I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.
Wind Energy Guidelines: Statements
I thank Senators for the opportunity to attend and to contribute to this important discussion. Wind energy is a highly-topical issue and looks set to remain in public focus for some time to come.
It is important to clarify my exact role and that of my Department regarding wind energy. I do not set policy on wind energy development or renewable energy, in general. Nor do I have direct responsibility to deliver on Ireland's ambitious targets. All of these matters are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte.
As a member of Government, the issue of wind energy, specifically, and the wider related matters of energy security, emissions reduction, economic renewal by harnessing our abundant renewable energy sources and job creation are high on my agenda. The Government has set challenging international and domestic targets in the area but is preparing to meet them head on.
My specific role as Minister of State responsible for housing and planning, is to provide the right policy and legislative framework for Ireland's planning system to function properly and in the interests of a wider good. This includes the assessment of planning applications in respect of wind energy development.
The planning system operates primarily through legislation set out under the Planning Acts and associated regulations.
This provides a highly detailed and process-driven framework for forward planning, development management and enforcement. As we are all too aware, it is not perfect. We have already made some important legislative changes and signalled further fundamental legislative reforms with the announcement last week of our intention to establish an independent planning regulator.
The legislative underpinning for our planning system is supplemented by an extensive suite of statutory planning policy guidance. Over 25 sets of such guidance exist, covering such matters as local area plans, environmental impact assessment, retail planning, spatial planning and national roads, development management and wind energy. The existing wind energy development guidelines were published by my Department in June 2006. They provide advice to planning authorities on catering for wind energy through the development plan process. The guidelines are also intended to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the country in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy development and the treatment of planning applications for such developments. A central component of the guidelines is the need for a plan-led approach by local authorities. All development plans are therefore required to incorporate both a statement of the planning authority's policies and objectives in relation to wind energy development and matters it will take into account in assessing planning applications for specific wind energy development proposals. Local authority development plans must achieve a balance between the overall Government policy on renewable energy and enabling the wind energy resources of the planning authority's area to be harnessed in a manner that is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development. Authorities are required to identify through the development plan areas that are considered suitable or unsuitable for wind energy development. This is intended to provide clarity for developers, the planning authority and, perhaps most importantly, the public at the earliest possible stage.
The making of a development plan is in theory a very open and transparent process, which provides opportunities for public participation. In terms of planning reform, we have a job of work to do in encouraging community participation in forward planning development from conception to adoption. This is not just restricted to wind energy development. Senators will be all too familiar with situations in which communities became aware of a zoning designation or other planning decisions after the adoption of a statutory plan. Individuals and communities have a real opportunity to shape the wider development plan and the wind strategies contained therein and it is incumbent on all public representatives to encourage their participation.
The plan-led and statement of overall policy approaches in the development plan and wind strategy provides the framework for the assessment of individual wind energy development proposals. To further support the proper assessment of applications for wind energy development, the guidelines provide detailed advice to planning authorities on a range of potential impacts, including those related to natural heritage, ground conditions, archaeology, architectural heritage, safety aspects, wind-take and shadow flicker. Specific guidance is also provided in respect of noise. The guidelines state that the noise impact of proposed wind energy development should be assessed by reference to the nature and character of the relevant locations. In the case of wind energy development, a noise sensitive location would include any occupied dwelling house, hostel, health building or place of worship and may include areas of particular scenic quality or special recreational amenity importance. In general, a lower fixed limit of 45 dB or a maximum increase of 5 dB above background noise at nearby noise sensitive locations is considered appropriate to provide protection to wind energy development neighbours. However, the guidelines also acknowledge that in very quiet areas, the use of a margin of 5 dB above background noise at nearby noise sensitive properties is not necessary to offer a reasonable degree of protection and may unduly restrict wind energy developments, which should be recognised as having wider national and global benefits. Instead, in low-noise environments where background noise is less than 30 dB, it is recommended that the daytime level of the LA90 - ten minimum - of the wind energy development noise be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35 db to 40 dB. It is also important to recognise that separate noise limits should apply for daytime and night-time. During the night, the protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis should be on preventing sleep disturbance. A fixed limit of 43 dB will generally protect sleep inside properties during the night.
Currently, there are no specific conditions in the legislation covering the distance from sensitive properties, including houses, at which wind turbines should be sited. I understand that the issue was considered when the existing wind energy guidelines were prepared in 2006, but it was decided that it would be impractical and inappropriate to set a minimum distance because distance alone does not dictate noise levels from wind energy developments. A wide range of other factors can also impact on noise, including background noise levels, topography, local climatic factors and type and height of turbine. The guidelines acknowledge, therefore, that, in general, noise is unlikely to be a significant problem where the distance from the nearest turbine to any noise sensitive property is more than 500 m. They advise planning authorities to seek evidence that the types of turbine proposed in a particular development will use best engineering practice in terms of noise suppression and provide specific limits to permissible increases in noise above background noise from wind energy developments to protect neighbouring properties. The current system, therefore, provides for a degree of specificity and uniformity across all planning authorities while leaving the final decision in the hands of local decision makers, who will have the benefit of submissions and observations from third parties.
The fact is, however, that the issue of noise has become the most contentious of all aspects of wind energy development. In the last 15 months, two separate Bills have been published which focus largely on noise and its possible impact on human health, one of them by Senator Kelly who is in attendance. I am aware of the genuine concerns held by Senator Kelly and Deputy Penrose which prompted the drafting of the two Bills. I am also well aware of the concerns of many communities across the country regarding wind energy and noise in particular. I have met with various stakeholders to discuss their concerns, including CREWE, which recently gave a very detailed presentation to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It is important that these concerns be taken on board and properly addressed to ensure that Ireland can continue to meet its renewable energy targets while ensuring that wind energy does not have negative impacts on local communities.
My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and other stakeholders, is undertaking a targeted review of certain aspects of the 2006 wind energy guidelines. This is a timely review. Wind energy technology has developed rapidly in the past number of years with, for instance, an increase in the height of turbines and also an expansion in the scale of many proposed projects. I am keenly aware of the concerns that this has engendered. We are looking at an industry where turbine heights of 150 m will not be out of the ordinary. By way of contrast, the Spire in the centre of Dublin city is 120 m high, a point which has been made in the Seanad. Development on this scale must be properly planned and decisions supported by the best evidence available. My Department's focused review is examining the manner in which the guidelines address key issues of community concern such as noise and proximity. My Department issued a press notice in January of this year inviting submissions from the public on its targeted review. More than 550 submissions were received from individual members of the public and various stakeholders in response to the notice. This is a very strong response to what was the very first stage in a process that will provide further and more extensive opportunities for the public to shape the review.
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources recently commissioned the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland to invite proposals from suitably-qualified organisations for the completion of a desk study of peer reviewed studies and other documents that examine the significance of noise related to onshore wind farms. The objective of the study is to obtain evidence upon which to evaluate the appropriateness of the existing guidelines in relation to noise impacts and, if necessary, suggest changes. It will take account of the following key contextual issues: the evolution of wind turbine technologies since the current guidelines were published in 2006; experience to date in the application of the current guidelines; research relating to wind turbine noise issues since the current guidelines were adopted; and Ireland's binding targets in relation to renewable energy update and penetration. The study will form a key input into the review of the statutory guidelines. It is expected to be completed by the end of the summer to facilitate the preparation and publication of revised statutory guidelines in draft form. All statutory planning guidelines appear first in draft form for a public consultation during a period of a couple of months. Once the consultation period is closed, any submissions on the draft guidelines are considered and taken into account in the final form of the guidelines. As with all new or revised guidelines, the draft guidelines will be subject to extensive public consultation for a period of six weeks to two months. The indicative timetable for the publication of the draft guidelines is the fourth quarter of 2013.
I thank Senators for initiating this timely debate. I am conscious of the concern in communities regarding the development of wind energy. It is right to state my commitment to renewable, clean energy and I do not see the positions as mutually exclusive, nor do other Members. We can fashion a renewable energy policy, underpinned by an open, transparent planning framework that delivers benefits for Ireland at both national and community level. In that regard, I share the opinion expressed by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, that Bord na Móna's land holdings can play a crucial role in facilitating the development of wind energy in the years ahead. Bord na Móna is already engaged in the wind industry and I look forward to seeing a strategic view of Bord na Móna's role advanced.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach inniu chun an t-ábhar tábhactach seo a phlé. Wind energy has garnered public attention over the past number of months and years. This is not least due to the implications for local communities when large wind turbine enterprises are developed. Wind energy has immense potential to provide a major renewable, environmentally friendly energy source in Ireland. It is an integral part of the target to achieve 40% of electricity from renewable resources by 2020. There are examples, not least in the constituency in which I live in Donegal, of wind farms being developed or planning applications pending and it is giving rise to genuine local concerns. The 2006 guidelines, to which the Minister of State referred, and the submissions made as a result of the public call in January must be reflected upon. The guidelines must be changed forthwith.
More than 1,100 turbines are in operation in Ireland. The vast majority, on 176 wind farms, are onshore and only seven are located offshore in the Arklow Bay area. Senator Kelly brought a well-constructed Bill before the House last year. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to contribute because I was not in the House on that day. We need clear and concise guidelines to deal with public disquiet, particularly in light of the great potential and the exploitation by multinational companies in respect of development of wind farms in the State. We know what is happening in the midlands, with massive companies with huge resources coming in. We welcome the development of renewable energy and we know that technology has moved substantially forward. Boston College and other third level institutions have compiled detailed analysis and technical information showing that floating platforms can be used so that wind turbines can be developed at sea at a much lower cost than that argued by the wind companies.
Concerns are coming from local communities and these must be borne in mind. I have received a large volume of representations from people in the constituency in which I live and other parts of country. Setback distances deals predominantly with the noise issue and genuine health concerns. There is medical evidence to suggest there are genuine health concerns that must be addressed. Setback distances of at least 1 km from any occupied dwelling and, thereafter, further setback distances according to the height of the turbines must be set in legislation in order to alleviate concerns raised by genuine groups and members of the public. The Bill introduced by Senator Kelly was supported but it seems to be sitting in the Department of the Communications, Energy and Natural Resources gathering dust. Why is the Bill not being supported by the Government and brought forward before the House so that we can have an input into the debate? We can make amendments and work constructively to bring about the change required.
Since the original guidelines were drafted in 2006, much has changed. We know about the exploitation of the potential of wind energy by multinationals and the money they bring. Very often, local authorities, the Government and the Department listen to the large multinationals instead of the communities. That happened in the constituency in which I live and it is not right.
The height of wind turbines has increased threefold. Other issues are the shadow flicker nuisance, the impact on the local economy in terms of tourism dependent enterprises, the noise and its effect on health and the reduction in the residential property values for properties in close proximity to the turbines. One submission made to the Department is for setback distances to be based on the height of the turbine. If the turbine is between 49 m and 99 m, the minimum distance should be 1 km. Where turbines are higher than 99 m but do not exceed 149 m, the distance should be 1.5 km setback from any dwelling house.
There are many speakers and only one hour remains.
If the height is greater than 149 m, the distance should be more than 2 km. We must look at the submissions and take on board that there must be a strategic setback distance. Where a local authority such as Donegal-----
Please, Senator.
-----introduces a change in the development plan, the national guidelines overrule it and that is wrong. We must listen to local people while getting a balance on the development of wind energy. We should also examine the issue of the sea and whether it can be developed.
I welcome the Minister of State. This is an important debate and I am delighted to contribute to it. Senator Tony Mulcahy is our energy spokesman but he is unavoidably delayed. The Seanad is playing its part in inviting an international conference on wind energy and renewable energy to Dublin Castle on 21 and 22 June. We will have further opportunity to discuss it with various interests, including MEPs from across Europe and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, who is the guest speaker. Today, we will focus on wind energy and planning but we must also concentrate on why we need wind energy and good guidelines and regulations to ensure that what we put in place ensures outcomes and results, such as reducing our dependency on fossil fuel imports, ensuring investment in the network and delivering investor certainty through predictable response of regulatory policies. It must be responsive to the needs of the community and the commercial people out there who will invest money in it on the ground. Energy-related emissions account for almost 80% of the EU greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of energy consumed on the island of Ireland, 90%, is imported. We are highly dependent on imports. In cash terms, that amounts to €7 billion a year or €1 million leaving the shores of Ireland every hour. If we are targeting self-sufficiency, renewable energy and a reduction in greenhouse gas, we must be mindful of making regulations to ensure we can build towards self-sufficiency.
The Government renewable energy strategy launched in May 2012 outlines 36 specific recommendations. In terms of the 2020 renewable energy target, we are at 630 MW. We must achieve the 2020 renewable electricity targets because we do not have a way out. We will pay dearly if we do not achieve them.
Non-achievement will result in compliance costs and the necessity to purchase emissions permits. As legislators, Members must take into consideration all these factors. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has estimated such costs could amount to approximately €100 million to €150 million per annum unless Ireland reaches its targets. Consequently, a balanced view must be taken in respect of wind production, economic development and on jobs for the local community. Most importantly, today's debate is about regulations to ensure that when wind turbines are put in place, the needs of the local community are taken into consideration.
As the Minister of State has outlined, a review is under way of the departmental wind energy development guidelines of 2006. This review must consider that Ireland continues to meet its renewable energy target, while at the same time ensuring wind energy does not have a negative impact on local communities. While I am all in favour of renewable energy and wind farms, I am also conscious of the needs of local communities. The Minister of State should ensure these are met through consultation, local democracy and so on. I acknowledge that in her speech, the Minister of State outlined how she is going about the public consultation guidelines. I have one further question on the timetable for publication of draft guidelines. While I read somewhere they are due in the third or fourth quarter of 2013, the Minister of State might provide a date.
I understand a two-week consultation period took place in February 2013 in respect of energy guidelines. As for the newer issues concerning the new technology and new research on noise pollution, a major debate on this issue is taking place at present in the midlands, County Donegal and right across the west of Ireland where there is potential for high-producing wind energy. In this context, as Ireland's wind capacity on tap is four times as great as that in Germany, we must ensure that we avail of it. However, Members also must ensure the fears of local residents are allayed and must put in place regulations, including statutory regulations. The Minister of State will acknowledge that guidelines are one thing, while statutory guidelines and regulations are another. When mobile telephone masts first came on the scene, I was a member of South Dublin County Council, which had precisely the same debate on regulations and guidelines. Only guidelines were put in place, which were walked over and a horse and carriage driven through them. At times, absolutely no notice was taken of them. Guidelines sometimes are not worth the paper on which they are written. It may not have been fashionable at the time but I had it written into South Dublin County Council's development plan that there should be a mandatory distance between masts. I started with a gap of 300 m but found that such a restriction within an urban area would leave one without a telephone in south Dublin. One must be careful that regulatory guidelines do not actually hinder development with no good cause for the residents. In the case of mobile telephones, South Dublin County Council ended up with a statutory distance of 100 m written into its development plan. Consequently, limits should be considered in a local context because a wind turbine situated in one area might not have the same noise level effect as one situated in another.
The experts are out there and the Minister of State awaits the report on the subject. The current information deficit gives rise to unnecessary concern among some communities, as well as huge concerns among other communities. People do not wish to wake up one morning to find a mast at their back door. They wish to be assured that when buying a house in location A, B or C, the regulations or whatever is put in place cannot be interpreted by a planner with a different methodology.
The Senator must conclude.
I congratulate Senator Kelly on introducing a Bill to the Seanad. It is what the Seanad can be and is used for and he has used it well.
I echo Senator Keane's sentiments in favour of Senators Kelly and Whelan for their interest in this area. As always, I welcome to the House the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. I share the environmental concerns that have moved the Senators to introduce the Bill and they undoubtedly will deal with them. However, it raises concerns that windmills are noisy and they disturb neighbourhoods. It is a matter of opinion as to whether they are visually intrusive in the countryside - it is my personal view that they are.
However, I wish to raise the economics of this matter with the Minister of State. I hope the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, will also take up this issue. The OECD review of the Irish economy called for a "discontinuation of supports for offshore, wave and tidal energy". Environmentalists have been very successful in putting forward the view that this is all free. However, this is not the case, as it is highly expensive energy. Moreover, it adds to the costs of energy in Ireland. The cost in 2011 of the public service obligation, PSO, scheme to support high-cost energy was €157 million, of which €43 million was for renewables. While I might have some view that it is bad if environmental concerns are raised by Senator Whelan and his colleagues, it is a matter of some concern that those who are doing it, thereby making the cost of electricity in Ireland dearer, are subsidised.
In the international comparisons I have considered, Denmark, which is held as the great centre of the wind industry, invariably has the most expensive electricity. Is this related to the amount of wind energy Denmark is using? It costs €0.29 per kilowatt-hour there, as opposed to Ireland's rate of €0.21 per kilowatt-hour and importantly, the equivalent figure of €0.16 per kilowatt-hour in the United Kingdom. How are we supposed to make electricity here with wind and export it to the United Kingdom, when that country already appears to have electricity prices that are approximately one fifth lower than Ireland's? Why are subsidies required to do it? In other words, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte or the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, should at some time ensure Members actually get the numbers on what this costs. One should not simply make this fashionable, environmental and so on. If it is damaging the economy, that is serious.
To put it another way, if wind energy is so good, why is the sector always seeking subsidies, in addition to annoying Senators in their neighbourhoods? What price of alternative fuels should we build into the model? Documents were circulated to Members of the Oireachtas by the Shannon LNG proposal, which, as Members are aware, is to import liquefied natural gas to the mouth of the Shannon. The group states that compared with a United Kingdom price of $9.17, they can import gas from the United States at $2.59. While one wishes to prevent imports - I appreciate Senator Keane's point in this regard - perhaps some imports are actually better value than are the windmill-based projects. There is a revival under way in the economy of the United States at present based on its ability through fracking to become energy-independent. I acknowledge fracking has environmental aspects and our colleague, Senator Mooney, is concerned about its impact in County Leitrim, as are others in respect of County Fermanagh. However, the United States has become independent by using sources of energy such as fracking and gas. What if this then becomes the shadow price against which Ireland should evaluate wind and tidal projects? The OECD tells us we should phase out the subsidies under the renewable energy feed-in tariff, REFIT, which is a kind of back-door subsidy to the windmill industry. While the subsidy is relatively small, the OECD recommends it should be phased out over a period. What will the market look like then? In addition, it points out that if one opts for high wind energy targets, another problem arises in the cost of connecting it to the grid, as the latter goes through people's farms and so on. An ESRI estimate indicates it could add up to 9.8% to an already high cost of electricity in Ireland. This is from the Forfás Review of Energy Competitiveness Issues and Priorities for Enterprise dated December 2011. It also states the only way in which Ireland is remaining competitive is through a rebate scheme for large users of electricity and this is due to be phased out this year. Consequently, why would we wish to add to our electricity bills? Why should we seek the imposition of these PSO levies? Why did the OECD, to say the least, cast a bucket of cold water over some of the renewables in the circumstances in which Ireland finds itself?
Consequently, I would like the economics underlying this issue investigated much more thoroughly. All Members have heard the advocates of wind, waves and so on but my question is whether it stands up in an economy in which, as Members learned yesterday, the impact of the recession has been borne overwhelmingly by people under the age of 45. We are trying to get the country back on its feet after the disasters between 2008 and 2010. Is this a luxury, as has been shown in Denmark, we cannot afford? Should Ireland not be looking at the low-cost countries producing electricity, which are the United Kingdom and France, as that is what Ireland needs to be internationally competitive?
In addition to the environmental aspects, there is a lack of economic expertise in the Department. There are many advocates and engineers who will build everything if we give them grants to do so but it is not necessarily in the wider national interest. The consumer interest, in addition to the environmental interest, may be overlooked.
I welcome the Minister of State to discuss this very important issue on which we have had interaction on a couple of occasions. I have been beating my drum for the past 14 months since the introduction of my Wind Turbines Bill 2012, which was very reasonable. There was a similar set of circumstances in the United Kingdom when I introduced my Bill although the setback distances in the United Kingdom were much greater than those I was proposing. My Bill was endorsed by many county councils from around the country. When the Bill went as far as Donegal County Council, the county manager asked that the 500 m guideline already in place be lifted so turbines could be put at every crossroads in the county. Since the introduction of my Bill, it seems there has been a race to the finish line. Wind energy developers are trying to get planning permission applications in as quickly as possible in case there is any change with regard to the guidelines. The Minister of State, who was in the House last week when the findings of the European Court of Justice were raised, will know that all the planning permissions granted between 1999 and 2012 were deemed illegal because they did not comply with an EU directive. As a result of the court ruling, which I put on the record of the House last week, the Government, local authorities and wind energy sector will be open to being sued unless the issue is dealt with. I outlined how it could be dealt with, that is, by a revocation of some of the planning permissions by the county councils and also by the withdrawal of the REFIT funding available to the wind energy sector.
To learn the effects of wind turbines on people, all one needs to do is talk to Dorothy and Michael Keane in Roscommon who lived 750 m from wind turbines and had to leave their house. I passed by the turbines last week and on a close-by road. The turbines are 100 m high and it is scary to look at them. They are monstrous, yet they are only 100 m high. When the guidelines were introduced in 2006, they were based on turbines that were 54 m high, approximately half of 100 m. The turbines being erected at present all around the country are as high as 185 m, which is three and a half times the height of the original turbines, yet the specified set-back distance of 500 m is the same for all. This guideline is being breached right across the country.
Wind energy policy was initiated by the last Government. We are just playing along with it. As Senator Barrett quite rightly pointed out, we need to examine the economics of wind energy. Over the past 14 months, I have stuck to the core issues, namely, planning and the distance turbines should be from people's homes. The other broad debate concerns what Senator Barrett alluded to. It appears we are losing money. We will not have cheaper electricity, but dearer electricity. By the time we are ready to export electricity to the United Kingdom, it could be so dear it will not take it from us. We could be landed with it and will have lost a lot of money.
What cost-benefit analysis has been done to date by people who know the business? With the greatest of respect to civil servants, it is the Civil Service that was in place in 2006 that is still examining this issue.
I am dealing with people from every part of the country, including Mr. Damien McCallig in Donegal, who is quite rightly asking questions about a wind turbine that fell down in Glenties on 25 March. Mr. McCallig is not receiving answers from anybody on how it happened.
It is really frustrating that we are still talking about this 14 months on. As Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill quite rightly pointed out, all the public representatives are representing the people right across the country who are affected by wind turbines. We and they are in the majority but the civil servants' views are the views that are being listened to.
In Roscommon, I deal with Mr. Mike de Jong and Mr. Ted Kelly, two very intelligent people. I also deal with Mr. Ray Burn in Wexford, a very intelligent and well-read person. These men know what they are talking about. I deal with Mr. Peter Crossan in Donegal and Ms Yvonne Cronin in Galway. They all know what they are talking about but we are not listening to them. We are listening to a group of civil servants for whom it is a case of business as usual.
With regard to the excuses we are listening to the whole time, such as the excuse that there are targets to be reached, we set a target in 2006 that 40% of our energy must be green energy in 2020. On what scientific basis did we arrive at a figure of 40%? Why was it not 80% or 20%? When we came up with the figure, did we consider what it would mean infrastructurally? Will it mean that we must have turbines at every crossroads, with the whole country crisscrossed by pylons, destroying absolutely our beautiful landscape? A survey carried out in Donegal recently indicated the people are saying that if the county were to be destroyed by wind turbines, it would have a serious effect on tourism.
I acknowledge that the economics of wind energy is not the remit of the Minister of State but that of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I plead with her, however, to listen to the views of all the Senators who are to speak today on how wind turbines and wind farm developments are really affecting those people who must live beside them.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I agree with most of what has been said thus far. The development of the wind energy strategy in Ireland has been an absolute shambles. I place a lot of the blame on previous Administrations. I will try to stick to the planning elements. I was at a meeting in Moycullen in Galway on 19 February. There are eight wind farms planned for that area, with 103 turbines within an 8 km radius. Twenty-nine of those are to be within 4 miles of Moycullen village. The implication is that there will be 1,176 trucks driving through that small village. There does not appear to be much of a traffic management plan in place. Each of the turbines requires 80 truckloads of concrete. Therefore, in the case of one of the farms, 800 truckloads of concrete will be required. The impact on the local community is massive. A large segment of the local community was present at the meeting. They claimed there was no meaningful public consultation on these developments whatsoever.
There is a lack of guidelines at national level and a lack of joined-up thinking between the various Departments that are dealing with various elements of the matter. This is part of the problem.
There is a very interesting case before the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions that relates to Lettergunnet-Derrycrih windfarm. It was brought by Ms Yvonne Cronin and cites that there are six instances of contravention of the county development plan due to the omission of documents. These include the community noise assessment, community impact assessment, habitats directive assessment, peatland conservation management plan, land and site susceptibility and risk management documentation and an environmental impact assessment, the last of which was not prepared. The case never received a hearing because of a technicality. The petitioners in question tried to have the planning permission revoked under section 44 of the planning legislation but, thus far, Galway County Council has not availed of the opportunity to do so.
There is very much a sense that the developers and executives in the county councils are working hand in hand on this issue. This raises questions as to a conflict of interest in councils as they are due to benefit greatly from the erection of wind turbines across the county because of the moneys they will receive. Therefore, one could argue it would be in the interest of the executives in the county council to put up as many wind turbines as possible. From having talked to people in communities, I know they feel they have been ridden over roughshod or that there has been a sleight of hand regarding consultation processes, site notices, etc.
Considerable issues arise over developments that are going ahead and the way planning issues are being policed even when planning permission has been granted. I have been told of instances in which blasting happens without people being consulted. I have been told about considerable traffic congestion, insufficient traffic-management plans, traffic-management plans that were not communicated to local communities and noise from some of the sites.
I would like the Minister of State's opinion on the six documents I listed.
Is the Department happy that all documents such as noise assessments, community impact statements, habitats directive assessments, HDAs, and so forth are in place for every development? If not, the relevant developments should be reviewed.
As regards the use of section 44 of the planning Act, does the Minister of State believe councils should use it? There is also a huge disparity among county councils in the way the guidelines are implemented. Some will state one can locate a wind farm in a special area of conservation, SAC, while others will state one cannot. What happens in these cases is that developers are given planning permission under wind energy strategies to develop wind farms very close to houses. That is the reason many of them are totally unacceptable.
I am also anxious to hear the Minister of State's views on the concept that a public servant in a county council, for example, could be a director of EirGrid. EirGrid is the organisation that grants the connections to the network. There is a potential conflict of interest in terms of the county councils making a huge gain from where these connections might be put in place. Wind energy is a natural resource. This country made huge mistakes in the way it licensed oil and gas exploration. I hope we do not take the same route in the way we develop wind energy projects, whereby it is totally developer-led and there is very little gain for local communities. I agree with other Senators who have said there should be a moratorium on developments until we review the developments in place. We must move on Senator John Kelly's Wind Turbines Bill 2012. Although it would not go far enough, it would at least be a first step. We also must examine the European Court of Justice ruling which the Senator mentioned and consider making the provisions illegal because of the potential cost to the State.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Like Senator Sean D. Barrett, I will focus on the economic climate. I appreciate it is not within the Minister of State's remit, but we are discussing wind energy.
The cost of energy has come down and we must keep it down. Competitiveness is a serious issue for us, if we are to continue to attract foreign direct investment. Energy policy is political and geopolitical. Things change and the types and sources of power and energy available can change. Senator Sean D. Barrett made a point I intended to make about the United States, where fracking is a new energy source. As a result, the cost of energy has decreased and the United States is becoming more independent in its energy production. Whether that is good or bad is another debate.
The targets we have are EU-wide targets. We have committed to these targets, including having 40% of our electricity produced from renewables by 2020. They are binding targets and to be implemented on a worldwide basis to ensure a reduction in emissions. Nonetheless, there must be a balance when focusing on the cost of energy. After 2020 further commitments will be made. We do not know what they will be, but, as Senator Cáit Keane said, it is important that people involved in the industry have certainty as we move forward.
I am glad that we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom to explore the potential of exporting electricity from this island or importing it. However, many issues must be considered. The cost of transmitting electricity is expensive. Wind energy is free, but it is expensive to provide it at the point of use. Most of the wind energy resource is along the west coast, but the cost of transmission is extremely expensive. If we are to build interconnectors, will there be a fall-back on the consumer or those using the energy supplied? That must not be the case. We must also consider the fact that in our engagement with the United Kingdom Scotland has the potential to produce an enormous amount of wind energy and that it will probably be cheaper to import energy supplies from there through Great Britain than across the Irish Sea. These considerations must be taken into account.
The OECD recommends that all incentives for wind energy production be lifted. Taking that route would produce a level playing field. There are many questions surrounding the economics of wind energy projects and they must be answered. The task the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, is undertaking, of exploring the potential of exporting renewable energy to and engaging with the United Kingdom, will greatly focus minds on the financial benefits, or lack thereof, of wind energy production.
I am sure we will debate this subject again. Perhaps we will receive answers then and there will be a focus on the economics of the issue.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and thank her for agreeing to this debate which was sought only a short time ago by the Seanad. She is receptive to our views and not dismissive of our position on the issue. We are not looking for anything more than a little balance to be brought to the policy on wind energy production.
I am pleased and heartened that the Minister of State mentioned the community concern in her statement. The Seanad has taken an early lead on this issue, as has been recognised. Senator John Kelly brought forward a Bill at an early juncture to try to establish a balance in the debate. Neither he nor I is against renewable energy or wind energy production which we consider has a role to play in the economic redevelopment of the country. However, I am certain that we will be sleepwalking into another planning fiasco, another bubble and economic fiasco if we embrace what is on the table without questioning and amending it - a total of 2,500 giant turbines in the midlands, as a result of which everybody will walk away as a millionaire and have a swimming pool and there will be 70,000 jobs. That was the proposition put to us as recently as a few months ago by the wind energy developers. Now, because some of us have raised legitimate concerns on behalf of the communities and families in these areas, we are categorised as being anti-development, anti-wind energy and, in my case, anti-farmer. I reject this as I live in a rural part of the country and all of my neighbours are farmers. As my colleagues in the House who come from farming backgrounds know, I am very conscious of the needs of farming and rural communities. We should stick to the issues and policy matters involved in the debate rather than personalising the issue.
The guidelines are at the heart of this discussion. It is not Senator John Kelly or other colleagues in the House who are agitating or generating obstructive public debate on this issue. Go to Clonbullogue, Ballyroan, Vicarstown or Rosenallis in the heart of the Slieve Bloom mountains, while tomorrow night communities from The Swan and Wolfhill are meeting in Luggacurran. It is an organic response from communities which is being organised by women who are concerned that there will be turbines in their backyards. They are concerned about the welfare and well-being of their families and it is a genuine concern. I have a simple question for the wind energy developers. Would they agree to have one or up to five of these turbines in their own backyard? That is essentially what is being proposed. If they cannot give an honest answer to that question, why would they impose it on their neighbours? That is at the heart of the planning process. As the Minister of State said, the scale of these turbines is not like anything we have seen previously.
The reason there should be a moratorium is that we are giving planning permission, the planning process is in train without proper regulation and there are no proper ground rules in place. The wind energy developers are travelling through counties Laois, Offaly and Westmeath in the evening and at night with their cheque books. They are signing up with options for everybody in an area, knowing that they do not intend to place turbines on that land or in these areas. As they are not the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, why would they sign a contract for €3,000? They are doing so in areas that have not been designated for the development of wind farms.
They are showing no regard for planning provisions or county development plans.
I emphasise that this is not merely a personal view or position. The economist, Mr. Colm McCarthy, has pointed out that we are building the next bubble and will require a NAMA for wind farms at some future date. Economists at the ESRI, meanwhile, have described the plan as currently constituted as unworkable. The insight offered by these independent persons and bodies should be embedded in the guidelines, and those guidelines must be statutorily binding and consistently applied throughout the country.
Everybody accepts that alternative and renewable energy projects are vital for this country's future. The Bill brought forward by Senator John Kelly in this regard has great merit and deserves serious consideration by the Government. The major issue, however, is location. In Germany, for example, turbines are located on national primary routes, at considerable distance from residential areas. Any of us could sit down and quickly identify locations in this country which would be suitable for wind turbines and which, crucially, would not impact on residences, which is the primary objective. At the very least, we must have some type of arrangement whereby in cases where it is deemed to be in the national interest, it would be in order for an arrangement to be made between the Government, developers and landowners. The ESB has always followed certain rules and guidelines in regard to the erection of electricity lines, many of which are lain along national primary routes.
As far as smaller units are concerned, it is essential that communities have the capacity to develop small wind turbines that would supply energy for a number of houses in an area. Again, however, guidelines should apply in terms of required distances from dwellings. The case of the family outside of Roscommon to which Senator Kelly and others referred is very upsetting. These people settled in that location for the peace and tranquillity it offered, but now find themselves living beside a wind turbine. It is not that the noise is excessive but rather that it is constant, which is very distressing for them. We must consider all the options. The offshore option, for instance, is very attractive albeit more expensive. There are several unoccupied islands off our shores which might offer suitable locations for development.
We all accept that our potential to harness alternative energy sources must be explored. There is a market abroad for what we can produce and development of this area will allow us to reduce our oil imports. These are very practical benefits but, as I said, we must explore all our options and not just in the case of wind energy. There are opportunities for harnessing small rivers, for example. In Athleague in County Roscommon, for instance, the old mill on the River Suck could be mobilised for water turbines. Yet no action is being taken in this regard. There is, in fact, little evidence of an innovative approach by the State in the provision of alternative energy. There should, as a matter of priority, be enhanced support for small enterprises to provide turbines, whether for wind or water energy. There is also potential to facilitate the production of the turbines themselves in this State. As I understand it, most of the equipment is currently imported from China.
In short, there is a balance to be struck in all of this. Senator Kelly's Bill, with amendments, should be reconsidered by the Government. It would offer some certainty to families who are very concerned by the location of these turbines.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House for this interesting debate. Security of energy supply is vital for the economy and for society. That supply must be continuous and must meet the everyday needs of homes and businesses. Ireland's energy network compares favourably with those of our European counterparts and maintaining that network must be a priority if we are to continue to attract foreign direct investment.
Given that fossil fuel resources are finite, the capacity to establish a stable and robust supply of energy from alternative and renewable sources is imperative. The renewable energy network must be capable of meeting the needs of the economy and society now and into the future. Ireland is in an enviable position in this regard in possessing massive potential for wind energy, particularly along the western coastline. By harnessing this resource, we can ensure a clean and effective energy supply which will ultimately reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels. Moreover, by developing and investing in these technologies we will be meeting our obligations under the renewable energy directive, which requires Ireland to increase its take from renewable energies by 40% by 2020. Reducing our dependence on imported fuels, meanwhile, has the additional benefit of significantly reducing our atmospheric CO2 levels.
There is an additional potential benefit for Ireland in investing in wind technology, namely, not only to supply domestic demand but to exceed it and thus offer opportunities for export. In this regard, I welcome the memorandum of understanding that was recently agreed by the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, and his British counterpart establishing a commitment between Ireland and the United Kingdom to work closely in harnessing the economic benefits from a mutual trade in renewable energy. The memorandum is a first step in establishing a successful export market for renewable energy which will reap benefits for the State in terms of employment growth and export earnings from the domestic market. The United Kingdom is facing a potential energy shortage by 2015, which presents an opportunity for Ireland. I also welcomed the Minister's announcement in April of an extension to the REFIT 2 scheme, which gives investors until 2017 to assist in achieving renewable energy targets. This creates a positive incentive for investors in the renewable energy sector and will further assist in the achievement of our green energy targets, particularly in the wind energy sector.
I agree that it is important to consider the concerns of local communities when establishing new technologies. Above all, the highest international standards of health and safety, environment and visual impact must be adhered to at all times. In this regard, Government policy includes an imperative for State companies and individuals to engage early and with transparency with local communities and stakeholders in all energy projects. In addition, State companies are mandated to plan developments in a safe and effective manner and to mitigate, as far as possible, the impact on the human environment and landscape.
The wind energy guidelines, which offer advice to planning authorities on a framework for wind energy projects, are under review. I welcome this progress. Much of the technology involved in delivering wind and renewable energy is very new. As that technology continues to evolve and improve, so too should the guidelines in respect of the planning process. There is a great deal of work to be done in this area and a balance must be found in terms of minimising the impact on local communities and the environment. The potential of alternative energy to reduce our over-reliance on a finite import resource is substantial. That will be an important consideration in devising an energy policy that is capable of meeting the demands of our economy and society into the future. There is much to be gained from exploring the opportunities that exist in this area. I listened carefully to Senator John Kelly when he spoke about the problems arising from the location of wind turbines on lowlands or in close proximity to buildings. Along the western seaboard, however, there is ample opportunity to build the technology at a suitable distance from residences.
I welcome the Minister of State. This is a subject that causes raised eyebrows throughout the country, no more so than in Donegal where, from my experience as a councillor over the years, there is something of a negative view of the development of wind energy.
There seemed to be an attitude in the east of Donegal, although it was not such an issue for the west of the county because we had the tourism factor there. Everyone recognises the vast potential for wind energy in a county like Donegal. However, the situation is similar to that concerning the mobile phone masts. The biggest issue in that regard was that communities were not consulted and, therefore, they felt that something was going on in the background, whether between the council and developers or between certain individuals who had inside knowledge. While this was not correct much of the time, it was a factor.
In one case, three years ago, a mobile phone mast was being erected near a school in Ramelton and the community was totally opposed to it. To be fair, the company involved met and sat down with local people, and agreed to look for another site outside the town. As a result, the issue of the mobile phone mast died overnight. Legally, the company could have pushed the mast on the area, and it had all the background information to allay health fears, but it felt the community had to be consulted as they were the people who would have to live there for the rest of their days.
There is a psychological issue in having a turbine close by and visible in an area where people expect to see just hills or mountains. Even if there is no health evidence, it is like the situation where a decommissioned ESB pole is hanging over a house, in that the fact it is there causes a difficulty. The county councils and companies must consider this issue.
I urge that Senator Kelly’s Bill be pushed forward by the Government sooner rather than later. This all comes down to local communities getting a say and ensuring that fears are allayed. There are parts of Donegal where no one is living for miles, and there may be a case for turbines to be located in such areas. I am a supporter of alternative energy and believe everybody has a positive view of it. However, this should not be to the detriment of the tourism industry and local communities. I know 99.9% of a local community will work with those who want to develop wind turbines or mobile phone masts. While I do not know how county councils are being directed at this stage, Senator Kelly's Bill is a good template the councils could use. Nonetheless, the local people are as important as the planning office. My experience is that, at times, some planners have a different attitude from other planners, and difficulties have arisen where a planner was determined to push ahead with a project against the wishes of the community. This is where the whole thing falls down. We should be cautious with all our legislation.
I support Senator Kelly and his colleagues. In my own area, there are plans for six turbine masts at Rockmarshall, a very scenic area of north Louth. These masts would be higher than the Spire in O’Connell Street and twice the height of Liberty Hall, and to have them in a scenic area where local people cannot build houses for themselves is beyond comprehension.
I want to focus on a sustainable energy community, Dundalk 2020, that was established some years ago by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. This is a community in which everyone works together to be more efficient in the use of energy and it is a major team effort. The development of a sustainable energy community requires an holistic approach, with the public sector, private sector and homeowners working together to reduce energy costs and their own energy bills. The sustainable energy community in Dundalk is playing its part in achieving our national energy targets for 2020, having been established by the SEAI in conjunction with Louth County Council, other local authorities and other local and national partners. Those bodies must be applauded for their vision and commitment to reducing energy costs and carbon emissions. I believe SEAI, together with other local authorities, hopes to establish other sustainable energy communities similar to that at Dundalk.
Dundalk 2020 has successfully established a number of projects which save approximately 5,000 tonnes of CO2 gas emissions being emitted into the atmosphere annually, which is a major success. The Dundalk zone is a 4 sq. km area where 2,500 people live, 3,000 people work and 5,800 people are in full-time education. The Louth local authorities were the first bodies to implement a structured energy management system and they established a dedicated team that has in the past eight years saved €500,000 for Louth County Council. Dundalk Institute of Technology, DKIT, has installed an 850 KW wind turbine on its campus as well as a 125 KW storage battery to store energy, and I understand this is contributing to a reduction in the energy costs of the college campus. In addition, 160 residents in the Ard Easmuinn estate in Dundalk, working together to conserve energy, have saved themselves in excess of €300,000 per annum. These examples of what has been achieved in Dundalk should be emulated in all local authority areas throughout the country, thereby saving energy and costs and, importantly, saving on emissions of CO2 to our atmosphere.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I support all that has been said in the debate on common sense prevailing in regard to the provision of wind farms throughout the country. However, I would ask what is the first concern for Government. In my opinion, it is the welfare of the communities across rural Ireland. Secondary to that should be the provision of energy through wind farms.
I have a long history of dealing with wind energy developers. Well over ten years ago in south Tipperary, in a small place called Ahenny on the fringes of Carrick-on-Suir and on the border of Tipperary and Kilkenny, a wind energy development company came visiting. It tried to destroy that area with a wind farm. I and other people in the area fought it on the basis of the destruction of the community and of the scenic and historical value of the Ahenny high crosses which were located there. We won that battle and the company went away. However, it has divided the community up to this day. There were people in the community who were promised money, who were called on late at night and who were given post-signed cheques. However, they never got to draw down those cheques and, to this day, they do not speak to me. That is what this type of thing does to communities in this country, and we need to be aware of it.
At the moment, the same thing is happening again. People have been visited across Laois and other areas and they have been promised money before any public consultation has taken place. A public consultation is supposed to consult with communities, developers, the State and the local authority to see that what is being implemented is in the best interest of the community and also of the economics of the country.
That is not happening. The public consultation process in this country is a joke, not only in respect of wind energy but in respect of every other service. I have attended meetings where hundreds of people congregate in small halls in rural Ireland. The developers are there wearing their suits giving their hand-outs to the people. There is no discussion or independent analysis of what is happening and no independent body set up or provided to examine what exactly happens as a result of the discussions. Then we go away and grant planning permission.
Local authorities bring forward county development plans on a six-year rolling basis. There is now a requirement within those county development plans to deal with wind energy. Developers are riding over those plans, ignoring them in their rush to put up wind farms across the country. I was a councillor for 23 years, as were many other people here. If we go to meetings with concerned citizens about issues such as wind energy and tell them that as councillors we have no power whatsoever because the county development plans will be overridden by guidelines, what is the purpose of local authorities? The guidelines that Senator Kelly is bringing forward need to be brought forward as statutory powers implemented in each county development plan. This needs to happen quickly. We do not want the opportunity to develop an energy source in this country because it will end up in the Supreme Court and will drag on for years on end. That is what will happen. I ask the Minister of State to give the lead in this and take action on the planning process. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will deal with the economics and the energy benefit. I know that the Minister of State will deal with this and I look forward to her coming forward on this matter.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I acknowledge the efforts of the wind industry in helping to reduce our expenditure on fossil fuels over recent years but I have a serious problem with the Government policy which states:
We will ensure that future wind farms are built in locations where wind regime is best and that they are built in large numbers or in clusters to reduce the cost of connection to the grid under new plan led Gate 4 process as opposed to the existing developer led system.
Unfortunately there are citizens throughout the State and in my county, Clare, in Kilmarry and the midlands who are terrified at the prospect of 500 ft and 600 ft turbines being built outside their doors. There is no distance restriction. I have seen the 200 ft turbines and I would not like to see the 600 ft ones. Telling somebody that this will be built half a kilometre from his or her door does not take citizens into consideration. We should be concerned about them above all. I am not altogether sure of the economic justification for all these turbines and the electricity they will create. None of the turbines is made here. There will be money to be made out of the concrete or the few trucks that will drive down the road for a couple of years to put them in place, but what jobs will come after that?
Hear, hear.
The people who will maintain the turbines will be brought in from Denmark and Germany. They are not Irish. There will be no jobs. Will we get cheaper electricity for our industry or households? What is the actual economic benefit to the Exchequer? What money will the State, Ireland Inc., get by selling all this electricity to the UK, if the UK takes it, as Senator Clune said? I am not sure that will happen.
There is a serious problem in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources because the Green Party’s legacy from the last Government is still in place. I mean no disrespect to Fianna Fáil. The other crew was the problem. That legacy exists and it is wind, wind and more wind. There are several biomass projects in the country, one of which I am promoting, a wood-burning industry that will create 5,000 farm incomes and provide real jobs in the construction and running of the plant and provide a renewable resource in the growing of timber to continue it. That is a closed economy in the locality. Domestic waste to energy projects, sewage waste to energy projects would also provide real jobs and income. They would provide a small amount of electricity to our grid, and locally they will provide income in closed economies. There is an absolute resistance within the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and within CER to anything other than wind. I would like the Minister of State to come back to me and say this is worth €10 billion over the next ten years to the country, this is where we will get it and these are the 10,000 or 15,000 jobs that will be created.
I have no problem with the farmer who is getting an income from this but I do not see why his or her neighbour should be discommoded without getting a shilling. If we are going to be fair to communities we must be fair to everybody in the community if they are going to be landed with these turbines in some way shape or form. If they must be discommoded there must be a compensation package to allow that to happen. I fully understand that not everyone will want to leave his or her own community. A great deal of consideration must be given to this policy before we drive ahead and put up all these turbines. Some day ten years from now the UK may turn the tap off and say it no longer wants our electricity because it has come up with another resource.
I thank all the Senators who participated in the debate. There was a high level of engagement, concern and knowledge. A couple of common themes emerged, the main one being the importance of the community, of listening to what the community has to say and of real consultation. That is an absolute priority for me too. As I said in my opening statement, we received 550 submissions when we had the initial consultation. We will have a further statutory consultation later in the year. I encourage people to give their views to the Department so that they will be in the mix. I am sure the Senators will do likewise. I too have received e-mails from people and Senator Whelan is right to say that women are leading in this respect. People are expressing real and genuine concern. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that we take those concerns on board.
This is about balance because we must also consider the statutory obligations and commitments that we have entered into and the importance of renewable energy in respect of climate change, etc., nationally and internationally. We must take those obligations seriously too. Everybody who contributed to the debate acknowledged that. I think I have outlined the process fairly clearly already. We will now read the submissions we have received and take them into consideration for draft guidelines which will be put out for public consultation for a period of between six weeks and two months. The final guidelines will be developed from that process.
Some of the matters raised were strictly speaking for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, and for the Government as a whole. Senators Barrett, Clune and Mulcahy raised the broader issues of value for money and the benefit to the country. I have no doubt that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is working on those areas. It has also commissioned a study from Sustainable Energy Ireland which will feed into our process. That is a somewhat limited study. It does not cover the broad issues that the Senators raised. There are much broader issues that must be addressed.
A number of Senators highlighted the issue of consistency in the application and interpretation of plans. I have strong views in this regard and I have been in touch with the local authorities with regard to what we call the hierarchy of plans, in other words, that other plans and guidelines should be taken into account in the drafting of development plans. Some local authorities are better than others with regard to enforcement and compliance with the various statutory guidelines and plans. This is an important issue.
I refer to the significant role of An Bord Pleanála. The right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála is available to be used by the public. Senator Kelly and others are of the view that distances should be specified in legislation. However, technology is changing. Senator Mulcahy referred to the very large turbines that may or may not be coming down the line. A number of factors relate to the technology of how to deal with the effect of noise on those living and working near the proposed developments. It is reasonable to wait for the expert and peer review. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte has established a review of practices in other countries, such as Scotland, which will inform any decision. We need to inform ourselves about a very rapidly changing situation. The original guidelines were drawn up when turbines were much lower in height than the proposed turbines.
On the suggestion that there should be a distance of 1,000 m between the turbines and other buildings, NUI Maynooth has carried out studies which show that a 1 km setback would mean only 9.4% of the country would be available for consideration for wind turbines. Higher levels of setback for higher turbines would mean that even less of the country would be available. The Department is considering that data from NUI Maynooth. Many factors need to be taken into account but I accept that the view of the community must be to the fore and it may not have been taken into consideration heretofore. I assure the House that from my perspective, this view will be taken into consideration. As public representatives we must ensure that the views of local people are a central part of the consideration, while also ensuring that binding targets are achieved. We will need to exploit the opportunities for the country presented by our natural advantage in a number of renewable technologies and energy.
I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I have tried to respond as directly as I can to the points raised but I am available to hear other views. I have outlined the timeframe for the process and the House will be informed of progress. When the draft guidelines are issued I expect to hear very strong views expressed by those Senators who hold them.
I propose the suspension of the sitting until 3 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.