Ms Nora Fagan:

I thank Deputies James Bannon and Robert Troy.

A very important and relevant matter is the Aarhus Convention. For those unfamiliar with the convention, it originated in Denmark in 1998 to ensure access to information and public participation in decision-making in environmental matters for those individuals and communities affected. Unfortunately, it was not brought into effect in this country until late 2012. One of the criticisms of the 2006 guidelines is that they do not incorporate the consultation required under the convention. To go from the European example of Denmark to the local example of what is happening in County Westmeath, if the guidelines had been complied with, I would not have had another farmer standing in my kitchen yesterday evening. He had been told that a turbine of approximately 75 m was to be put on his residential farm and was extremely distressed to discover through information in the newspapers that, in fact, it would be a turbine of 185 m. This shows how European legislation must impact on the guidelines and the effect on local communities. That answers one question from Deputy James Bannon on how farmers have been conned, as he said himself.

Deputy Robert Troy asked how farmers were signing up to avail of these options. They are being advised on their doorsteps that over a period of 30 years they can expect to gain an income in the region of over €1 million if they choose to pledge 1 ha of land to a wind farm company. However, the actual options and the leases they sign up to are grossly different from these representations. Unfortunately, that is how so many of these options have been signed up to. Farmers and rural communities are hard-pressed; margins are much tighter and they see this as perhaps the means to educate their children to third level or whatever it may be.

My first criticism of the guidelines is that they do not incorporate the requirements under the Aarhus Convention. Other criticisms are that they do not provide for wind turbine farms of differing height, scale and output thresholds. They are rather like a blunt hammer in that they do not deal with the different megawatt capacities or the scale of wind farms, nor do they make any distinction between large-scale commercial operations such as the ones coming to the midlands and community-led initiatives. They do not deal with the issue of landscape sensitivity. For example, to impose - which is how people in the midlands perceive it - 2,500 turbines with an average height of over 150 m is totally disproportionate given the landscape sensitivity of these counties.

Unfortunately, the guidelines do not deal with such issues. Another guideline that is not dealt with relates to our national monuments. Everybody is familiar with a recent profile showing a small round tower relative to the enormous size of one of the wind turbines. There will be an impact on tourism and the perception of Ireland and particularly the midlands will be grossly distorted. We would be going from a rural landscape to what is perceived to be an industrial landscape. One of the other members of the committee will deal with the impact on tourism. Have I answered all of the queries?