New Petitions

Good morning. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present the petition to the Scottish Parliament. Dr Jeremy Carter will support me if you have any questions of a technical or legislative nature. I will be quite happy to answer questions on anything else.The Skye Windfarm Action Group respectfully petitions the Scottish Parliament for a strategic environmental assessment of the Scottish renewable energy programme. We support the elimination of all unsustainable and polluting sources of energy and their replacement by clean, sustainable sources, in conjunction with a widespread programme of energy conservation. We note with dismay the destructive potential of an energy programme that is based solely on broad targets and commercial self-interest and that relies on site-specific environmental impact assessments, which are often done by developers that have poor environmental records, with planning authorities that are unwilling or unable to address issues of cumulative impact.In particular, we are concerned about the adverse environmental impacts of the existing programme on the social fabric of our fragile communities, on the economic activities on which our communities depend, on our blanket bog and heathland habitats and on our protected birds. For example, the Edinbane wind farm proposal for Skye has already irreparably split our local community. It threatens our prime industry, which is tourism, and will damage large sections of an important carbon store, as well as our golden eagle population. The environmental statement was one of the worst that Dr Anne McCall of RSPB Scotland and the Royal Town Planning Institute had seen, yet the application was approved despite Dr McCall's warning that Highland Council was laying itself open to judicial review. That highlights the inadequacy of the existing system.If Scotland, like Wales, is to become the back yard for England's power consumers, it is essential that the immense potential damage from installations and grid upgrades is properly assessed and minimised. That can be done only at national level, with a moratorium on all commercial renewable energy projects until a sustainable energy strategy for Scotland has been developed. Wind farm Klondiking is unsustainable. Strategic environmental assessment will be mandatory from July 2004, but if offshore wind farm proposals for the Wash, Solway and Thames merit such assessment now, surely the proposals for Scotland do, too.

Good morning and thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here. I say hello to Dr Winnie Ewing, who probably does not remember me, but she was the MP when I lived in Forres. Like Ben Palmer and Jeremy Carter, I am a confirmed environmentalist and I totally support the principle of renewable energy.My petition PE564 has only 1,000 signatures, but it is representative of the great number of people who are becoming increasingly alarmed about the scale of what is happening. I draw the committee's attention to the map that I included; I think that Steve Farrell may have given members a copy of it. It demonstrates the scale of the problem in Moray and west Aberdeenshire. If all the applications go ahead, the number of turbines in Scotland will almost double. Scotland currently has approximately 267 turbines. I remind members that the circle that they can see on the map has a radius of 14 miles.Developers are using fraudulent and divisive tactics to sell the concept of wind farms to local communities. I have evidence to support that claim. The Scottish Executive is also guilty of producing false figures and of ignoring scientific evidence and well-resourced engineering data.I refer members to the report of the Royal Academy of Engineers. I provided an extract of that report with my submission, of which the clerk has a copy. Brian Wilson, the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, commissioned the report, but he seems to have ignored it totally in his recent dissertations to the public. The report states:"The Academy's engineering assessment is highly critical of the Energy Review published by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit on 15 February."On the target of 20 per cent from renewables by the year 2020, the report states:"While this is a laudable claim it is over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all renewable sources—they are intermittent."The report continues:"The substantial development of new randomly intermittent renewable wind and wave resources is not seen as a practical engineering solution … Detailed engineering studies should be undertaken urgently before policy decisions relying on high levels of intermittent renewable generation are taken."That is a brief summation of what is in that 50-page report.Local planning authorities are pressured by the planning legislation that comes from the Scottish Executive. National planning policy guideline 6 and planning advice note 45 are the two definitive documents that local planning authorities use, which results in unsafe planning decisions by local councils. It is rather ironic that I cannot petition against those local council decisions.Scotland produces 70 per cent more electricity than it uses. I could provide further figures, but I do not want to waste the valuable time that I have. Scotland meets by a long way the target set by the UK Government for renewable energy, which is 10 per cent by 2010. The Scottish Executive claims that 11 per cent of electricity comes from hydropower, but the real figure is 14.69 per cent. If one adds to that the 1 per cent that comes from wind farms, the total is 16 per cent.Ross Finnie has suggested that Scotland should produce up to 18 per cent of electricity from renewable energy by the year 2010. To satisfy Mr Finnie's target, we could shut down Torness power station, which would allow us to bump up the figure for renewable energy to 18 per cent without building one more wind farm, but which would not affect Scotland's ability to supply itself with electricity and export electricity to England. The same applies to the closure of Longannet, except that that would boost the figure for renewable energy to 19 per cent.Apart from a few temporary construction jobs, no jobs are associated with wind farms. The largest wind farm in Europe is run by two people. The only people who benefit financially from wind farms are landowners and developers. The three companies that are involved in the six sites on the map that I have submitted are foreign based. The contract to build wind turbines at Drummuir, which Moray Council is considering, will go out to tender in Europe—that suggests that not much money will come either Scotland's or Moray's way.Wind farms will have no effect on global levels of CO2, particularly if one considers that every year we use 2 per cent more electricity. The 1,000 wind turbines in the UK satisfy around 0.5 per cent of our electricity needs. One does not have to be a mathematician to conclude that, to keep pace with the 2 per cent yearly increase, we would have to build around 4,000 wind turbines. Because wind is intermittent, power stations will be required as back-ups and will not be shut down.

Okay. Wind farm applications are contrary to agenda 21, which states that the indigenous population has a right to have a say in what happens to their environment. As a result of planning legislation, local people have little or no input into the planning process. Decisions are made based on pressure from the Scottish Executive. I have demonstrated that there should be a moratorium on wind farm development until there is an effective national strategy for renewables and, more important, until there has been much more public consultation.

Turbines from the current generation have a mean output of 2MW. However, because of their inefficiency and the random nature of the wind, no turbine has produced more than 27 per cent of its production capacity. That equates to just 0.25MW.

Yes.

You have picked the wrong example.

You are absolutely correct.

I am not here to represent views on the compactness of the power station at Peterhead.

Absolutely not. I am sure that the three developers who are involved in the projects do not consult one another. They target sites that are as close as possible to the national grid. One of the restrictions that Moray Council placed on the applications for Cairn Uish and Paul's Hill was that the cables should run underground, because of the distance between the turbines and the nearest connection to the national grid. At Drummuir, the developers are hoping for reasons of cost to put cables above ground. I do not know whether the planners will allow that.

Brian Wilson has committed £1.6 billion to beefing up the grid system in Scotland. At a meeting of Highland Council on 15 November, he said that, in effect, he intended to turn Scotland into a wind farm for England. Scotland already has a surplus of electricity and has exceeded by a considerable margin the target that has been set. The sum of £1.6 billion is coming out of taxpayers' pockets.

It is to be used to beef up the grid system. I understand that there are only 400MW of spare capacity on the grid system. If the amount of electricity that is generated increases by more than 400MW, the grid system will collapse. The Government must rebuild the grid system, which will cost consumers £1.6 billion.

Sadly, no renewables are commercially available in a form that will provide a reasonable amount of electricity. Investment has not been made in other forms, such as wave power or biomass, which are still at the experimental stage. The hardware for wind turbines is available and will be provided by Europe, because we do not have the technology. The form has been chosen because that is all that there is. No other viable forms of renewable energy exist, which is why we are stuck with the problem of windmills.

It is possible that wave power will eventually be commercially viable, but that is hypothesis. We are dealing with the realities. In Scotland, 140 sites are earmarked. Some are at the planning stage and some have been developed. I ask members to cast their minds back to the UK Government's decision to experiment with anthrax on Gruinard island. Anthrax was kept under control, but Scotland was targeted for that experiment. I relate the wind farm situation to that, except that the virus of wind farms is out of control. The developers are being allowed to apply piecemeal where and when they like; what they are doing is almost unrestricted.

The turbines are a futile gesture. They do little or nothing to alter the greenhouse gas situation, so that argument can be pushed to one side—it is not an issue. Opinions about the look of the turbines are personal. I cannot stand the damn things, but that is not the position that I represent. One of Mr Wilson's favourite comments is that everybody in the anti-wind farm lobby is a NIMBY, which stands for "not in my back yard". Our back yard is Scotland, which is why we are all here. We are not just representing views on individual applications. We are here because we are concerned about the proliferation—that was difficult to say; I will put my teeth back in—of windmills.I will describe my concern about Moray. Moray is in the economic doldrums. Fishing is in its death-throes and farming is in the doldrums. There is not much going for Moray other than its historical tourism and its whisky. The Moray economy is so sensitive that we cannot jeopardise it by allowing tourism to be affected. I think that the turnover of tourism in Scotland is £4 billion. If 25 per cent of tourists do not show up, we will lose £1 billion of our income.

Site-specific environmental impact assessments are an important part of the planning procedure. However, there is a problem: NPPG 5 and planning advice note 45—PAN 45—put such an emphasis on the development of renewable energy that renewable energy projects are regarded as being green from the start. While the environmental effects of a coal power station or a nuclear power station would be scrutinised carefully—

I agree, but my point is that the environmental impact of wind farms is not adequately scrutinised because they are perceived to be clean, green and sustainable. Blanket bog is one of the biggest carbon stores in the northern temperate zone, but, because each council deals with applications for wind farms separately, we have no way of knowing how much blanket bog in Scotland will be destroyed by wind farms. Golden eagles do not respect local authority boundaries. How many golden eagles will be killed by the programme? A site-specific environmental impact assessment will tell us that; it will also tell us how many hectares of blanket bog will be destroyed in a particular area. However, there is no mechanism for measuring blanket bog destroyed in Argyll alongside that destroyed in Moray or elsewhere across Scotland.

We do not know about the first application for Skye because we have not seen the data for it, but the second application, which is for 14 turbines, predicts a damage to the local eagle population of between 1 and 20 per cent. Obviously, that figure is uncertain: the developer's estimate could mean one eagle every five years or one eagle a year. However, good evidence based on the experience of wind farms in the United States of America suggests that badly placed wind farms that are not subject to proper environmental scrutiny can be damaging to golden eagles.

I respect the opinion that has been voiced, but the petition calls for a strategic environmental assessment. Agenda 21, the Aarhus convention and the new European Commission directive all say that development cannot be called sustainable unless a strategic environmental assessment has been conducted. That is what we want—we do not want to argue over particular cases; the cases that we highlighted are just examples.

We would question the assertion that the planning system is adequate, but I would say that, even if the system worked perfectly, it would be no substitute for strategic assessment.

Certainly. We could change the phrase to "existing sources".