James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad that the Government will not oppose this Bill on Second Stage. This is a common-sense approach. I am glad to see that politics has changed under the Government as compared with the previous regime which opposed every good idea from the Opposition.

It is welcome that proposals for giant wind farms have been shelved as there were grave concerns among community groups. As someone who lives in a rural part of the country and comes from a rural constituency that was to be affected by these giant industrial wind turbines, I also had grave concerns. We have all attended a large number of public meetings on this topical issue and, as most people in the midlands will be aware, they have been highly emotional in halls and other venues which have been packed to capacity. I agree that public concerns must be taken on board. We have not received the factual information sought at these meetings on health and safety issues, although the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, has been helpful tonight. She has allayed some concerns and fears and been frank in answering some of the queries raised.

We have seen many detailed reports that wind turbines cause more annoyance than road, rail and aircraft noise at equivalent sound levels. "Annoyance" in this context is something which causes stress and ill health. There is strong evidence which identifies that children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder are particularly vulnerable to wind turbine noise and visual effects. The effects of wind turbine noise on sleep and health are being or will be investigated by the governments of Japan, Canada and Australia. All of these jurisdictions have provided for set-back distances greater than those permitted in Ireland under the current legislation and in the 2004 planning guidelines which were introduced by the previous Fianna Fáil Government. We have not been given concrete information on what is factual and incorrect. It is a pity the companies advocating for the provision of wind turbines have not been more forthcoming with information for local communities. They had golden opportunities at community meetings to express their views fairly, but none of them turned up. They did not come to face the public and give their side of the argument.

Another issue is that we are still working on the basis of the 2004 planning guidelines when the turbines proposed at the time were less than half the size of the industrial-scale turbines now being proposed. Industrial-scale wind turbine development should not be allowed on open farmland. It is claimed it could affect the rearing of livestock and the breeding, raising and training of thoroughbred horses. Any turbine greater than 25 m should not be allowed within 2 km of a house, if it would impact on people's daily lives. This needs to be avoided. People buy their homes to live in and spend most of their time in them and it is unfair to cause significant disruption.

A further issue that is constantly raised at meetings on wind farm developments throughout the country is that the chairman of EirGrid stated in December 2013 that he would not like to live beside a pylon. That issue was never adequately addressed and it is still a problem. Given that the chairman of that body was not happy with the type of proposal being made, where do we stand on it? As politicians, we have to be accountable to communities as they are the ones who elect us to implement the will of the people.

A major issue of concern is the failure of companies to adequately inform communities of their long-term plans. This has caused serious problems. From the outset, the lack of balanced and factual information from the energy companies proposing the midlands wind energy export scheme has caused genuine anguish within communities. Exaggerated claims such as the promise by one company of 55,000 jobs and that the development of wind farms is linked with a decrease in house prices have caused the public to question the accuracy and credibility of the information with which they are being provided. Communities only became aware of proposed developments through word of mouth and newspaper articles rather than through departmental channels or representatives of the development companies. That was despite the fact that landowners in the communities concerned had already signed binding option agreements. I am disappointed that there was little or no community consultation by the green energy companies to debate the facts and address the genuine concerns of the public on this issue.

I welcome the debate which is of the utmost importance. I am glad that the Government has shown common sense and shelved the idea until proper planning guidelines are put in place.

See this speech in context