Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a doubt about the memorandum of understanding signed last year with the Minister's counterpart in the United Kingdom and I am interested to hear what is happening in that regard. It would be relevant to any wind farm development proposed, or, at the very least, the big ones. Is there a cost issue at stake? We hear from some people that the cost has been calculated at the point of generation as opposed to the end point of delivery and that there is a sizeable difference between the two which makes it uneconomic when one adds in the transmission network which would have to be developed.

Siemens has announced a pylon scheme development in Hull which is likely to rule out any prospect of it being replicated here. Is this a factor in the number of jobs that might transpire here? People will be involved in various elements.

A key issue for me concerns our approach to the Aarhus Convention and I have made a submission in this regard. Companies such as Greenwire signed up landowners without taking any real note of the concerns of neighbours. I do not see communities being put at the heart of this. It is a box-ticking exercise with regard to the Aarhus Convention. People will no longer be told this is good for them and that it is required for job creation; they will make up their own minds on whether they think it is a good proposal.

I accept there is misinformation and that very often the presumption is, if something is proposed, it will happen, even though it must go through a planning process which it may well not survive. However, the planning process seems to be deficient such as with regard to the 2006 planning guidelines. What arrangements will the Minister have with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government for upgrading these guidelines? This is a matter which will come before the committee.

If this development is seen as being of strategic importance, it will be done through An Bord Pleanála; it will not go through local authorities. The input of citizens will, therefore, be limited and I do not believe people will accept this. They will want to have their say and be included. They want the Aarhus Convention to mean something and it should be central to anything we do. Unless we have a proper structure and do not just have a box-ticking exercise with regard to the convention there will be a strong negative reaction.

The Scottish approach is interesting, whereby there is a state-funded initiative and case studies have been undertaken. This involves 294 projects at community level involving a small number of wind turbines. They are not large industrial level projects. They include projects involving schools and football clubs and community ownership models. We do not seem to be going down this route and there is no comparable organisation to facilitate this type of development, which would be far more likely to gain support. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to state on this.

The NESC report commissioned by the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, identified a large export opportunity, but it had to do with wave and offshore wind energy production. We all accept that our unique dispersed population pattern does not lend itself to providing us with an enormous number of usable onshore wind energy sites. We are not putting ourselves at the forefront of wave and offshore wind energy technology when one considers what happened to Wavebob, an issue I have raised many times through questions. People who had gained expertise were dispersed to other jurisdictions, including Scotland. This means that we are following, rather than leading, in its development. If we are not at the forefront of frontier development in this regard, will we miss a big opportunity?

I attended a useful presentation on biomass. I accept that it was one party putting forward its side, but interesting comparisons were made with a successful development in the United Kingdom. The Minister mentioned Bord na Móna lands earmarked for turbines. They could equally be used as a resource to generate biomass. It is not good quality land that could be used for food production.