out the work in question much more cheaply and that this matter could, therefore, be resolved? The representatives appear to be stating that they can live with underground lines. They have made a powerful case. This issue has arisen in the past, in respect of Ballymun, for example, where there were grave concerns over very powerful overhead lines. We are extremely sympathetic to the delegates' well-presented case.

Chairman

It was important for members, who represent different constituencies, to give their views on what was happening throughout the country. These views are not dissimilar to those expressed by the delegates. A number of questions were asked and I call on Mr. Cronin to reply.

Mr. Cronin

To answer Senator MacSharry, I currently have two sets of double poles on my property which are 150 m apart. They carry a 110 kVA line that was built approximately three years ago. The compensation I receive each year for those two sets of poles is €61.73.

Senator MacSharry

Is that per pole?

Mr. Cronin

No, the total cheque amounts to €61.73. I received it two weeks ago and subsequent cheques will arrive in February or early March every year. Some of my friends who are present have seen the cheque I received.

Chairman

I am trying to do what the members asked of during the private session, namely, to complete the session as quickly as possible. I am not trying to rush the delegates but I remind them that they have been given somebody else's slot.

Mr. Lynch

I will answer the question on sterilisation, regarding which I might have been misinterpreted. There are 160 acres in the 14.5 km between the power station and the wind farm.

Chairman

I call on Mr. Burke. Mr. Alison may conclude.

Mr. Burke

When one applies for planning permission for a wind farm, one should also put in the line. One should name all the farmers whose land the line is to go through. What is happening is that developers are applying for planning permission for wind farms but not doing so in respect of the location of the line. They are getting the ESB to do that and thus we are left with no option. It is as if the developers are not applying for planning permission for a wind farm at all.

Chairman

That is a good point. Is Mr. Alison an expert on electromagnetic fields?

Mr. Alison

No.

Chairman

Is it not, therefore, fair to suggest that he cannot answer definitively any questions that were put to him today?

Mr. Alison

I could make two or three comments.

Chairman

He can make a comment but I must be fair.

Mr. Alison

First, there is a need for more up-to-date information in this country. One of the reviews from which I have been quoting was produced by many university professors, not me. I recall being told at veterinary school 30 years ago that there was a link between scrapie and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The link was that the eyeballs of British sheep were exported to Arab countries, where there was a higher incidence of the disease.

Chairman

With all due respect, I cannot start a debate on the health risks without having an expert from the other side present to outline his views. Am I correct in interpreting Mr. Alison as saying we must have regard to the health issues associated with the siting of overhead cables close to human habitations?

Mr. Alison

Fewer than 0.5% of children are exposed to these levels. If we continue to place cables overhead, we will know in ten years' time.

Chairman

I do not disagree with that view, particularly if there is scientific evidence to support it. The committee will revisit this issue when it continues with the energy module and will put questions to ESB Networks. If we may use the Bantry Action Group's document as part of our report, will the group please forward the planning application made by the individual and the An Bord Pleanála determination on it? I presume the wind farm is operating?

Mr. Cronin

No, it is not.

Chairman

The planning action has been determined. We note and will consider further the points in the group's summary of conclusions. The consultant advising the committee on energy will also consider them. We will devote a section of the report to wind farms and underground and overhead connections. Mr. Burke made an important point about the planning application.

I take it the group dealt with ESB Networks. The ESB is rolling out a new infrastructure costing €4 billion, the loan for which was sanctioned by the Oireachtas. I am disturbed that ESB Networks has not responded to correspondence from an Oireachtas member. It is unacceptable for any semi-State body to ignore a Member of the Oireachtas. I will communicate with ESB Networks through the clerk to the committee.

Deputy Broughan

To be fair to the ESB, it is unusual that it did not respond to an Oireachtas Member.

Chairman

I have no difficulty with the ESB but that is unacceptable, just as it was unacceptable for another body recently to ignore requests for information from the Leader of the Labour Party. It may be an oversight but it must be explored for the sakes of all Oireachtas Members.

I propose that when we receive information from the Bantry action group and from An Bord Pleanála about the planning application, we will submit copies to ESB Networks and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for their observations.

I apologise for rushing Mr. Burke and thank him, Mr. Alison, Mr. Cronin, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Heney for attending this meeting.

Sitting suspended at 3.33 p.m. and resumed at 3.35 p.m.