Joint Committee on Transport and Communications díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 2013

EirGrid Grid25 Project: Discussion

Chairman

The purpose of the meeting is to engage with regional anti-pylon community groups in respect of EirGrid's proposal to install overhead power lines when upgrading the electricity transmission network and the impact this might have on communities. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the witnesses. One grouping comprises Ms Helena Fitzgerald of Save Our Heartland, Carlow, Mr. John McCusker of Comeragh Action Pylon Group, and Mr. Peter Smith of Save County Tipperary Anti-Pylon Group. Mr. Owen Bannigan, Mr. Nigel Hillis and Ms May Marron represent Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee and Mr. Cian Moloney represents Action D9. Ms Ann Murphy is delayed in traffic and will be appearing shortly.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.

They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise that any submission or opening statements the witnesses have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Each of the three groups will make an opening statement of approximately seven minutes, which will then be followed by a question and answer session in which members will seek to tease out the issues involved. This is not about restricting the witnesses' time; we give as much as time as possible when members engage through questions. They will be allowed to make any points they wish to make this morning, either in their presentations or in answering questions. This is an opportunity for them to put their concerns on the public record and for the members to be aware of them. As public representatives, we all have been involved in this issue in our own areas over recent weeks and months. Some of the groups in Meath, Tyrone and Monaghan have been dealing with this issue for a number of years. This is about dealing with the issue and putting people's concerns and frustrations on the record.

I would now like to call on the spokespersons for the Waterford, Tipperary and Carlow groups to make their opening remarks.

Mr. Peter Smith

I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting us here today. I have been asked to represent Faugheen, a small village in the Suir Valley. Any settlement below 1,000 people is not considered a constraint to the Grid Link project, and the population of our village is less than 200. As a result, the K2 pylon corridor drives straight through the heart of our village. Faugheen is not just a village; it is at the centre of a rural community. I do not have time to paint a full picture; suffice to say that I know that many committee members come from and represent communities just like ours, so they know what Grid Link will do to us. Faugheen is a link in a chain from Cork to Waterford and up to Kildare, and we are all in this together. We are not backward-looking and we are all for progress, but progress, by definition, must be forward thinking, and the legacy we leave must be one of which we can be proud.

We have genuine concerns about the effects that Grid Link will have on community employment, agriculture, tourism, nature, the environment, heritage and culture. Our anxieties about health and property devaluation are absolutely valid and based on truth and must not be disregarded by EirGrid, nor by the Government. As for community gain, all we see at the moment is loss. The true cost of these pylons must be brought to light, so we are asking this committee to plead with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to call a halt to the current process so that other options such as underground cabling can be re-examined using the latest information and in an open and transparent manner. In its current form, Grid Link will bludgeon its way through the heart of all of our communities, because neither EirGrid, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources nor the Government can see a true picture of us on a map.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

Thank you for inviting me here today. I am from Borris in County Carlow and I am speaking on behalf of the Save our Heartland group. The map on page 6 of my written submission, which many committee members will have seen, is a map of primary constraints prepared by EirGrid in its route identification process. We believe this map is fundamentally flawed in how it depicts landscape value in Ireland. The red areas on this map are primary constraints to be avoided if possible in route identification, while the light-coloured areas are okay for pylons.

There is no whole-island map of landscape value. EirGrid has subjective and inconsistent information on landscape value from each local authority. Carlow appears on the map as a totally unconstrained landscape. There are no primary constraints in our Carlow development plan. All four pylon routes pass through the small county of Carlow, and, most significantly, two of the pylon routes pass just beside the monastic settlement of St. Mullins and through the beautiful and historic designed landscape of Borris House. On the next map, we can see areas of landscape constraints stopping at county boundaries, so because Kilkenny is an area of constraint and is to be avoided if possible by EirGrid, the landscape value stops at the River Barrow. How can landscape value stop at a river?

In 2002, Ireland ratified the European Landscape Convention. This places obligations on the Irish Government to protect, manage and plan the landscapes of Ireland hand in hand with the communities that inhabit those landscapes. We believe the Government has failed to comply with Article 6 of the European Landscape Convention in the case of County Carlow, as critical cultural and historical elements of importance to the people of Carlow and the nation have not been identified, assessed and protected. Eleven and a half years after Ireland signed and ratified the European Landscape Convention, we still do not have a national landscape strategy. We do not even have statutory guidelines for local authorities to help them map landscapes more consistently.

We have three questions that we would like the committee to consider. How can the Grid Link project have progressed to this stage with such a fundamental flaw in its mapping of landscape value? Will the absence of a consistent all-island landscape map allow for proper planning and sustainable development in the strategic infrastructure process, executed in the common good? Is the identification and protection of scenic landscapes, which Ireland is obliged to do under the European Landscape Convention, not also in the common good? Thank you for your time.

Mr. John McCusker

Good morning. I represent Comeraghs Against Pylons in County Waterford. The terms of reference and the responsibility of this committee to the Oireachtas and to the Irish people are to report on this project in respect of the expenditure and the administration of the project and its compliance or non-compliance with European Union treaties and directives, to comment on the detailed cost estimates provided - or, more specifically, not provided - and to advise on the project's value for money to the State.

A fundamental issue that drives the thinking on value for money is the need for the project. What is driving the need for this project? Does the committee know the real answer to this? It is certainly not the continued, practised PR mantra from EirGrid of "Keep the lights on." Has the committee seen a whole-life-cycle cost analysis to the value of €500 million, as stated by EirGrid? If not, why not? How then can committee members possibly comment on issues relevant to the terms of reference of the committee? If not, then the committee should insist on the immediate suspension of this project. We have outlined in our written submission 18 factors that need to be addressed in the whole-life-cycle cost-benefit analysis, and we would welcome some discussion on that afterwards. Putting the lines underground forms a major part of that discussion.

Another major factor is the impact and cost to our health services. The impact on mental health that this project is already having on Irish citizens and the taxpayer needs to be considered as a matter of urgency. Why is the Government adding further mental health pressures on its citizens for no reason? Once again, the Government allows the Irish citizen to pay the mental health price, while others in Europe get the benefit. Ultimately, the cost to the Exchequer and EirGrid of delays, delays and more delays that arise will be immense.

Committee members must realise that every euro spent by the Irish citizen objecting to this project is one euro less spent in our local shops, indigenous businesses or indeed saved in our banks to help the banks. Every euro spent by EirGrid on PR companies pushing this unwanted project on top of people is one euro less spent on our struggling health service.

Is that good value for money?

Now to European Union matters. Ms Fitzgerald spoke of open flouting of European Union directives on landscape. The precautionary principle is contained within the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This principle is being flouted by EirGrid and the Government. Irish health and safety regulations are being flouted. Within the precautionary principle lies a clear burden of proof, which means that EirGrid and the Government must now immediately indemnify the Irish people against all possible risks or harm they are enforcing on them. We still await this indemnity. The European Union's scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks has clearly stated that the health risks and concerns regarding electric and magnetic fields, EMFs, are valid, but this is being ignored and flouted. We all remember issues such as asbestos and passive smoking. I have no doubt we may regret the failure to deal with the subject of EMFs in years to come. If we do not abide by the EU precautionary principle now and by our own health and safety regulations, we will be in serious trouble.

Be under no illusions that if this committee and the Oireachtas do not listen now to the calls of the electorate and the people to halt this project and reassess it immediately, the people will eventually halt it. Unfortunately, at that stage and perhaps as a result of the committee's inaction, it will have cost the Exchequer exorbitant amounts of taxpayers' money. This, unfortunately, will only remind the people of other failed State projects, such as PPARS, e-voting machines, decentralisation, Thornton Hall prison and, as recently as last week, the EU's instruction to terminate the contract for the Poolbeg incinerator. This is this committee's chance. It is up to it.

Chairman

Thank you. We will take all the presentations before going to members for their comments. I now call on the spokesperson for the Monaghan group, Ms Marron.

Ms May Marron

We represent the Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee, which was set up in 2007 in response to the proposed development of the North-South interconnector. We thank the joint committee for the invitation to appear here today.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, recently commented on the North–South interconnector as being a local row. In our submission to the then Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Transport in 2012, we quoted from the poem "Epic" by Patrick Kavanagh.

... Till Homer’s ghost came whispering to my mind.

He said: I made the Iliad from such

A local row. Gods make their own importance.

EirGrid has now unveiled the Grid West and Grid Link south projects, and rural communities have risen up en masse to oppose the overhead nature of these developments. Despite this enormous community backlash and outcry for undergrounding, which we very much support, our position is that EirGrid intends to make a planning application early next year for a North-South overhead line. We must deal with this situation by engaging fully in the statutory planning process. Since the collapse of the oral hearing in June 2010, we continued working behind the scenes very much below the national radar. We do not have a website or a Facebook page and we leave the twittering and tweeting to the birds. We have moved far beyond the stage of holding protest rallies outside EirGrid offices. We believe that 1,500 people held a protest march in the Comeragh mountains recently, and we congratulate them on that, but we have been there, done that and got the t-shirt.

The whole country is now fully aware of the main issues with regard to pylons, but I will give a quick overview of how these issues relate to Monaghan. The first issue is the visual impact. Monaghan has a unique rolling drumlin landscape draped with small enclosed fields. Patrick Kavanagh has described Monaghan's drumlins as his Alps. Obviously, the visual impact of a pylon is far greater sitting on top of a drumlin than it is in a flat field. The County Monaghan Development Plan 2013-2019 protects this unique drumlin landscape from development causing adverse visual impact. We believe the overhead nature of the power line is totally in breach of this development plan.

Property devaluation is another issue. The power line will be totally out of scale in relation to the small fields and small farm holdings through which it is proposed to be sited. This will result in a multiplier effect with regard to property devaluation compared to other parts of the country. It will have enormous adverse effects on the farm families who may have to live and work in its shadow. In regard to tourism, contrary to EirGrid's assertion that tourism is largely irrelevant in the context of Monaghan, significant capital investment has taken place over the course of the last rural development programme for 2007 to 2013, but now some tourism projects have been put on hold as a result of the proposed line. There is now no direct or indirect benefit for the residents, farmers or businesses of County Monaghan as far as this project is concerned. In the last application there was a substation in Kingscourt which EirGrid claimed was a fundamental part of the proposal that was absolutely vital to strengthen the grid in Monaghan and the north east. This substation has now been omitted and does not form part of the proposed new application.

There is particular concern regarding the close proximity of EirGrid pylons and conductors to dwellings. EirGrid says it tries to achieve a distance of 50 metres from the centre line, if possible, but in any event they can go as close as 23 metres or 25 yards. This distance of 25 yards was set in the 1934 Electricity Amendment Act, when lines were strung on wooden poles. It is a ridiculously close distance in the context of today's massive steel pylons and 400 kV conductors. This legislation urgently needs to be reviewed.

There is nothing unique about the health issue with regard to Monaghan. EirGrid states that it operates to the highest international standards, which it quotes as being the ICNIRP guidelines. We would contend that these are not the highest international standards, but rather the lowest. Our research shows that the highest international standards can be found in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Austria, Germany and Italy. These standards advise levels of exposure to EMFs that are up to 250 times lower than the levels used by EirGrid and are based on the principle of prudent avoidance - if in doubt, leave it out. We are also concerned by what we consider to be misleading information in EirGrid’s brochure on EMFs. In addition, there is an issue regarding the noise from electric lines and its effect on those who are autistic. This already has a real impact for families in Monaghan, and although compelling and emotional evidence was given at the oral hearing in 2010, EirGrid has not addressed the issue in any of its documents, despite the fact that it says it has taken into account all evidence given at the oral hearing.

With regard to the upcoming planning application, the Minister says three documents must be taken into account by An Bord Pleanála. The first of these is the independent expert commission, IEC, report. Despite our initial reservations regarding the terms of reference, this report adds much useful information to the debate and we have not criticised it in any shape or form. However, EirGrid does not agree with large parts of this report. It does not accept the costings, does not accept the validity of the technical conclusions and has publicly stated that the IEC was not properly briefed on the Irish transmission network and its report is incomplete. We note with concern that the IEC has not, to our knowledge, been given an opportunity to respond to EirGrid’s critique of its report. The second document to be taken into account is the Oireachtas committee report of 2012. No public comment on this has been made by EirGrid as far as we are aware. The third document is the Government energy policy document. This, obviously, is the most important of the three documents, yet even with regard to this document EirGrid selects the elements that suit it and conveniently ignores the rest.

With regard to the debate on the comparative costs of an underground line versus an overhead line, the previous Oireachtas committee could make no decision on the comparative overall costs, as no cost-benefit analysis had been carried out. We feel it is imperative that a cost-benefit analysis be carried out immediately by independent experts. The east–west interconnector has just been named as the best engineering project of the year and we congratulate EirGrid on this project. The cable is 264 km in length and while we think of it as being under the sea, approximately 70 km of underground cable has been laid in Ireland and Wales. The whole scheme came in on time and within budget at a cost of €600 million. It uses the latest high-voltage direct current/voltage source converter, HVDC-VSC, technology in two convertor stations. With regard to the direct cost of putting the North–South interconnector underground, EirGrid must now know exactly what that cost would be. We suspect that the true cost of undergrounding the North–South interconnector is a lot less than three times the overhead cost. Otherwise, EirGrid would not be slow to put these costs into the public domain.

As EirGrid was clearly incapable of organising a consultation process in County Monaghan, Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee organised three consultation events in local community centres in the affected areas in order to facilitate EirGrid. More than 600 people attended these events, but yet again the genuine concerns presented to EirGrid were dismissed and relegated to an appendix in its final report, which was swiftly published a few short weeks later.

This final document was obviously ready to go, regardless of any consultation. EirGrid states that these concerns are best left to be dealt with by the environmental impact statement. We strongly disagree because that is a recipe for serious conflict in the future. In addition, the landowners are very angry about the change-request tactic used by EirGrid in an attempt to gain access to lands for survey purposes and the divisive nature of conditions imposed on them in this regard.

EirGrid has failed to consult in a meaningful manner with landowners and residents. It is quite clear that the affected landowners and communities in County Monaghan have lost all confidence in EirGrid to deliver this project in a sustainable manner. This was recently made evident when the 20 elected members of Monaghan County Council unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in EirGrid. We believe that EirGrid's public consultation may be in breach of Article 6.4 of the Aarhus Convention, which requires that public participation take place early in decision making when all options are open. Public participation may not be pro forma.

In the aftermath of An Bord Pleanála's refusal of planning permission for the new children’s hospital, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, stated that the planning laws needed "finessing". We may be facing into another oral hearing next year. It is a very arduous, time-consuming and expensive process and we would like to think we will be playing on a level pitch. We look to the committee to ensure that we will get fair play.

The local row has been going on for six years. The Iliad has just commenced and according to Homer it lasted ten years. Mr. Bannigan and Mr. Hillis will be happy to answer any questions members wish to pose.

Mr. Cian Moloney

We did not supply a written submission to the committee on this matter and I ask for the understanding of members in that regard. We received a late invitation to attend this meeting on Monday afternoon. We are grateful for that invitation and are happy to be here. We hope the committee will see fit to reconvene on this matter, particularly in light of the serious issues relating to the projects that are being proposed. We would be happy to come before it again at a later date.

The timing of this meeting is significant, given that this is the final week for submissions to be lodged in what has been labelled by EirGrid as a "public consultation phase". What occurred in reality is that the public consultation phase is deeply flawed in that groups throughout the country only learned about the project gradually and were obliged to go about raising awareness in their own communities because EirGrid did not do so. The groups are trying to encourage people to lodge submissions before Tuesday next, 26 November. In the context of a project with a budget of billions of euro and funded by the State, it has fallen to individual citizens to raise their concerns and to appear here and elsewhere in order to seek to have them addressed. We are all working people who are raising families in our own right. It is very unfortunate and should not be the case that it falls to us to have to justify the very real concerns of the people surrounding us who are potentially affected by the project.

What are the concerns of the people? Many of these are well documented and common among citizens throughout the country. The potential health effects of the project are also well documented and have been receiving increasing coverage in the media of late. I will return to the effects on the visual amenity and tourism shortly. First, I must comment on the depreciation in the value of housing and land. There are various estimates available in respect of the level of reduction in the value of land and properties located close to pylons and cables. There is no doubt that depreciation occurs, but the only offer of compensation being proposed is that to the owners of land on which pylons will be erected.

Chairman

I apologise for interrupting, but someone's mobile phone appears to have been placed near a microphone and is causing interference with the sound and recording equipment.

Mr. Cian Moloney

We are not suggesting that higher levels of compensation will resolve people's concerns, but the reason this matter is raised is that when alternatives to overhead pylons are proposed, the reason offered against their use relates primarily to cost. The cost of above-ground pylons is far more than just the cost of physically locating them in the countryside. The project should be costed in its entirety, including in terms of the cost to communities, the depreciation in the value of property and land and the impact on tourism. If this is done, the cost of the alternatives to going above-ground will suddenly seem very viable indeed.

Without minimising the import of these issues, of particular concern to the people of Wexford is the potential impact a project of this nature may have on tourism in the south east. In recent years, great efforts have been made and many millions of euro have been invested in creating a tourism hub in the New Ross area. The town is now a base from which people can explore the entire south east. The proposed pylon routes cross every major route into and out of the town of New Ross and the visual impact cannot be underestimated. The proposals suggest cutting through areas protected under the county development plan, several areas in which schools are located and certain highly populated localities. At one point, the pylons will come within an estimated 500 m of the town of New Ross.

Other areas of Wexford will of course be affected. I can convey to members a resounding opposition to the proposed project on the part of the people of the county. I understand the committee is to be addressed by Mr. John O'Connor, who was nominated for the position of chairman of EirGrid by the Government. The members of the public with whom we have consulted are of the view that this is an incredibly poor decision, particularly when a project of this magnitude is in train and the intention of the company behind it is to bypass local authorities and apply directly to An Bord Pleanála for planning permission under the relevant legislation. This appointment should be reconsidered, if not for reasons of actual bias then for those of perceived bias. It has been suggested in the media that Mr. O'Connor's previous role in An Bord Pleanála was akin to that of a High Court judge. I presume this is to suggest that he is beyond reproach. The legal community has addressed a situation similar to this. Were a High Court judge to resume practice at the Bar, the code of conduct would come into play. Rule 5.21 of that code of conduct states: "A judge of the Irish Courts, following retirement or resignation, who returns to the Bar may not practice in a court of equal or lesser jurisdiction than-----"

Chairman

We are restricted from commenting on future appointees.

Mr. Cian Moloney

Would the Chair prefer that I did not comment?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Cian Moloney

Very good. I will leave it at that, then, and I thank the committee for its time.

Senator John Whelan

On a point of information, when will members be given the opportunity to comment on the appointment to which Mr. Moloney refers?

Chairman

We discussed this matter in private session. On the day of the interview, all members of the committee and other Members of the Houses will have an opportunity to question the nominee. We were contacted by the Minister only yesterday in respect of this matter. That is the current position.

Senator John Whelan

I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

I thank the representatives from all three groups for their opening statements. As they can see, there is a huge amount of interest in this matter among the members of the committee and other Members of the Oireachtas. I will try to give everyone an opportunity to contribute, but we will have to proceed in a very structured and constructive way if we are to be successful in that regard. The first six contributors will be Deputy Moynihan, then a member from the Government side, then Deputy Colreavy, then another member from the Government side, then Deputy Mattie McGrath and finally another member from the Government side. When they have posed their questions, I will ask our guests to provide replies. We will then group questions from the remainder of the members. Following that, I will take contributions from Deputies and Senators who are not members of the committee. This will ensure that everyone will have an opportunity to speak. I ask members and other Deputies and Senators to confine themselves, as much as possible, to asking questions. Each spokesperson will have two minutes. I want to be reasonable but I also want to give everyone an opportunity to contribute.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

One could spend hours examining this matter. A number of issues arise on a regular basis. Communities the length and breadth of the country are concerned and are up in arms about this issue. In the context of the submission from the Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee, we presume that EirGrid has compiled a report or a response to the findings of the expert group.

It is astonishing that the information has not been made public. EirGrid is in public ownership and the first thing that should be done is that any documentation the company has in response to the expert group or any of the charges that were put to it should be in the public domain.

The three issues that keep cropping up with all the groups are health, value and scenic routes. The other fundamental issue is consultation. I have seen correspondence issued to various groups. Sleight of hand is evident in the consultation process. All means have been chosen rather than having a full engagement. Do the witnesses believe there has been any reasonable or even half-hearted attempt at consultation? Is it correct to say the consultation to date has been an attempt to get through the process rather than engage with communities? We have all heard people speak on the issue on the public airwaves. A serious health issue arises and that has not been properly addressed. One could agree with the necessity for the process but it cannot be railroaded. There were discussions about how the road networks were built and the consultation process that took place on them. All the witnesses have submissions to make. Is it correct to say that the consultation process is fundamentally flawed? Is that the opinion of all the groups? Are the three main issues, in order of importance, health, devaluation of property and the scenic routes?

To return to what was said by the group from Monaghan, it is fundamental that documentation or reports by EirGrid in response to the expert group report should be made public. We can only make an informed decision on how to proceed with the project when the full facts are on the table.

Mr. Cian Moloney

I addressed these issues in my submission. When we first learned of the consultation process and travelled our area raising awareness, landowners the length and breadth of the routes in and around New Ross and Wexford had no idea what was being proposed. Some advertisements were placed in newspapers and an office was occupied for six hours on a Wednesday afternoon down a side street in New Ross. People had to find it and ask questions if they so wished. That clearly does not constitute effective consultation.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

Was that the sum total of public consultation?

Mr. Cian Moloney

Yes, they refused to attend meetings with us. We held several public meetings to raise awareness in our area. We invited EirGrid to attend the meetings but to no avail.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

Was EirGrid available for just six hours in New Ross?

Mr. Cian Moloney

It was available for six hours a week on a Wednesday afternoon in New Ross.

Chairman

Is it the case that EirGrid does not attend large public meetings?

Mr. Cian Moloney

That is our experience.

Mr. John McCusker

The consultation process was very narrow in County Waterford. The publication and advertisement of the process were even narrower. That has been brought to the attention of EirGrid but it has refused to acknowledge it. The first two phases of consultation were not advertised in the Dungarvan area. That was clearly a breach of the Aarhus Convention. When that was brought to the attention of EirGrid, it blatantly ignored it.

County Waterford is a very narrow county and it has two major power lines going through it. This would be a third one, yet EirGrid did not see fit to put a public office in the county of Waterford. It proposed to put a major 400 kV line through the heart of the county stretching the length and breadth of Waterford. Why, for example, were there no national television advertisements? Saorview was one of the major aspects of change in this nation last year and it was advertised widely on television. There was not one television advertisement on Grid Link. There were no publications on phases one and two, no television advertisements, no public office in the county of Waterford and no advice in response from EirGrid. Last week, EirGrid went to Waterford County Council and asked if it could open up a public office in its premises. How could that be right?

Deputy Michael Moynihan

People have contacted me about public consultation and advertising. EirGrid has dismissed the questions I put to it. Is it true there was no consultation or public advertisements in the local media in Dungarvan?

Mr. John McCusker

For example, on “Prime Time” last night, a comment was made that EirGrid had sought to publish an advertisement in the Dungarvan Leader. In fact, it was an editorial written by the Dungarvan Leader. There was no voluntary input from EirGrid. The perception and opinion raised last night was clearly-----

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I wish to be clear. Was no public advertisement taken out in the local newspapers in Dungarvan?

Mr. John McCusker

That is correct.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

We are more advanced in Monaghan, the north east and other counties. I say that with due respect. The question put by Deputy Moynihan was whether we considered the consultation to be a true attempt to engage. EirGrid’s consultation is about ticking boxes that are necessary to present a planning application to the board under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. That is all it is about.

I could speak for hours on end about EirGrid’s consultation. Suffice it to say that in 2007, a little article appeared in a local newspaper to say that there was consultation in a local town. That was the first we ever heard about it, yet the North-South interconnector was agreed by regulators in the North and South in 2006. At that time consultation should have started. We were never afforded the opportunities being afforded in grid south about the overall area. The planning application failed in 2010 and had to be withdrawn from the system, but we were never given the opportunity other groups are being given. That has been a major issue for us in Monaghan. I accept the point that other groups are not happy with the level of consultation.

Last night on “Prime Time”, Mr. Slye said: “I can commit to people that where they engage with us that we will get back to people and we will tell them how we have taken on board their feedback in a completely open and transparent way.” That is a direct quote from last night’s programme. In Monaghan, we organised three consultation days for EirGrid in the county when the re-evaluation report was published. Huge numbers engaged. Prior to that people had no interest in engaging with EirGrid because it was not believed or trusted. Two weeks after the consultation, the final route solution report was made public. All the issues the 600 plus people had raised were listed in an appendix at the back of the report. That tells us that it was simply a tick-box exercise. The final evaluation report was sitting on a shelf and ready to be published when the consultation period was over. We had raised fundamental issues about health concerns such as autism and children with special needs and they were not addressed or acknowledged in the report and no effort was made to deal with them.

That is what is happening. In contrast to the spin that we hear from EirGrid officials, their consultation is a total failure, but they mean it to be a total failure. EirGrid will consult on the basis that it is putting a pylon in a person's field and it will ask whether he or she has a preferred location for it. To the reply that he or she does not want it in the field, EirGrid states that is not an option, it is going in the field, so does the person have a preferred location as to where to put it? The agency does not want to hear about visual impact, environmental issues, human environmental issues or property devaluation. It dismisses these as issues on which it does not want to engage. Those are the facts.

My last point relates to the question about EirGrid's response to the expert group. The committee's predecessor, the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, had EirGrid, the expert commission and groups from around the country before it. At that stage, it was Ratheniska, North East Pylon Pressure, NEPP, and ourselves. There was a good level of engagement. Exactly four days after EirGrid appeared before the committee, it appeared at a meeting of Monaghan County Council. Under questioning from members of Monaghan County Council, EirGrid stated that the independent expert group's report did not go far enough, its terms of reference did not allow the group to take an in-depth look at the Irish transmission system, what might have been suitable for Europe was not suitable for Ireland, and while there was merit in that independent report, it did not go far enough and it was a job that was not completed. We immediately wrote to the Oireachtas joint committee asking that EirGrid be questioned on what it stated at Monaghan County Council. I am aware the committee contacted EirGrid and I believe it received a response. We contacted the joint committee looking for that response and we were told we could not get it.

That is where that point comes from. It does not make much sense to us that the response could not be in the public domain. It was not something that was made up. It was a statement. It was said. The newspaper reporter who was at that meeting made front page coverage of it. We forwarded that newspaper cutting to the joint committee as well. That is where that comes from. As far as we are concerned, that response has been treated confidentially. If that is the way it has to be, that is fine. That forum was held in public, but not whatever engagement happened afterwards.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I thank all the groups which have come before the committee today. It is important they put their concerns on the public record, not only so that we as a committee can take them on board but also because it is hoped there will be opportunities in the near future for us to put their concerns to EirGrid and ask why it is not being fully transparent in its responses to the various communities.

As policy-makers, we need to have a wider debate about energy security and how climate change will impact on the various sectors, whether they be agriculture, transport or the electricity infrastructure, and also energy demand. We all have a responsibility to look at that area in-depth and to plan, even though many present will say there is already a plan with which they are not happy. If we need to revisit that plan and look at it in a way by which it can gain public confidence, that is what we need to do. The great dilemma for policy-makers is we are charged with the responsibility of providing a national infrastructure, whether it be roads, water or electricity, but if how it is delivered and developed impacts on communities, we have a serious problem and a serious conflict, and that is what we are hearing at this meeting.

The two areas on which I will focus are engagement and consultation. Those issues arise regularly across the board, as is how EirGrid is not being transparent in the information it provides to various groups and individuals. It seems to be a box-ticking exercise. What exactly do we need to ask EirGrid in respect of consultation? Is it a full cost-benefit analysis, comparing the overhead option versus the underground and taking into account all the impacts? Some have stated that. Is that specifically what we need to see? I have been critical of EirGrid because it is speaking in generalities, broad bland terms and is not being specific.

For example, in Waterford, where I am from, it seems EirGrid is proposing the least costly technically acceptable solution to it, which is overhead and the most direct route, when there is an existing public corridor, the N25 which starts at Youghal bridge and goes all the way to Waterford city, and also the N9, from Waterford northwards to Kildare. There is an existing corridor. Has anybody seen a cost-benefit analysis of an underground cable along that corridor? I would presume there are fewer constraints in that respect. There are not land and access issues because there is already a public highway. Has anybody seen a cost-benefit analysis of putting an underground cable along that corridor? These are questions we will probably put to EirGrid.

Is it technically possible to underground the full routes? We are hearing it is not, that there are not examples where 400 kV lines have been put underground over that length of infrastructure. We need to understand whether that is technically possible. I certainly need to, and I am sure committee members and other Members do as well. Those are two questions that need to be answered - specifics on engagement and consultation and also a specific cost-benefit analysis.

Has any analysis been done on the existing 400 kV line between Moneypoint and Dublin? I am not saying these groups should do the analysis but it would seem an obvious place to look. I am not accusing anybody of speculation or anything like that, but rather than trying to understand what is ahead, surely we should look at what exists to see whether that 400 kV line has had an impact on the communities along its route from the perspectives of health, land value and tourism.

Those are the pertinent questions we need to ask if we are to have a proper informed and calm debate about this issue. It is an important issue for the communities which are most concerned, as are many members present. If the groups could give us some more information in that regard, I would certainly welcome it.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

Deputy Coffey asked if it is possible to underground the route. At present, there is a similar scheme being carried out between France and Spain where they are putting it underground. That project is referred to in the international expert commission's report. The position was there was so much resistance on each side of the border that in 2010, the European Commission decided that it would grant a good deal of the funding to put it underground because it was vital for Spain to have some more electricity coming from France. They constructed an 8 km tunnel, which was finished in April last. The tunnel is two or three metres in diameter and it had to be drilled through the Pyrenees because, obviously, they could not dig it. There is a converter station at each end and the technology they are using is high voltage direct current, HVDC.

One can move electricity any distance using HVDC. There is no problem in putting the North-South and east-west interconnectors underground. They have done it with the east-west one. It can be put underground using that technology. On the cost issue, we would contend that the cost would be more or less the same as the overhead line when one takes all the other issues into consideration.

EirGrid states it does not want to do it with HVDC because it does not mesh into the grid in the same way. In other words, EirGrid must comply with what is called N-1.

If either the existing North-South interconnector or a new one running parallel to it went down, because of a lightning strike, for example, no fuse would be blown and the lights would not go out because the system is such that the power would automatically transfer to the other. However, EirGrid says that with the HVDC running parallel, there would be a serious difficulty in realising such simultaneous interaction if the overhead line went down. The international expert commission pointed out that it is possible to work in parallel without difficulty. There is always a conflict between what EirGrid says and what the commission says. When we met the commission representatives before the production of the historical report, we asked whether they would consider any future technologies coming down the track. They said they could not and that they were allowed to consider only what is currently on the shelf. They said that if they were producing the report in two years, they might be producing a different one. The expert commission's report is two years old this month so it might be appropriate to return to the commission and ask it to re-evaluate on the basis of new technology that was not available two years ago.

With regard to studies on the existing 400 kV lines coming across from Moneypoint, EirGrid commissioned post facto studies on them perhaps 18 months or two years ago. They have not been published yet. Perhaps the committee could look to EirGrid for those studies.

Mr. Cian Moloney

We are not here purporting to be experts in this area. We are catching up as fast as we can and educating ourselves. Expertise should be sought in regard to the matter and it should be up to date, independent and objective. EirGrid is funding the project to the tune of more than €3 billion and promoting its own agenda in regard to it. The other side of the coin should be sought.

With regard to the full cost-benefit analysis of undergrounding along established infrastructure routes, when I specifically asked for a cost-benefit analysis of the routes being proposed, involving no undergrounding or use of existing infrastructural routes, I was told they were not yet costed. Regarding the proposed routes between Great Island and Dunstown, outside Kilcullen, County Kildare, I was specifically told no cost estimates had been made. I find it remarkable that the routes suggested as viable were not costed. It is not that the individual to whom I was speaking was not aware of the costings. I specifically asked him and he was definite that the costings had not been done. If they had not been done on the overground routes that are being proposed, one will certainly not get costings from them-----

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Does Mr. Moloney believe the costings were not done?

Mr. Cian Moloney

I would find it remarkable if they had not been done. That is our position on gaining information from EirGrid in its public consultation phase, as it calls it.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

It is a question of public confidence and the transparency I am speaking about.

Mr. Peter Smith

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said last week the Government should not get involved in the planning process. Thank God we are not in the position the rest of those present are in. This particular project is not in a planning process but in a consultation process. Therefore, there is time to stop it and examine all the relevant factors before any more money is wasted on it.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I represent Sligo-North Leitrim, which is not as badly affected as other areas. However, I have no doubt that what the delegates are going through will be experienced in the area I represent in respect of hydraulic fracturing. We will face exactly the same fight and we need to learn from the delegates' experience.

There are two or three key points. My first question concerns the meaning of consultation and the difference between consultation and dictation. It is not consultation if somebody says to me, the delegates or a member of a community that while there will be full public consultation, the lines will go overground. That is not consultation; it is dictation.

We are dealing with the legacy of an absence of strategy on national power. Nobody has considered the whole picture, including the impacts on tourism and health, the costs of delays that will inevitably arise if the overgrounding goes ahead, the cost for agriculture and the impact on property values. People get worried when so-called experts say there is no evidence that property values are affected by overhead lines. If I wanted to buy a house, I would pay less for one with a pylon behind it than one with no pylon nearby. It is self-evident and common sense. People get worried when the nonsense in question is put forward as a rationale for proceeding with overhead lines. We need a national power strategy. It should be a 20 or 30 year strategy, not a strategy to get the power infrastructure in place now.

People are dismissive of health concerns regarding overhead pylons. A housing estate near me has two houses that were built too close to an existing pylon. The houses have small backyards. The children in one of the houses used to play in their backyard but staff from the power company said to the parents they should not allow them to play there. The mother said there is a big fence and the children cannot get near the pylon but she was told that was not the issue so much as what is coming from the overhead wires into the children. Let nobody say to me there are no health effects; of course there are.

There are two points I find unusual. Mr. John McCusker said the driver of the proposal is not the objective of keeping the lights on, which is what the company says. Mr. John McCusker is the first person to have said that, bearing in mind that most people will recognise we need a secure energy supply in the country. I ask Mr. McCusker to clarify his point.

The second point was made by Mr. Cian Moloney, who said it should not be left to the concerned citizens to fight for their rights. I disagree in that what the delegates have done is sterling work. What they are doing represents democracy in action. If the legislative, planning and political processes are not looking after the delegates' rights, of course they should stand up and fight to ensure they are protected. While it should not be left to the delegates, it is great they have stood up to defend their rights. I have no doubt that people in the area I represent will do the same when the discussion arises on hydraulic fracturing. Well done all.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

I would like to put this consultation issue to bed once and for all. About a month ago, the European Commission published a list of projects, including projects of common interest or energy projects, that have a cross-border or cross-state dimension.

That, of course, includes the North-South interconnector, which has been with us for seven years. EirGrid is now proposing another interconnector on its list of possible funded projects at European level. That is a 275 kV interconnector along an overhead line from Sligo to Turleenan in County Tyrone, which is the northern point of the line we are currently discussing. That project has never been in the public domain and it was not published as part of Grid 25. EirGrid and, possibly, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is applying to Europe for funding for the project and only then will it start to consult people. That is what EirGrid's consultation process is all about. Local communities are required to unearth this information by themselves.

I am involved in politics as a county councillor. As a result of this EirGrid project, people believe our system of politics is failing their communities. As a semi-State body with huge financial resources, EirGrid can spin and speak as it likes. The political system is seen to believe what it says without examining its claims in minute detail. Local communities are examining its claims, identifying where the system is failing them and coming up with alternatives. They depend on this committee to assist them. EirGrid has not listened to us for the past six years. If the political system is to be about the people, the first port of call for local communities, and perhaps their last, should be this committee. I urge members to do something about this problem. We have been dealing with it for the past six years and the rest of the country will have to manage it for the next six years. That is not acceptable. Simple questions should get simple and truthful answers.

Consultation is about engaging with people on problems and proposals. All views should be taken on board and if progress is to be made, both sides have to give a little to meet somewhere in the middle. There is no meeting in the middle in this instance. From the very outset of these projects they were defined as overhead power lines to be constructed within 25 m of one's house. That is not consultation. I ask the committee to help us because the system has failed.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Brannigan for his contribution. The reason the witnesses have been invited to meet us is because we had originally considered inviting EirGrid first, but after a discussion at committee level, we decided it was important to hear the concerns emerging locally. We invited the witnesses to speak to us in order that we could put their questions to EirGrid when its representatives appear before us on 4 December. The transcript of this meeting will go directly to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I hope the witnesses will view this process as a means of sharing their frustrations and concerns in a public forum. It is clear this is an issue which gives rise to considerable emotion, and rightly so, but this forum allows us to focus on the problems rather than the personalities.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I welcome the community groups to the meeting.

Chairman

Before the Deputy continues, I remind her that I want to allow everybody to contribute and ask her to confine her contribution to questions if she can. I also ask the witnesses to confine their responses to dealing with the questions asked to allow fairness to everybody.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I will be as brief as possible. Like other members, I have met community groups to discuss the EirGrid project. I am struck by the lack of consultation, which has led to a loss of confidence in EirGrid. Public confidence has been eroded, and as recently as yesterday, we have received messages from people who have been unsuccessful in getting information from the company. That is not how one should engage in public consultation. Deputy Coffey made most of the points I intended to raise regarding the M9 route. The report of the expert commission indicated that the best route for cables is usually along existing infrastructure, such as large motorways or railway lines. It referred to the interconnector between Spain and France, which is underground and follows major roads. I want EirGrid to consider the feasibility of constructing its lines along the motorway network. It is the shortest and straightest route and, as it is in State ownership, there is no need for compensation.

As I drove along the M9 this morning, I conducted a not very scientific investigation into the number of houses that were located close to the motorway. The cables are to be located at least 50 m away from houses and there did not appear to many houses within that distance from the road. If the interconnector follows the motorway, it will address many of the concerns expressed by community groups. This committee has a duty to ask EirGrid to consider the motorway option. The distance between the connection at Great Island to the motorway is only five or eight miles. I am not an electrical engineer or an expert but this appears to be the route it should be taking.

Mr. John McCusker

Deputy Colreavy, who has now left the meeting, asked me a couple of questions. In regard to the slogan about keeping the lights on, EirGrid's public relations mantra is rehearsed on every occasion its representatives speak on the national airwaves or in consultation sessions. Ireland has a strong national grid. The issue is that memorandums of agreement have been signed between certain EU member states. France and England are decommissioning a number of nuclear power plants and England is also decommissioning fossil fuel plants. This decommissioning process will be completed between 2020 and 2025. The Grid Link project involves the construction of interconnectors to supply renewable energy, which we welcome, across people's houses to Europe.

That is the sole purpose of this project and EirGrid needs to be honest with the people. It is not about keeping the lights on. Deputy Colreavy said one would pay less for a house if it were near a pylon or line. That is incorrect. One would not buy the house. One does not need to be an estate agent or pay an expert commission hundreds of thousands of euro for that answer. Would anybody here buy a house with a pylon or overhead line within 25 m of it. I do not see too many hands up. They would not because they know in their hearts and souls that it is just not right.

On the consultation, I have here the Grid Link brochure produced for our area. There is not one mention of pylon or overhead line in the text of this brochure. We see lovely pylons in flat, open hay fields and corn fields. We see no house, mountain or scenic area of national importance. EirGrid's consultation process is issued based on the fact that this is an overhead line project. That is the prerequisite to commencing consultation. The consultation is not based on undergrounding, overgrounding and all the other arguments. Any submission is based on the prerequisite that it is an overhead project.

Deputy Coffey raised the cost-benefit analysis issue. Nobody has seen it and it is not there. We have put in our submission 18 points where cost-benefit analysis should apply. I will discuss one of them. Ireland is in the middle of a very deep recession and we have a fledgling construction industry. This project is valued at €500 billion. That is clearly stated, but as one of our colleagues asked earlier, how can they value it at €500 billion when they have not costed it? I got that answer, that none of these routes has been costed. I find it amazing that a Government Department is undertaking a project and at various milestone stages it has not costed it.

In Ireland we are very good at construction and road building. We have lots of groundwork contractors and machines lying idle or being shipped across the world because there is no work for them. If we were to consider an undergrounding option, local construction by local workers is one of the issues that would have to be fed into the cost-benefit analysis. People in the local communities where the undergrounding would take place would get work. Something positive would come out of it for them. There would be trenching, excavation, general ground works, and demand for suppliers of quarry stone, backfill products, sand and gravel, tarmacadam, cable-laying crews, fencing contractors and local agriculture contractors who would make the land good and re-seed it afterwards.

The full benefits to the Exchequer of all those little issues would need to be analysed in a cost-benefit analysis in terms of VAT, corporation tax, income tax, PRSI, universal social charges and all the other levys that are applied. In addition, there would be a reduction in social welfare costs to construction workers. None of those simple issues is analysed by EirGrid or any body we are aware of. That is point 8 in our submission. This is the committee's opportunity. I have four young children and am trying to do a day's work here trying to represent my local community. The members are elected representatives and have the power to bring this project to a stop and reassess and re-evaluate it. This is an 80 to 100 year play to the people of Ireland.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Can Mr. McCusker clarify how this committee has the power to make it stop?

Mr. John McCusker

Can the committee not report back to the Oireachtas? It is part of the committee's terms of reference. We were told the committee comments on public spending, value for money and compliance with EU law and directives, which we have clearly demonstrated the project is not compliant with. Is that not the committee's function?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

We need to clarify that, to be fair.

Chairman

It is not in the remit of this committee to stop the project.

Mr. John McCusker

It could bring the issue to the House.

Chairman

We will bring the discussion and debates we have here to the Minister and the-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath

On a point of order, let us be honest to our guests. I do not want to be political but I have put down parliamentary questions to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Ceann Comhairle has told me they are out of order because he has no responsibility for EirGrid. We must get real, make our decision here, bring it to Government and change the policy because that is what the people are saying. The Minister will not debate it in the Chamber.

Chairman

The committee cannot state here some power we do not have.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am not saying that. I am saying there is a process to go through.

Chairman

Of course, and it is a long process. What is happening this morning will feed into the process and allow everybody on the committee to digest what is being said here and reflect that in our deliberations later and in what we put to the Minister.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

The Chairman is incorrect. This committee and the Dáil decides whether this happens or not. It is Government policy to have the lines overground. Let us not make it any more complicated than it is. If the Government decides it is not Government policy anymore, which Deputies Mattie McGrath and Colreavy and I would support, the problem is solved and we can come back to consultation that never took place. It is not that complicated, although it might suit some people.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

One might need to change the legislation, which says EirGrid is the transmission systems operator, TSO. EirGrid is responsible to nobody, is controlled by the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER and we are not sure if it has to answer to the Minister on how it designs and lays its power lines. To answer the question on running the power lines along the motorways, there are no motorways in County Monaghan.

Somehow 50 m has become an accepted distance between dwellings and the pylons and power lines but we do not know where this 50 m comes from. In Northern Ireland the distance is 75 m for the exact same line. Here is a quote from Northern Ireland Electricity's submission to the public inquiry:

100 m distance has been established as a general guide in order to address concerns relating to visual amenity. The 100 m distance has been proposed as, at this distance for a property located on level ground with a garden extending to 15 m from the house, a 10 m tall tree at the end of the garden will screen views of 55 m tall towers located at 100 m from the property. While these towers applicable to the proposed overhead line (the Northern Ireland section) are up to 42 m in height and are not as tall as those discussed in the Beauly-Denny line, the principles of this approach are still relevant and when these principles are applied to smaller tower heights of up to 42 m, the distance at which screening would not be effective when reduced to 75 m.

No matter how stupid and silly that reason is to pick those distances, at least it is some sort of reason, but EirGrid has given no reason whatsoever why it has picked 50 m.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I am not saying 50 m is the correct distance. I was just citing that EirGrid said the minimum safe distance is 50 m. If we are going to monitor the Clare to Dublin 400 kV line, I agree with Deputy Mulherin.

We have written to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to ask him if the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland could be called in to monitor the EMF fields around that line. As the public has lost confidence in EirGrid and as EirGrid is not monitoring that, I do not think it will add up. Deputy Coffey also put forward the suggestion about the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, and I think this committee should actively take up that suggestion.

Mr. Peter Smith

I would like to make a point about the process of this committee. We have been invited here today and we are all very grateful for it, but it is very clear that we are at a very different stage of the process from the group in Monaghan. They have very different issues ahead of them in respect of the planning process, so I feel it is only fair to point out that we should have separate sittings of the committee so that we can really pass on our feelings. The process of democracy is very important and we are very grateful for the opportunity to partake in it, but one of the cost factors and constraints now facing EirGrid is the number of people up and down the line who are saying "No" to this. There needs to be an opportunity for both parties to look at their issues separately.

Chairman

I agree that different groups are at a different stage, but we felt that this was important at this stage of the process. Of course this is a long process. There will be other meetings, but we felt that in advance of meeting representatives from EirGrid, we needed to hear about the stages that the different groups are at in different areas of the country. This will not be concluded at this hearing, and there will be many future hearings. We have already spoken about an umbrella group for all of the groups that are emerging, and I am sure their views will be heard here at some stage as well. This committee is a facility that would not be possible in the Chamber, so we want to put that at the disposal of groups like those before us today, in order to give you a voice. We have to go into discussions in our considerations of this and we must work within the terms of reference ourselves.

I would feel that this is democracy in action. There is a long process that we have to through and there will be other hearings.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

On a point of information, EirGrid has stated that if the Government's policy changes on this, it will develop it underground. It is very important that we take that on board.

Chairman

All of those issues must be discussed here at the committee, following the hearings and feedback, and all opinions considered.

Mr. Cian Moloney

Deputy Phelan said that EirGrid acknowledged a minimum safe distance of 50 m from dwellings. It does not. To do so would be to acknowledge that there is an unsafe distance from houses, and it does not do that. EirGrid states that it will endeavour to keep the lines 50 m from houses.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

I wanted to take a step back look at the whole Grid25 policy. That policy was developed by EirGrid, which is a private company, albeit wholly owned by the Minister. How can a private company develop government policy in this way? Government policy must reflect the interests of the people of Ireland. Ireland has some unique attributes compared to other countries, especially in the way we inhabit our rural landscape. Everybody knows that Ireland has a dispersed settlement pattern, that Irish people live in our landscape to a much greater extent than in other countries. Fundamentally, I feel that this has not been addressed in the Grid25 process. Under EU law, people who inhabit a landscape have rights to be involved when decisions are made about that landscape. That should have happened right at the inception of this process, but it did not happen.

There is a really serious question here about Ireland's commitment to these EU conventions on landscapes, and even the Aarhus Convention. How committed is the Government to implementing those? When we look at the timelines for the European Landscape Convention, we see that 11 and a half years after we ratified it, there is no national landscape policy. This goes beyond EirGrid, which has just been given a job to do. It is about the Government fulfilling its obligations under EU policy for the good of the people of Ireland. The whole issue needs to be reviewed from that standpoint. Government policy needs to reflect the needs of the people of Ireland.

Mr. John McCusker

Let us get the 50 m myth totally out of our minds. EirGrid has never stated that the minimum distance is 50 m. Its representatives will tell us that they aspire to it being 50 m. I questioned Mr. John Lowery from EirGrid on this in the Granville Hotel in Waterford, when I asked him what was the absolute minimum distance between a pylon or line and a house. He did not give me an answer. I understand it to be 12 m, because of the electrical flashover between a cable and earthing structure like a house. However, EirGrid has never stated a minimum distance, even for the fall distance of a pylon. Pylons and heavy lines were blown over a few weeks ago in England following heavy storms, so one would imagine that at least the fall distance of any line or pylon should be taken into consideration. Let us be clear about this. EirGrid has never stated the minimum distance is between wires and houses. Perhaps its representatives might inform the committee next week, and I would love to hear what that minimum distance is.

Senator Terry Brennan

The minimum distance of any pole is the height of the structure plus one metre. It is also depends on the transmission voltage going through the lines. That is policy.

Mr. John McCusker

Whose policy is that?

Senator Terry Brennan

It is the policy of the ESB.

Mr. John McCusker

Not EirGrid.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I also would like to welcome the witnesses here today. I understand that they are all lay people, trying to raise their families and live in their communities. They depend on governments to defend their right to live in an environment that is not a threat to their health. We have heard and seen excellent presentations, including the EirGrid document that does not mention the elephant in the room. We have had groups in front of the committee before, and it is a pity that the national group has not been set up yet, but we are where we are with that.

I believe the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has signed a memorandum of understanding with our British counterparts who will be served by these lines. During the lifetime of the last committee, we were supposed to visit underground sites in Europe. That never happened, although I think it should have happened because we are operating in the dark on this. I raised the issue at the last committee several times with the previous Minister, former Deputy Eamon Ryan, about putting them down with the motorways. Some of those roads were only being developed at that time. We were told that the cables would overheat. I hate to use the word "lies", but we have been told damned lies all the time.

We have seen that people are completely dissatisfied with the sham of a token consultation.

It is timely that we acted. Enactment of an EirGrid Bill is listed in the programme for Government and, therefore, we will have an opportunity to do so. I questioned the Taoiseach twice last week about its introduction and he said it is at preliminary drafting stage. There is time for all of us to get our teeth into this because the current legislation is not appropriate. Senator Landy asked who set up EirGrid. It was probably the previous Government and I have no problem with that but the company needs to be reined in because the legislation is inadequate in the context of respecting the people who elect all of us and whose rights are supposed to be fundamental under the Constitution. We have not had proper consultation either as public representatives. I visited the control room of EirGrid's headquarters when I was a member of the previous committee. It was a fascinating visit but it was never indicated that the lights were trembling and they could go off at any time. In all its press releases the company is saying the new project is needed to keep the lights on but that is not true.

The Minister told me privately there is an issue with the North-South interconnector and Northern Ireland is in trouble with it but let people get electricity from the providers there. Why should we feed the monster, whether it is Angela Merkel or our colleagues across the water, given they took enough from us over the years? It is time we asserted ourselves and defended our people.

Somebody should visit the France-Spain project. This is the first I have heard of it and I thank our guests for highlighting it. We are told we cannot do something like that because the line overheats and it is incompatible but I am not a qualified electrician.

I do not mean to sound selfish but I refer to the study that affects south Tipperary, Waterford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford before going under the sea. EirGrid staff refused to come to any of the meetings we held in Tipperary. However, I have asked them at public consultations why the line could not enter the sea off the Cork coast and travel along the Waterford coast to Wexford and their reply was that it was outside the area of their study. Did people ever hear anything like it? We had that option but it is no good to the people in the midlands or in Monaghan who are affected by the North-South interconnector. I support those in Monaghan because my wife is from there and I understand who they have been fighting for years. I salute the great work they have done. The groups are at different stages in their campaigns but we all have to stand together on this. If the EirGrid Bill were expedited, we could address this. The law is the law but this is a semi-State company and there is no doubt it will be sold off and privatised and we will pay through our ESB meters and the profits will be in someone else's pockets.

The World Health Organization has highlighted that the precautionary principle must be observed to ensure the lines are not injurious and we must ensure they indemnify the people.

Chairman

Has the Deputy a question?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I thank the witnesses for attending. What is the view on the project travelling under the sea?

Mr. Cian Moloney

We have asked about that as well as the undergrounding and we have received the same answer, that it is not viable. They cannot regulate the temperatures, it is slower for maintenance and I get the impression from them that if something happens along the line, they will not be able to pinpoint where it is. However, sensors can be placed along the line to pinpoint problems accurately. They are doing it sub-marine under the channels and the Irish Sea. There is no reason, particularly with the Gird Link project, they cannot go from Cork to Great Island, Wexford, by sea. They are travelling to Dunnstown, outside Kilcullen, which is probably 20 km inland, at some point.

The Deputy also mentioned health issues and both sides have reports. When reports are quoted about health concerns, EirGrid will use wording such as there is no "conclusive evidence that there are health effects" or there are no "definitive data". I reiterate what he said about the precautionary principle and we should err on the side of caution regarding the health of citizens.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

With regard to health concerns, we accept the jury is out. No causative effect has been established showing that EMFs cause cancer and research is still ongoing on the basis of epidemiological evidence that suggests there is a link between childhood leukaemia and EMFs at a low level of between 0.3 and 0.4 microtesla. EirGrid has published a brochure entitled "EMF and You" and while health is a serious issue, we would at least expect that the information in this would be correct and accurate. Page 18 asks what is the view of the Government and then goes on to quote from a review in March 2007 commissioned by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and a study that emanated from the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser, which is now closed. The Department and this office may have been staffed by fine people but they are not the Government

The Chief Scientific Adviser states the Government's view as:

The Government decided that a single agency State agency be established to deal with both ionising radiation and non-ionising radiation. This will be achieved by extending by the statutory powers of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to include responsibly for matters relating to non-ionising radiation. The Government has also agreed to establish a national research programme to undertake further scientific research in Ireland on the health effects of exposure to EMF. This research programme will build expertise in Ireland and contribute to global knowledge.

Those two promises have not yet been fulfilled. The transfer of responsibility to the RPII from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is in train but it has not happened yet.

The Chief Scientific Adviser's document states goes on to state: "In relation to EMF, that is electromagnetic fields, the reports states no adverse health effects have been established below the limits suggested by international guidelines." The document is clear that this statement only refers to electric fields and not to magnetic fields. With regard to the latter, he states: "There is limited scientific evidence of an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. This does not mean that magnetic fields cause cancer but the possibility cannot be excluded". He then claims: "It is simply not possible for the level of energy associated with power lines to cause cancer." I can assure the committee that the Chief Scientific Adviser did not stand over that statement.

Mr. John McCusker

Many members mentioned the excellent report. We pointed out in our submission that the European Commission has set up a scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, which has produced two reports over the past number of years. They state that the scientific evidence remains uncertain, EMFs are possibly carcinogenic and might contribute to an increase in childhood leukemia.

In addition, they state that, on the basis of their statistical analysis and current review, some type of link cannot be ruled out.

Mental health, which is a major problem in Ireland, is also an issue. If this project proceeds, it has the potential to create serious negative equity problems for tens of thousands of householders. I am sure the banks will rub their hands and take great interest in how they will get their money back. How is this issue and the impact of this project on mental health being addressed? Evidence regarding the health issues arising from the project is described as "inconclusive". What does this word mean? It means no one can state definitively that the problem has not been caused. The statistical evidence suggests there is a link of some description but science has not yet caught up. As in the case of asbestos and passive smoking for many years, science has not yet caught up. Will we come to regret our decision when it catches up?

I will return to the issues of mental health, negative equity and how many people will be affected. When the EirGrid project in Rush was before the forum a few years ago, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, wrote to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. I understand members have a copy of that correspondence in which the Minister outlined his concerns about health issues arising from the project. If our Minister for Health has concerns, why is the Government allowing these projects to proceed in the manner proposed?

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I am one of the few Deputies present who is not from an area affected by the Grid25 project. While my constituency may not be affected by the current proposal, there is no doubt, given its topography, that it will be identified for the future development of wind farms. To be fair to the delegation, its members did not come here expecting to hear flippant, throwaway promises that all their problems will go away. It would be disingenuous to make such promises and it would not do any service to the joint committee or these hearings.

Deputy Coffey referred to the existing line between Moneypoint and County Kildare. The joint committee needs to do considerable work in this regard. We must raise with EirGrid the failure of the company to consult the various groups before us. We also need to invite in representatives of Clare County Council, North Tipperary County Council and others, to establish how much development has taken place near the line from Moneypoint to County Kildare, for example, in terms of housing development. We also need to have before us representatives of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and National Cancer Registry as they should be in a position to superimpose on a map of the existing grid the dwellings of people who have been diagnosed with cancer and so forth. The joint committee must do a proper analysis because we need information.

I accept that the groups before us are not being given information and that the lack of engagement has created a vacuum which is being filled by fear. We must try to debunk the myth that the grid is not needed. We should ask the Industrial Development Agency what it requires in the north west, north east, south east and west, which will be the next line. This would help us to ascertain whether the grid is required. We hear flippant remarks that it not needed. Let us find out if it is needed, the reason it is needed and how many jobs the project will support in the regions. We must also ascertain if it can be completed in a manner that accommodates local communities.

The joint committee must engage with Iarnród Éireann and the National Roads Authority. It would be easy for me, as a Deputy from a constituency that is not affected by the proposal to erect transmission pylons, to demand that they be buried. Proper engagement is needed with other owners of State infrastructure to ascertain whether they will accommodate EirGrid. There is no point in asking for cables to be placed under a motorway if the National Roads Authority subsequently refuses permission for X, Y or Z reasons. We also need to consider using our railway infrastructure. Broadband cable has been installed through the centre of the country, including along disused railway lines.

Have the groups before us discussed with the relevant local authorities what tourism projects could be affected by the project? We heard that the project will result in the devaluation of property. Has EirGrid offered any definitive level of compensation? I direct that question to the group from County Monaghan. What is the position of the farmers' organisations? Are they trying to obtain the best possible deal for farmers?

I hope this discussion will mark the start of a process. To be fair to the groups before us, this meeting will not provide any solutions. I would like the joint committee to invite some of the agencies to which I referred before us to clarify whether those living in close proximity to the 220 kV line that runs from Moneypoint to County Kildare face a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer than people living in west Cork. This is the type of information we need. We also require an independent cost-benefit analysis, setting out how much the proposed route will cost and how much an alternative route would cost.

I went through a similar process in respect of power masts, wind turbines and mobile telephones when I was a councillor. In my experience, three quarters of the membership of organisations opposed to these developments falls away once a route has been selected because they no longer view the problem as theirs. Even if the final route selected does not go through their respective area, I encourage the groups before us not to walk away from this issue. It may not be in their parish but everybody else will be left holding the baby. One in four people will be affected by this issue.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

EirGrid has never offered compensation of any kind to any landowner in County Monaghan in the past six years. The company has been pressed to do so but has stated it does not have a national agreement in place. It is attempting to negotiate a national agreement with the farm organisations. The policy of the ICSMA is that the line should go underground. The Irish Farmers' Association is the largest farmers' organisation. We have met senior IFA figures on a number of occasions who have consistently taken the position that the association will not get involved at this stage. However, if the project were to secure planning permission, it would get involved in the process with a view to representing farmers from a compensation perspective. I have made clear to the IFA that it is letting down landowners by choosing not to become involved in the process at this stage.

As members are aware, the IFA is holding an election for national president. Last Thursday night, at a regional meeting close to us, both candidates for the position stated they wanted the lines placed underground and that, as and from last Thursday, this was IFA policy. We will wait to see if that is the case. Having made such a public statement, the farm organisations should get involved at this stage.

Ms Ann Murphy

I thank the joint committee for inviting me to this meeting and apologise for my late arrival; I was caught in heavy traffic. Having listened to the discussion, I propose to address a number of points. It should be noted that I can speak only for my local area. On tourism, if the project proceeds, it will result in one Department spending money on tourism promotion, while a second spends money on decimating our tourism industry.

I am from New Ross and €2 million has been spent over the past few years upgrading the town with €1.2 million spent on the Kennedy homestead. Over the years, €20 million has been invested in tourism locally. One of the corridors will be as close as 500 metres from the outskirts of the town. The town and its hinterland are dependent on tourism. EirGrid or whoever the picked the corridor did not give any thought to that.

The second issue I would like to raise is the visual impact of the pylons on the countryside. Every county has a development plan in place. Such plans set out the guidelines and objectives for development and proper planning in the area. I am disturbed by EirGrid's blatant disregard for the importance of the sensitivity of the landscape set out in the development plan. For example, in our hinterland, one of the corridors traverses two landscapes of greater sensitivity as outlined in our county development plan while there are two more adjacent to a corridor in our area. There are also SACS and proposes NHAs, for example, the border between counties Wexford and Carlow. It is a Deise valley and an area steeped in history. It would be an appalling sight to have pylons traverse this area and it would devastate tourism.

The inhabitants of the landscape were referred to earlier. Our community was invited to submit our viewpoints on the draft county development plan. This was then amended but EirGrid has scant disregard for country development plans and for our beautiful countryside, which will be ruined. In turn, our tourism industry will be ruined by this project.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I apologise but I have to leave as I am due to contribute on Leaders' Questions in the Dáil shortly. I raised this issue during Leaders' Questions last week, including the question of the suspending the project, and I will be available to support the groups into the future.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank all the groups for their input into what has been a worthwhile exercise. I represent Dublin North West where we have had to deal with issues relating to mobile phone masts. Over the years rules were laid down regarding their proximity to schools, etc. I have also dealt with individual cases of pylons on estates and so on. In some cases, there was arcing and noise from the pylons, as a result of which many were raised while some were undergrounded. There are concerns in areas that are not affected in the same way as those the groups come from.

The main issues for all of us are health and safety, the visual impact and the impact on our communities. We do not know the cost of the project, including the purchase of land, nor do we know the cost of putting the lines underground or whether underground or overground is better in the long term. I do not accept the argument that the line is not traceable underground given modern technology can do so. When An Bord Pleanála is involved in projects such as this, local authorities do not have an input and significant expert knowledge and local knowledge on the ground is bypassed.

I refer to the use of the environment impact statements. They are used for most projects and they give a picture of their effect on the environment and so on. The European landscape convention was mentioned. Ireland has not signed up to it and that needs to be examined. The visual impact of these structures is significant, given their effects on communities. Perhaps the representatives have suggestions to work on.

One expert will say EMF emissions have an effect while others will say they do not. I have dealt with this issue on a number of occasions. Some evidence suggests they have an effect on younger children, particularly babies. We could bring in expert after expert but one will contradict the other. We must be careful about this issue.

I do not know whether EirGrid has considered the issue of the use of roads, paths, rail lines and undergrounding along carriageways and conducted a proper study that says these options should be examined.

I recently listened to a programme where landowners said they were conned into signing deals and they did not have sufficient knowledge about what was happening. Was this widespread? This is important in the context of future works. A number of the deals were for land that will not even be used for these routes. Compulsory purchase is a contentious issue. Are people concerned about this?

The consultation process is an issue and much more needs to be done in this regard because other countries such as France and Spain have investigated undergrounding. Perhaps more pressure can be applied to establish what has happened in other countries.

The committee is concerned that many submissions have to be made by 26 November and that was one the reasons we wanted the groups in to hear their views. There is no point in inviting EirGrid in when the consultation period is over. That is why we wanted to hear from people.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I thank the groups for attending and for their presentations. As Deputy Coffey said, it is important that everybody should have their say. Until recently, this issue only affected counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. I am from County Meath and, although I am only recently elected, it was an issue my father worked out but it is suddenly being put into the public sphere more. The greatest barrier to expansion of the national grid is public acceptance and it is clear from the groups' presentation, protests and public meetings that we do not have that acceptance. This has stemmed from EirGrid's lack of public consultation. Anybody who engaged with the company over recent years could have guessed what would be said today and I am disappointed because I had hoped there would be a change in approach with the newer groups but, unfortunately, the process is the same as it was six years ago. I do not like to hear people saying that public representation is failing them. Significant work has gone into this over the past six years and nothing has been built overhead or overground for the Meath to Tyrone interconnector but, unfortunately, it is costing the State €30 million a year for 140 km.

Nothing has gone overhead or overground in the Meath to Tyrone interconnector, but unfortunately it is costing the State €30 million in a year and that is for 140 km. We are obviously looking at a larger grid which is 800 km, so it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Obviously representatives of EirGrid will appear before the committee in two weeks and we will be expecting answers. I hope the questions will be put to them before they come in so that we can have answers for them.

I do not have any questions because I believe the witnesses have answered them. An independent cost analysis needs to be done. My local group, NEPP, has stated that it is in the public domain: it costs €2.3 million per kilometre to go overhead and €2 million underground. As I understand that does not include converter stations, this needs to be investigated and a cost analysis completed. I am not qualified comment on health issues, but the committee can investigate how much it is costing the taxpayer. EirGrid has disagreed with the much of what the commission has stated but conveniently it has agreed that the costing is three times the amount whereas before it was 20 or 15 times. We need to find out once and for all how much it will cost to go underground.

Chairman

As there is a vote in the Seanad, I will let Senator Landy come in next.

Senator Denis Landy

I thank the witnesses for attending. I make some points to evoke from them some responses that we can use when the representatives of EirGrid appear before the committee. They will forgive me if I have to leave. However, once they put the answers on the record I will be able to get them. My first question is on public consultation. Why do the witnesses believe the system of consultation that is in place is flawed? What system of consultation should EirGrid introduce in order to have proper consultation? There is an office in my town, Carrick-on-Suir, which is open for six hours once a week on a Tuesday. There are two staff there and on a particular day one was in attendance. People went in and asked questions. They went back a number of hours later and the other EirGrid staff member was in attendance. They got directly opposite answers to the same questions. That is an example of what is going on.

I wish to ask Ms Fitzgerald about the European landscape convention. Does she believe that EirGrid has breached that convention and that the process is flawed as a result?

Mr. Bannigan made reference to EirGrid applying for European funding for other routes. Are there routes other than the one he mentioned? I have evidence suggesting that EirGrid has applied to Europe for funding for other routes. I need clarity on that.

Would the witnesses be agreeable if this committee could convince EirGrid to meet a representative group of each of the committees represented today to discuss their concerns about the lack of consultation and how it should move forward?

I ask Mr. Peter Smith about the process on the selection of corridors. Because the village, from which we both come from, Faugheen, has a population of fewer than 1,000, it is being disregarded and is being subsumed by the corridor. To what extent should cognisance be taken of population density vis-à-vis villages etc.?

EirGrid is using surveys and analyses that were done in 2008 to support its arguments. Even the one that was done by the expert group is now outdated. There is ongoing research in Germany and Denmark regarding the most recent technological capability of undergrounding cables. Are the witnesses aware of that and can they give us some information on it?

Mr. Cian Moloney

Deputy McEntee spoke about public representatives failing us. In our area we understand that local authority members were consulted by EirGrid and had meetings. They did not see fit to inform the public in a similar fashion to EirGrid. It was only when we raised the issue and called public meetings, which some of the local representatives were happy to attend, that it emerged that they had had meetings with EirGrid. Only then did we realise that. There is an onus on members present collectively and individually to represent the people who elected them. We call on them to do that. There is a significant disparity in weighting between the groups here in terms of the finance and the weight behind EirGrid promoting its agenda and the community groups on the other side. We need the committee's help on that.

Deputy McEntee spoke about the cost difference between €2.2 million and €2 million per kilometre. They do not take any regard of the other effects on the community regarding tourism, devaluation and so forth. If they are included in a full cost-benefit analysis, then the benefits of undergrounding will be shown to be much greater.

Mr. John McCusker

We have clearly outlined that the public consultation thus far has been flawed so EirGrid should be asked to stop the project form proceeding. The groups should then be asked to contribute to defining terms of reference of public consultation and what the public consultation should entail. It is not for us, as simple citizens, to tell EirGrid as a semi-State body how it should conduct its business. The Government should assist in that. We are quite happy to agree terms of reference of public consultation. Once those terms of reference and the issues associated with public consultation are agreed, then the consultation process can start. Fundamentally as the existing process is flawed, it has to stop immediately and a new format needs to be agreed.

Mr. Moloney said that the local authority members were all aware of these projects. EirGrid has stated in documentation that local authority members, Deputies and Senators were all issued with a documentation pack at stages 1, 2 and 3 of the process. That includes everybody in this room, effectively. It is only when the public bring these matters to the attention of the elected representatives that their ears prick up and they start to get interested. The electorate then bring these issues to the public representatives and not the other way around. I would be interested to hear what the committee members have to say about the documentation packs they received. Will the committee make a submission to EirGrid by 26 November on the basis of what the members have heard today?

Chairman

Obviously all of those issues will be considered after we-----

Mr. John McCusker

Is that a "yes" or "no"?

Chairman

I cannot speak for the committee because it will be discussed by the committee afterwards.

(Interruptions).

Chairman

There is a process involved here. All of the considerations will be taken and will be discussed in private session of the committee next week.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I propose that we make a submission before next Tuesday.

A Member

I second that.

Chairman

We can go into private session afterwards and do it. We have to respect the procedures. I have tried not in any way to restrict any debate here today, but we must also respect the processes on the role the committee plays.

Mr. John McCusker

The deadline for submission is 26 November, which is next Tuesday. We would like to hear the committee's response by tomorrow or Friday.

Chairman

As I said, we will discuss these matters afterwards.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

On a point of order, what is the problem with the process of a member proposing what this man suggested and another member seconding it?

Chairman

It relates to the way the committees have been formed. We do not make any decisions in public session. We invite people in.

As Deputy Ellis pointed out, the reason we invited the community groups today is so we could hear from them in advance of 26 November. To fulfil our role, we must consider the presentations being made today in order that they inform us for future meetings with other stakeholders. We will consider in private session all of the issues raised, including the issue of the submission.

Ms Ann Murphy

I wish to make a point about the public consultation process. Last week I spoke to somebody living very close to the station in Great Island who did not know this was happening. Several people in our local area are only hearing about it now, and the deadline is 5 p.m. next Tuesday. We have found it extremely difficult to obtain information from EirGrid. We waited weeks for the stage one report. We also had to wait weeks for its constraints report, and eventually we received it this week. The consultation process is seriously flawed.

Senator David Cullinane

I propose we continue with Oireachtas Members putting questions to the witnesses after which the committee can discuss what it wants to do next. We should not make any decisions until all of the questions are asked.

Chairman

Other committee members are waiting to speak.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

A few points have yet to be answered.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

I want to address the question on compliance with the European Landscape Convention. It is for the Government to comply with it. When it signed the convention in 2002, it undertook to plan, manage and protect the landscapes of Ireland hand in hand with the communities who inhabit the landscapes. It needs to recognise the landscapes have value. Even the less dramatic landscapes of Ireland have value and the Government needs to recognise this in law. We still do not have a landscape strategy for Ireland 11 and a half years later. This is mind-boggling when one thinks about the stunning landscape of this country and how important it is to our creativity as a nation, to our national identity and to our tourism industry, which is the bedrock of a sustainable economy in rural Ireland.

I do not know whether EirGrid can breach the European Landscape Convention, but the Irish Government's landscape policy has meant that when it gets to An Bord Pleanála, it is on very shaky ground in terms of how the Irish landscape has been treated in the process. I am from south County Carlow. According to the stage one report, in the absence of a landscape designation from Carlow County Council, EirGrid recognised the lack of consistency in landscape mapping as a data challenge. It is a known problem and was also in a Mazars report from 2007 prepared for Fáilte Ireland on this lack of consistency in landscape mapping from local authority to local authority. In addressing this data challenge, EirGrid took it upon itself to make a value judgment on the landscapes in County Carlow. It included the constraint of undesignated landscape, which completely flies in the face of the European Landscape Convention. The community must be involved in identifying landscapes of value. It cannot be done from a desk using a computer programme because landscapes have value on many different levels, such as historical, aesthetic, cultural and amenity. It is only those who inhabit and use the landscapes who can assign this value. In County Carlow's case, the fact EirGrid took it upon itself to assign landscape value without consultation either with the local authority or the local community is a significant shortcoming.

If EirGrid pursues this project in its current form, it will be open to challenge. An Bord Pleanála must refer it to EU legislation. In the absence of an Irish landscape strategy, it is blown wide open. We are galvanising support. We have been raising money locally and if we need to take this to Europe, we will.

Chairman

I do not have the answer and I am not sure about the status of the convention as against legislation. This is something we will have to get clarified. Is a convention binding? Perhaps the witnesses know the answer but I do not.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

I ask the committee to investigate this and perhaps get legal opinion on it.

Chairman

Obviously we will look into it.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

I wish to respond to Deputy Helen McEntee. She mentioned that every year the North-South interconnector is not built means a cost of €30 million. Figures from €25 million to €30 million have been bandied about. Replies to parliamentary questions have stated it costs the consumer a certain amount of money. This is not true. The study states there could possibly be savings of between €25 million and €30 million, which would be a benefit accruing to the wholesale market. How much of this would be passed back to the consumer is anybody's guess. EirGrid states the operation of the east-west interconnector has resulted in a saving of 7% to the wholesale market, but I do not see a decrease of 7% in my electricity bill. In fact it is increasing.

Senator Landy asked about the latest technology and he mentioned Germany. In Germany there is a massive discussion about rolling out a new grid of thousands of kilometres. There are three or four transmission system operators in Germany and between them they propose that more than half of the grid will be built using HVDC technology, both overhead and underground, because it is the best and most cost-efficient method of transferring power over long distances.

Mr. Peter Smith

The Senator asked a specific question about mapping and population and the constraint of 1,000 people in a population. EirGrid must use this as a constraint, but it does not take into account smaller villages. I had to ask about the population of Faugheen and do a head count because it is not listed by the local authority. This feeds into the differences between the development plans and mapping processes of various local authorities, and as a result it is a common problem. The same problem is faced by the next village along from us, where it is proposed to go within 100 metres or 150 metres of a national school and an old people's home. The village is barely even a speck on the map and because a population of 1,000 is the constraint, EirGrid is not required to be concerned and thinks it is open countryside. As far as we can see, EirGrid has not bothered to look and it should be required to do so. As far as we are aware, we are listed as a village in the county development plan and it could have looked there.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I meant the figure of €30 million in a negative light in that, regardless of whether it goes back to the public, it is not good. I did not mean that not going overhead costs €30 million but that we must sort this out now because it is affecting the public and taxpayers' money.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I did not hear anyone state anything about an environmental impact statement. Perhaps someone can speak about it.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

A question was directed specifically to me. I am not aware of any additional high voltage projects applying for funding. I am aware of all the Grid25 projects and this one we discovered last month in the most up-to-date European list. I am not aware of any more.

If there are, we would be delighted to hear about them.

On the environmental impact statement, EirGrid is required by law to carry out an environmental impact assessment. In this regard, the board decides what issues need to be examined. This process is currently under way. While the board is required to make its decision in terms of screening by 21 December as we understand it the environmental impact assessment has been already concluded, which raises many questions.

A consultant hired to do a particular job does that job to suit the person paying. While it is up to local communities to oppose an environmental impact assessment they only get first sight of the assessment after the planning application has been lodged. This means they have only six weeks within which to make a submission on it. We have been engaging with EirGrid about this project for the past six years. This process may not be completed within ten years. I do not have a great deal more to say about environmental impact statements. What is required to addressed by way of an environmental impact statement has been updated in law and will shortly be amended at European level. Whether or not this will be in the best interests of communities we do not know. However, I believe it will be. We will have to wait and see.

On public acceptance and consultation in terms of what would be acceptable to communities, the current system is flawed. The reason it is flawed is because the public no longer has any confidence in EirGrid. It will not answer questions or provide the information required. Without public confidence in a process there will never be public acceptance. The challenge for legislators and EirGrid is to gain public confidence. The Government's policy document states that the fundamental part of the development of these energy projects is community acceptance. We are further away now from community acceptance than we were in 2010. We are moving in the opposite direction.

Senator Denis Landy

Perhaps Mr. Brannigan might set out the way in which he believes the public consultation process should proceed.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

We have discussed on numerous occasions with EirGrid how best consultation should be handled. As I stated earlier, to me consultation is about people sitting down together with no set agenda, with everything up for discussion. It is up to the promoter to set out the positives and negatives of a project. Nothing should be hidden. If communities then have issues with the project not only should they have an opportunity to air them but they must be seen to be addressed. This is not happening.

The final report in relation to construction of the North-South interconnector is available on EirGrid's website and includes an appendix which lists the issues of concern to the communities. No effort has been made to take on board these issues. It is a case of EirGrid's way or no way.

Chairman

Thank you. The next three contributors are Deputy Heather Humphreys, Senator Cullinane and Deputy Peadar Tóibín. They will be followed by Deputies Deering and Timmins.

Deputy Heather Humphreys

I thank the delegations for appearing before the committee and for their presentations, in particular the delegation from Monaghan for whom this has been an ongoing issue for many years.

The main issue today is the failure of EirGrid to engage in proper consultation and take on board the public's views around health, visual impact, property devaluation and so on. Is there any scope for agreement with EirGrid on the North-South interconnector?

Senator David Cullinane

I welcome the delegations. I am from Waterford and as such I am directly affected by this issue. I stand with all of the communities affected, including the organisations present today, who are rightly concerned about this project.

There has been much discussion on this issue thus far. Senator Landy asked Mr. Brannigan for his view on the consultation process. There is a need to inject some sense of reality into the debate on this issue. From my perspective the consultation process is flawed and will continue to be so for two reasons. First, the planning application from EirGrid, be it in respect of the North-South interconnector or the Grid25 project, if EirGrid gets to it, will bypass the normal planning process and go straight to An Bord Pleanála, which creates problems in the first instance. Second, the consultation process is flawed because in terms of national policy there is no hierarchy to deal with these issues. For example, we do not, as a State, have a preference for this project overground versus underground or vice versa. That is the main problem. As legislators, we should be facing up to our responsibilities to legislate in this regard. EirGrid can hide behind Government policy and the fact that we do not have a hierarchy of policy of preference in this area. Legislators have a job to do and need to focus on it. In my view, many politicians across all parties, at Oireachtas and local level, are rightly concerned about EirGrid's projects from a health perspective - I accept there are conflicting views in this regard - and in terms of visual impact and devaluation of land and so on. If we want to resolve this issue, we can legislate and change the parameters in terms of the planning process.

I support development of this project underground. Deputy Coffey's proposal from the south-east and Leinster perspective in terms of utilisation of the motorway network was interesting. There is already a cable system on the main Waterford to Cork and Waterford to Dublin routes. Why can these routes not be incorporated into the project? These are the issues on which we as legislators should be focused. I would like to hear the delegations' views of this issue. As long as the focus is on the failures of the consultation process we are not dealing with the elephant in the room. In my view, as legislators we have failed in our responsibility to ensure joined-up policy in this area and to state that, like Denmark, our preference is for this project to be developed underground. If we were to do this, the game would change.

My advice to all of the campaigning groups is to delay this project as much as possible. Technology is changing all of the time. I recall EirGrid saying in 2007 that it was not possible to go underground and that it would be 21 times more costly to do so. It is now known it would be only three to three and a half times more costly and that is only in terms of the initial investment and does not take into account the long term savings in terms of energy lost if the project goes overground. We need to push for a cost benefit analysis on the project going underground versus overground, which analysis should be independent and based on a 40 or 50 year lifespan. We must as best we can delay this project using every possible avenue open to us to do so. I believe that technology is changing in favour of those of us who support the underground option.

As legislators, we must face up to our responsibilities, which in my view we have not done to date.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I welcome the delegations to the committee. I am a Deputy for County Meath, which has been dealing with this issue for the past six or seven years. I accept there is a need for structural improvements within the grid and that there is a need for an all-Ireland energy market. However, no project can proceed in this State against the will of the people. This needs to be the basis on which we discuss all of the issues arising.

One of the major concerns is costs.

For every year the lines are not put underground, it costs the taxpayer €30 million. Over the past six to seven years, that is €210 million which current Government policy has cost the taxpayer. One can also consider how EirGrid treated the An Bord Pleanála application on the previous occasion, when the application collapsed because information was not correct and there was a cost to the State in that regard. There was no accountability. Any planning permission applicant would have had to pay the majority of the amount of money for its engagement with An Bord Pleanála while the taxpayer had to foot the bill for the mistakes of EirGrid in that regard.

The point was made that energy needs to be left behind. In Meath we would not have the necessary energy for the likes of Intel, but the North-South interconnector will not leave any access to energy behind for the whole of county Meath. Until the end point, no community will be able to access the necessary energy to develop industry. EirGrid has indicated that if Government policy changes, it will underground the cables. EirGrid is not an independent fiefdom and it operates according to the law. If that law changes, as this Oireachtas can decide, EirGrid will have to proceed along that course.

One of the key elements the campaign in Meath has carried out very successfully is managing to get 90% of landowners to refuse to give EirGrid access, and that level of community unity has been one of the key factors of that campaign. Has there been an estimate of the catchment of people being affected by these proposed lines? Mr. Bannigan indicated he had experienced box-ticking exercises, and I would hate for this to become another one. A Deputy who is not here at the moment mentioned that this is the start of the process, but this is not the beginning and is closer to the end for many communities which have worked for six or seven years on the issue. Would it be possible for the committee to make the submission, as has been requested, and carry a motion that the committee seeks these lines to be underground? I would also like the committee to call on the Government to create legislation for the process to be undergrounded. My office is preparing legislation for undergrounding and we hope to have that published in the new year. I would like some of the community organisations to help my office in that regard.

Mr. John McCusker

The Deputy asked how many young families would be affected by overhead lines, and that would extend to homes, valuations, mortgages and the negative equity experienced by people. These questions have been put to EirGrid but it has not come back with any answers. Perhaps it is unwilling to do the study or perhaps it knows the answer but does not want to tell us. We do not know, although we have asked the question. That is one simple issue that everybody knows about, and it is not a magic or scientific matter that needs a large committee discussion. It is one of a number of tasks we have identified that must be undertaken by EirGrid or perhaps another authority, which could do a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps EirGrid does not have competence in this matter and that is why it has not been done. Perhaps the committee needs to inquire about that, and if EirGrid does not have competence in this regard, another authority should do it.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

There was a question regarding the North-South interconnector and whether there is any scope for agreement in that regard. I am an optimist and there is scope for agreement. I cannot outline how that might be possible. While Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee has invited Mr. Slye to meet representatives of the group in County Monaghan, the offer has been refused for whatever reasons. The committee would need to ask EirGrid about that.

The only way to have progress on the North-South interconnector is by bringing communities along by addressing their concerns. This has not happened after six years. It would be very simple for me to say the interconnector would go ahead tomorrow if lines were put underground, and that is the truth. That is what landowners and local communities want to see happening. The Government commissioned an independent study on the North-South interconnector which indicated that the required technology exists to carry out that process successfully. There is scope for agreement, although not the way things are currently.

Senator Cullinane mentioned the following point. There are no specific guidelines for power lines, although there are such provisions in dealing with wind, roads and so forth. EirGrid probably did not want to see any specific planning guidelines for power lines until Grid25 was completed, at which time it would be like bolting the stable door when the horse was gone. Perhaps the committee could start at that point, which is what we must address if we are to go down this line. It should take in overgrounding and undergrounding, distance from homes and valuation of property. It is a major task and it will not be completed before next January or February, when we might be facing a new planning application. That should be done first.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

Senator Cullinane correctly encouraged the groups to go down every possible avenue to oppose the overhead lines. I presume he meant to go down every possible legal avenue to oppose the overhead lines, as there is no way we will go down any other avenue.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Hillis for clarifying that point.

Deputy Pat Deering

As I am not a member of this committee, I am delighted to get the opportunity to say a few words on the issue. I come from County Carlow, which is possibly the region most affected by this issue, as there are four potential corridors through the county, which is the second smallest in the country. One would have to wonder how that came about. I compliment Ms Fitzgerald on her leadership, as this is the first group in the county to deal with the issue.

We have heard much about the consultation or lack thereof, and that seems to be the problem. Approximately a year and a half ago, this process started with EirGrid in our area and to say there was a lack of information is an understatement. I am a cynic in this regard. There are four potential corridors identified but I am of the opinion that a corridor has been picked without telling people. The policy is one of divide and conquer, with four corridors identified and the whole county rightly up in arms. With human nature as it is - this is the tragedy - when a corridor is picked, three quarters of the people will be happy and think that at least it is not in their back yard. There will be 25% of people very unhappy. Mr. McCusker made the point that public representatives were made aware of the process and got packs and so on. That may be so but there was no interest in the matter. People were not aware where a line or corridor was to be, and it is only in the past four or five weeks, when corridors were put on a map, that people stood up and took notice.

As there is a lack of information, a vacuum exists, and nobody can fill it. Some of us present are probably more informed than others, especially those from the Monaghan group who have been on the road longer than others, but information must be procured to fill that void. It should be independent and from appropriate sources. The solution must be found and the only way for this to come about is through an independent expert group being put in place to formulate such a solution. There should be a cost-benefit analysis, as Deputy Coffey mentioned, of the underground and overground processes. There should be analysis of implications from a tourism and environmental perspective.

That is what we need to find out. To reiterate Deputy Coffey's point, what are the implications for the line or corridor that has been in place for the last number of years from Moneypoint to Kildare from the point of view of the valuation of property and so forth? That is the course we must take.

However, I believe the solution must be to get an independent expert group in and put its cards on the table, because there is absolutely no credibility in EirGrid. The representatives of EirGrid will appear before this committee two or three weeks hence and will make a very powerful presentation, as they did in Carlow and other counties in the last few weeks, and they will leave after being very evasive in their answers to questions. It will be a powerful presentation. Without naming anybody in particular, they are very well qualified on the matter from both the engineering and media points of view. There is probably nobody in this committee capable of asking them the questions that need to be asked. Therefore, I return to my main point which is that we need that expert group or expert opinion brought into the system to educate this committee and everybody else on the matter. That is my suggestion.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I am sorry I could not be here earlier today. I know nobody who wants to have pylons. Everybody wants the power, but everybody wants to put it underground. That appears to be the very strong message from the public. There are different groups at different levels on this. When it was a problem in Meath and Monaghan it was something I followed loosely but it did not tax me. When it does not land on one's doorstep, one does not have a motive to get as involved as when it does land on one's doorstep. Likewise, there is no group here from Galway or Kerry, because it is not going through those areas. There is something fundamentally wrong when communities are forced to get out and fund-raise to go into conflict with a semi-State body, EirGrid, that is supposed to operate for the common good in the interests of the people and was established to assist the economy.

With respect to the issue of consultation, information was given out on this over a year ago. It was sent out in packs. I can only talk about the south east, with regard to the line from Kilcullen to Wexford and across to Cork. A study area was identified. One does not pay that much attention to this until lines appear in a map and one can see exactly what is happening. I am not here to defend EirGrid but with regard to the consultation, and many people say there has been no consultation, I found in the last few months when I have been involved with this that EirGrid has gone to the public and there is consultation. There are offices in Kilcullen and Carlow. As I have seen time and again in the case of development plans, no matter what information one sends out with the best will in the world, there will be people who will miss it. Some will not see it, regardless of how close something is to them. I heard somebody say in an interview earlier this morning that letters had been sent to people in the west of Ireland, but some of them did not reach the people. As far as I know, no letters were sent in the south east. Am I correct about that? It was advertised in newspapers and so forth.

That said, there is something flawed in the consultation on this. When communities deal with county development plans, the body is guided by national policy. Really, the consultation is about the fact that people want it to be put underground, yet EirGrid will say that it will not put it underground. There is a deep flaw there. While I am one of the people who would say there is consultation, in many respects it is meaningless because the issues being raised time and again by the community will not ultimately be taken on board. There is a flaw and that is something that must be addressed at national policy level. There is legislation promised to put EirGrid on a statutory footing. It is due to be published at the end of this year or early next year. I am strongly of the view that a decision should not be made on the routes until that legislation is dealt with. Let us see if we are willing to pay the extra cost. Some argue there is no cost differentiation, but it appears to me that there is. Let us debate and see if we are willing to pay the extra required to put it underground.

I note from chapter ten in the Stage 1 report that health was one of the issues taken into consideration in the evaluation process. There is conflicting evidence on that. However, leave aside the health issue. Purely from an aesthetic perspective, the impact on communities and the visual impact are quite horrific. I never saw as many pylons as I have seen in the last couple of months, when I was looking out for them travelling along the N11. However, to take the simple example of when the M9 was being constructed from Kilcullen to Waterford, when a route was identified and there was a sterilised area, I cannot understand why the underground cables or actual pylons or whatever system was being put in place was not part of that. I do not believe for a moment that EirGrid or the ESB was not aware of the necessity to upgrade the grid, given that it was upgraded from the west to the east 20 years ago. It must have been aware of it.

In conclusion, I have a question for the Carlow group. An environmental consultancy group called CAAS gave a presentation to Carlow County Council. Who is that, who employed it and what was its remit?

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

When my group, Save Our Heartland, became aware of the pylon routes through the county we managed to have a meeting with the county manager. It was debated in a council meeting in October and at that meeting the county manager offered to commission an independent impact assessment of each of the four routes through the county. He reported to the November council meeting and his report contained a number of recommendations which the council has chosen to adopt. The most important one from Carlow's perspective, and given the huge lack of consistency in how landscape is mapped from county to county, is that Carlow County Council voted to embark on a process to vary the county development plan to strengthen our landscape character assessment. That is an important step for Carlow in trying to make the EirGrid mapping more fair. There was a recommendation to the council to prepare its own constraints report on each route for the county. To a degree, it takes pressure off the local groups because we have been commissioning expert reports to submit to EirGrid, so for the council to do work on our behalf is a good move as well.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank the witness for that. To refer to the point Mr. Bannigan raised about hiring consultants to come up with the answer one wants, my understanding, and the witness can correct me if I am wrong, is that the group I mentioned recommended that the eastern option would have the least impact on Carlow. That is the route that goes through poor Deputy Deering's homestead and my home village. It goes through Wicklow. If the committee intends to invite more groups, that group should be invited. It recommended a certain route, and I believe that should not be the remit of an independent group.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

One important aspect of the motion that the council passed was that the executive was not to recommend a route in Carlow. This has been an ongoing problem with our county council executive. In 2012, the county council executive issued a letter to EirGrid, welcoming it to the county and selecting the route which runs west of Mount Leinster. I think it is the D7 route. Therefore, last year our local authority welcomed EirGrid to use one of the most scenic landscapes in the country. That letter was issued without discussion in the council chamber. I do not think the councillors were even copied the letter. I am part of the group affected by that letter. When the county manager asked for this other report, it stated, in a work of genius, that the shortest route through the county would have the least impact on the county.

Deputy Billy Timmins

That might be applicable to County Carlow, but it should not be taken as giving the green light to one route over another.

Ms Helena Fitzgerald

It is really important for local authorities to understand that the local authority will not make the decision on what route is chosen. All we can do, as Save Our Heartland has been saying from the start, is present the best case to this process. The idea that in valuing one's landscape or what is in one's county one is disadvantaging one route is not really true. EirGrid will make its decision on the entire route but it is not being transparent about how it will make that decision.

EirGrid is not saying whether it is cost or environmental issues. EirGrid will not give us an idea of the weighting. It is not in the gift of the county council to choose the route and it has said it will not pinpoint a route for EirGrid.

Mr. John McCusker

Reference was made to EirGrid's great public consultation.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to clarify that I did not say it was great consultation. It was as good a consultation as I have seen by any other group, notwithstanding the fact that one cannot reach everybody. I did not say there was great consultation by EirGrid but that it advertised extensively.

Mr. John McCusker

It was poorly advertised.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Fair enough.

Mr. John McCusker

It was brought to EirGrid's attention that it contravened the Aarhus Convention, which will be challenged. It is consultation if one thinks consultation is setting up a stall in a local SuperValu store for a few hours on a Monday or at the local animal mart for a few hours on a Tuesday. EirGrid did not arrive at 7 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. when the farmers arrived at the mart. EirGrid probably arrived at 10 a.m or 11 a.m. That is how the tens of thousands of people who live in the area were consulted. Perhaps that is good consultation to some but I do not think it was.

EirGrid, after the Waterford County Council meeting about advertisements in local papers, said it advertised and that is on the public record. EirGrid did not advertise and has admitted that.

It was clearly not a convenient time because a few information days were scheduled to run from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. on a Monday afternoon when people were at work. Lunchtime or from 11 a.m. onwards would have been a more convenient time. There was no opportunity for people to get to the afternoon sessions held on a Monday because people look after children, pick them up from school, etc. Why not schedule information days on a Saturday or Sunday and at a time when people are off work and can participate in the consultation process? The consultation dates were strategically picked, timed and located.

I wish to make a point about visual landscape. I do not think people understand how tall the pylons will be. The highest structure in Croke Park is one metre shorter than a pylon. The pylons will be the height of 20 bungalows piled on top of each other. Can the committee picture that scenario? Can members picture the height of Croke Park?

Deputy Billy Timmins

Why has Mr. McCusker asked me whether I understand the impact pylons will have on the visual landscape?

Mr. John McCusker

I am just getting to that point.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I am well aware of their impact.

Mr. John McCusker

Okay. The county development plan clearly states the Comeragh Mountains are a special area of amenity and conservation. When EirGrid looked at County Waterford, it decided to use the mountains to hide the lines and pylons and its consultants, RPS, admitted that when questioned at the consultation days. EirGrid aimed for the mountains to hide the pylons and lines. The Comeragh Mountains are Waterford's jewel in the crown and a popular tourism destination. They are frequented by hillwalkers and hikers at Mahon Falls and cyclists on the Sean Kelly tour. EirGrid aimed for the destination to hide its lines and pylons.

Mr. Owen Bannigan

I wish to make a couple of brief comments on EirGrid's consultation and trying to secure public acceptance. The county development plan was mentioned, in particular the one for Carlow. Monaghan County Council varied its development plan four years ago in an attempt to keep pylons 100 m from a dwelling, but EirGrid went to the High Court and was successful.

My group thought that 100 m was a very decent and respectable minimum required distance from a dwelling house. I will outline the reasoning behind that distance being chosen. If the 100 m proviso had been successful, due to the population structure in County Monaghan, EirGrid would not have been able to put an overhead power line through County Monaghan. I am being honest about that. EirGrid recognised that possibility and went to the High Court to get the 100 m proviso overruled, so EirGrid is liable to do anything.

EirGrid attended a Monday meeting of Monaghan County Council 12 months after the oral hearing had failed in 2011. The agency had been invited by the councillors to attend but it had nothing major to report. While EirGrid's representative spoke and addressed the meeting, it had sent letters to every affected party to say it was re-engaging and restarting the failed process, but EirGrid could not answer the question posed at the council meeting. Our history of EirGrid at council meetings is that it was asked many questions but it could not answer them but submitted written responses up to three months later and ignored half the queries.

On the day EirGrid attended the meeting of Monaghan County Council, its electrical engineer attended to tell us about health effects. When EirGrid's engineer was questioned on his profession, he said he was an electrical engineer. Does EirGrid wish to be professional? Does EirGrid take the people to be fools? I am trying to build a picture of what EirGrid is like.

Recently a helicopter flew over the route, and this started on a Monday morning. That afternoon EirGrid went on local radio to say it had commenced consultation. EirGrid laid traffic counters on our roads in the past two months but never contacted or notified the county council to say it was doing so. As it turned out, EirGrid required planning permission but it did not bother getting it even though it is a semi-State body. There is something seriously wrong with the tactics EirGrid has used.

My group did not come here today just to highlight all the negatives but to raise questions and show what people are faced with. Before the committee engages with EirGrid it needs to be made aware of what has happened locally. EirGrid does not want to consult except on where the pylon will be located.

EirGrid's final report for statutory consultation clearly states that where the location of the tower or pylon has been identified, if the landowner wants it moved to a different location, he must do a number of things. He must give EirGrid access to his land to survey. If the tower is going to be located closer to anybody else's property, the landowner must get acceptance from his neighbour or neighbours. EirGrid never looked for acceptance from anyone to erect a tower on the first day. For a landowner to get a tower relocated, and if it is going to impinge more on somebody else's property, whether it is a field, dwelling house or whatever, the person who requests its removal must get acceptance from their neighbour. Otherwise it will not be considered. That was clearly written in EirGrid's final solution report. It is unbelievable what must happen if I want a tower located in my field to be relocated to a more suitable position. If it is going to be closer to Mr. Hillis's property, I would have to approach him and ask for his permission.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Bannigan.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I wish to return to the issue of pylon height.

Chairman

Briefly.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I want the height of the pylons issue clarified. Mr. McCusker has said that the pylons will be higher than Croke Park.

Mr. John McCusker

A slight bit more.

Deputy Ann Phelan

It is my understanding, and the delegation can tell me if I am incorrect, that the height of the pylon is determined by the centre of the cable. Where the cable sags, EirGrid must get a 9 m clearance and that is what determines the height of a pylon. It is my understanding there has been no decision on the height of the pylon except what I have outlined. Am I incorrect?

Mr. John McCusker

Obviously we did not design the system.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I did not either but that is my understanding.

Mr. John McCusker

During consultation EirGrid has told us that its pylons could be up to 60 m.

Chairman

That is a question for EirGrid.

Mr. John McCusker

They could be up to 60 m but it depends on the-----

Mr. Owen Bannigan

They are more than 60 metres high for the North-South interconnector. We do not know how high they will be this time. On the last planning application in 2010, pylons in County Meath were 60 m high and in County Monaghan the highest we are up to is 46 m.

Mr. John McCusker

Further than that, EirGrid used lovely little models of a monopole pylon at its public meetings. I asked the gentleman from RPS how many monopole pylons we would get to use.

His answer was that it should not be on display, that it was not a monopole they used and that it did not have their approval. If one hones in on the monopole, one might think it is interesting, but it is only on display and will not be used. Does that constitute a lie or deception by EirGrid? Perhaps the committee might decide and put the question to EirGrid.

Chairman

I sincerely thank Ms Helena Fitzgerald, Mr. John McCusker, Mr. Peter Smith, Mr. Owen Bannigan, Mr. Nigel Hillis, Ms Mary Marron, Mr. Cian Moloney and Ms Ann Murphy for their clear, articulate and unambiguous message today. The committee has invited EirGrid and the officials of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to attend on 4 December to address the issues that have been raised. We invited the delegates in order that the committee is informed and can put the issues as clearly and unambiguously as we heard today.

The next meeting will be with the Minister and the Secretary General regarding the European Council meeting.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I thought we were going into private session to discuss what to do before the close of business on 26 November.

Deputy Ann Phelan

We need clarification on whether the community groups will have another opportunity to come before the committee.

Chairman

All of these decisions can be made in private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.55 p.m. and adjourned at 1.10 p.m until 9.30 a.m on Wednesday, 27 November 2013.