Wind Farms
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-424, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on wind farms. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Members might like to know that there has been an unprecedented level of interest in the subject of this debate in the forum section of the Scottish Parliament live website. The debate is also heavily subscribed.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the proliferation of planning applications for onshore wind farms throughout Scotland; is further concerned, whilst supporting renewable energy, about the environmental and landscape impact of wind farms and understands that these frequently face vigorous local opposition; believes that the current planning regime provides inadequate guidance to local authorities, communities and developers in relation to the siting of wind farms; considers that the Scottish Executive should bring forward as a matter of urgency new planning guidance on the siting of wind farms taking proper account of these factors, and further considers that the Executive should declare a moratorium on the determination of locally-opposed wind farm planning applications until such guidance has taken effect.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this motion for debate and I thank all the members who have signed it. I welcome to the public gallery people who have an interest in the subject who have travelled all the way from Angus, Perthshire, Argyll and other parts of Scotland to watch this evening's debate.
I lodged my motion in response to meetings with my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife and meetings with power companies that are concerned about the lack of clear planning guidelines. However, it is clear that concerns exist throughout Scotland and, as you said, Presiding Officer, it is a measure of the public concern about the matter that the discussion forum on wind farms on the Scottish Parliament live website has attracted more entries from the public than any other discussion forum in the Parliament's history.
Wind farms can be extremely large, with turbines up to 100m tall, and they will dramatically affect the appearance of the landscape. The cumulative effect of all the developments that are being proposed in Scotland, if they are allowed to proceed, would be the most significant change in our landscape in several generations. Public interest in the matter is immense and it is essential that the Parliament is seen to address the issues that are raised as a result of the deluge of planning applications in recent months.
At the outset, I stress that I am not against renewable energy, nor am I against wind farms per se. I fully support the need for all of us to play our part in reducing CO2 emissions. However, the existing planning guidance that is contained in national planning policy guideline 6 was last revised in November 2000 and it is time for a new national framework with clear planning guidelines that will outline the capacity of different parts of Scotland to accommodate wind farms. It is also time for a clear line of dialogue between the Scottish Executive, planning authorities and local people. In the meantime, a moratorium on existing unapproved applications that face local opposition would give us an opportunity to have a thorough review of how to achieve the Executive's goal of having 20 per cent of energy supplied by renewables by 2010.
I agree that local opinion must be taken into account in the planning process, but the wording of the motion seems to be slightly woolly. Is the member talking about a certain level, number or proportion of residents in an area being opposed to a wind farm, or does he mean that there should be a plebiscite in that area? What exactly is he suggesting?
I am suggesting that there should be a moratorium where there is opposition. If there is opposition to a wind farm in a particular area, that should be enough to halt it, as people will need to pause and think. I will elaborate on the matter shortly, if Mr Ewing will forgive me.
A moratorium would enable Scotland to develop a cohesive strategy to reach the Executive's goal in the most efficient, environmentally sensitive and economic manner possible. The Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee—of which I am a member—will commence an inquiry into the issue in January. Without a moratorium, the danger is that we will shut the stable door once the horse has bolted.
Concerns that have been expressed on the website and raised elsewhere range from the potential impact on tourism—surveys indicate that tourists come to Scotland not to look at wind farms, but for the unspoilt beauty of our landscape—and the knock-on effects of that impact on our economy through to the environmental impact of the construction of wind farms, the destruction of natural habitats, threats to wildlife and pollution. The contributors to the website are not nimbys who are concerned about their property prices—they are ordinary people whose lives are being disrupted by planning applications for turbines; some of those turbines could be up to 100m high and sited very close to homes and businesses. One posting on the website reads:
"I live in an area where Scottish Power has applied for planning permission to build 17, 93mtr turbines. The closest of these is to be a mere 600mtrs from my property … How close is too close?"
I have heard it said in various quarters that there is nothing wrong with existing planning guidance and that it is robust enough to deal with current and expected applications. However, even the Executive's own advisers in Scottish Natural Heritage have expressed concerns about the high degree of competition for sites and a first-past-the-post race to book grid capacity and secure planning permission. SNH believes that it would be helpful if there were a national framework to provide steerage as to the expected capacity of different parts of Scotland to accommodate renewable energy and—crucially—the share that one planning authority should accommodate. Each planning authority could then plan strategically. I fully support that view.
The pressure that is being put on local authorities by the current deluge of applications is immense. Local planning departments do not have the expertise or staff to cope with all the details in such a quantity of applications. Council officials have expressed concerns about the costs of local inquiries and the burden on councils' budgets of a proliferation of inquiries arising from the large number of planning applications.
Does the member agree that it is unsatisfactory for SNH, having raised objections, not to agree to appear at public inquiries? That is unsatisfactory both for the objector and the applicant. People's natural human rights are being denied.
That is a fair point, but I would prefer to deal with wider issues, if I may. Mr Crawford makes his point well and I am sure that he will do so again.
Any guidelines that are introduced must take account of the economic and environmental impact of developments, both at local and national level. As the only control is the planning system, it is extremely concerning that guidelines are currently so inadequate. At a meeting that I and a number of other members attended, which was hosted by Scottish Enterprise, I raised that matter with a representative of the power companies. They expressed their frustrations at the number of applications that they have to make, at huge cost in terms of time and resources, to get some of their proposals accepted. The power companies expect a success rate of one in eight.
Will the member give way?
If Mr Purvis will forgive me, I will not. I have taken several interventions and I have a few more points to make—
And you are in your last minute.
Clear guidelines and a planning framework would make the process more economic for the power companies, as they would apply for planning only for sites and areas that were approved for development. That is why we need to take some sort of zonal approach.
In the first session of the Parliament, the Rural Development Committee recommended that the Scottish Executive should develop
"procedures for local consultation between developers, planning authorities and interested parties, and guidance on best practice in such developments."
More important, it further recommended that the Scottish Executive
"work together with planning authorities to develop mechanisms to allow potential development zones to be identified in local structure and development plans, in an effort to reduce conflict."
The zoning idea is important, as it would allow us to address the impact of the schemes on tourism and the rural economies that are currently under threat.
A new planning regime for onshore wind power would be welcomed by all parties—not only by objectors and residents, but by power companies, developers and SNH. If the current rush to develop onshore wind power continues, we will change the Scottish landscape forever. We have one chance to get this right and future generations might not forgive us if we rush into large-scale wind farm developments without pausing to consider all the consequences while we still have time.
I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 20 minutes, which is as much as I can do.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that under Rule 8.14.3 Members' Business on 6 November 2003 be extended for 20 minutes.—[Rob Gibson.]
Motion agreed to.
I apologise for the fact that I might have to leave before the end of the debate.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate. There is little with which I disagree in his speech or his motion. I did not sign the motion because I was a bit concerned about there being an open-ended moratorium. If we were talking in terms of a more time-limited suspension of applications, I would have had no difficulty in signing the motion.
We all recognise the need for the development of renewable sources of energy and I welcome the work that has been done to ensure that Scotland becomes a market leader for wave, tidal and offshore wind energy generation and hydrogen fuel cells. That will mean jobs and investment. However, I also recognise that wind farms are currently the only commercially viable renewable technology and have an important contribution to make to the mix of Scotland's energy generation.
In last week's debate on rural integration, it was said that the lack of any real forward planning and the absence of clear, concise and coherent guidelines for the approval of wind farm sites is causing anxiety in many Scottish communities and uncertainty for developers. That fact must be evident to ministers and I cannot understand their complacency on this issue. Public support for renewable energy is being seriously undermined by the processes in which we are currently engaged.
We are getting a concentration of applications. I refer members to the green leaflets that many of us were given by campaigners today. All the cases that are listed in the leaflet are in my constituency. There are specific problems with the Sma' glen, which is marketed as a tourist route through Perthshire. I am aware that not all the applications will be approved, but until decisions are made on them, immense damage is being done to community confidence. I wish that the Executive would take that on board.
I believe that the Scottish Executive must urgently publish guidance on the criteria that are being applied to wind farm developments. That will help developers and communities to take positive steps to promote and assist community-led renewable energy projects, including wind farm developments, and to engage with the Ministry of Defence, in particular regarding its objections to wind farm developments on or near MOD property.
I see that the minister is holding a planning note in the air, but that is insufficient.
If the Executive took that step, developers would be encouraged to recognise their responsibilities to local communities so that such communities could benefit from developments on their doorstep and would be reassured that they would not end up with a wind farm being built despite strong—in some cases overwhelming—local objections.
I want to touch on two elements of Murdo Fraser's irresponsible motion. The first is the lunacy that is the demand for a moratorium; the second is planning matters, on which I will touch briefly.
If the motion—which enjoys support from some Scottish National Party members, but not all—were to be adopted it would effectively kill off further wind farm developments in Scotland for years. In my constituency, there are some very exciting plans for wind farms. If those plans come to fruition, the Western Isles will become the source of 1 per cent of the United Kingdom's energy needs. However, if the motion were to be adopted, it would halt any further developments. It would also lead to the early demise of the Arnish fabrication yard in Lewis, which is currently working entirely on wind power projects. The minister visited the yard earlier this month.
Will the member give way?
I have only three minutes, which time does not lend itself to interventions.
Being from the Highlands and Islands, Jamie McGrigor should hang his head in shame for signing and supporting the motion. As I said, the motion would, if adopted, lead to the early demise of many jobs in my constituency, which Mr McGrigor also represents.
We are fortunate in Scotland in that we already have a flexible planning regime. That is why more projects have gone ahead here than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We need urgently to speed up the process rather than to bring it to a dead halt with a moratorium, as has been called for by Murdo Fraser. To some extent, the motion reveals the double standards of politicians who say that they are in favour of renewable energy in principle but who are prepared to blow with the wind in the other direction as soon as a vociferous local campaign is mounted against a specific project.
I want to turn to my friends in the Green party. I know that they have not had an especially productive day. We witnessed their semantic convulsions over scallop conservation—or rather, over their failure to support scallop conservation—and I have no intention of making life any better for them now, at the end of the day. On energy generation, the Greens and their associates regularly remind us that they are opposed to the continuation of nuclear power plants and opposed to any further extension of energy that is generated by fossil fuels. However, there are far too many examples of the Greens and their associates opposing wind farms and hydroelectric schemes in the Highlands and Islands and other parts of the country. I ask them to do us all a favour and to tell us what they actively support as opposed to what they actively oppose.
Everyone should appreciate that a moratorium on wind farm developments would be a moratorium on jobs and a moratorium on much-needed infrastructure investment. Future generations of Scots would never forgive us if we implemented the folly that has been outlined by Mr Fraser and some of his nationalist friends.
I want to make it clear that there is no case for a moratorium on wind farms in Scotland. I realise that communities have concerns about the farms; I have spoken with many people on the subject. However, a moratorium would only exacerbate problems and lead to a loss of confidence in renewable energy; we cannot afford to let that happen. Climate change is the crisis that is driving the move towards renewable energy and we should not forget that. Let us not mince our words: climate change is the most serious environmental problem that is faced by us all and it has happened as a direct result of our need and desire for energy. We now face the likelihood of increasingly unpredictable weather with more extreme events such as storms, floods and droughts. There will be a cost to our environment, society and economy in Scotland and in the rest of the world.
Local authorities must ensure that communities are fully and objectively informed about wind farm developments. They must be consulted from the earliest point about any proposed project. In addition, the Executive should provide a mechanism whereby communities can share in the financial benefits of wind farms. A wind farm can bring in income that would contribute, for example, to local affordable housing in rural areas.
Other practical things can be done to address some of the genuine concerns—for example, to do with the possible cumulative effect of multiple wind farm applications in a particular area. The eight councils in Glasgow and the Clyde valley have produced a report on wind energy that is designed to feed into their structure plan. That allows them to be strategic in their approach while still meeting their commitments to renewable energy. The Executive could ensure that such good practice is replicated throughout Scotland.
Scottish Natural Heritage must be given the resources to apply its environmental guidelines comprehensively, as should planners in local authorities. As well as extra funding from the Executive, planning fees from developers should be used for that.
There should be a designated planning officer in each area who fully understands the issues that surround wind farms and who gets good training to ensure that. Planners must be given the confidence to throw out the pre-emptive low-quality applications that some developers are submitting simply to jump the queue. I say to Alasdair Morrison that those are the applications that we will not support.
In conclusion, we must not turn our backs on the unpalatable truth of climate change or the challenges of renewable energy. We must accept that our desire for energy means that we must make some difficult choices. However, that does not mean that we should cry halt at the first hurdle.
I, too, will have to leave before the end of the debate, for which I apologise.
I am grateful to my friend Murdo Fraser for lodging a motion which I hope will clear the air of the thundery atmosphere that has existed since the proliferation of applications for wind farms commenced. It has not been easy for MSPs, who have been regaled with arguments on both sides and who have watched communities being divided and split on what has become a highly contentious issue. Neighbour has been fighting neighbour; that is a bad thing.
I do not want to go into the arguments on the efficiency of wind energy, but it is interesting to note the comments of the former leader of the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock—known as the Welsh windbag—who wrote, in 1994:
"My long established view is that wind generated power is an expensive form of energy, it can only provide a very small fraction of the output required to meet total energy needs and it unavoidably makes an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape."
I would prefer to see more offshore wind farms and more research into tidal energy, which would not be so visually intrusive. I suggest again that forestry biomass—of which there is plenty available in Scotland—could be treated in the same way as other renewable sources because it is carbon neutral.
That said, we are set to have some wind farms. It is interesting that the applications that are most complained about relate to places such as Edinbane on Skye and Inverliever in Argyll, where the turbines are to be situated in close proximity to people's houses. I have also noticed that many applications are for 27 turbines, because that figure produces enough kilowatts of electricity to allow applicants to bypass council planning decisions and go straight to the Scottish Executive. The fact that the defences of the local planning authority have been taken away in those instances means that it is vital that the Executive listens and responds to the concerns of people in those areas.
The problems here are lack of consultation on siting of the turbines and the absence of a clear understanding of what compensation will be paid to those who suffer as a result and of how much money will go into community funds so that people in the vicinity of wind farms can at least see some benefit in their locality. The employment benefit in places such as Campbeltown and Stornoway is obvious.
I can remember the complaints about hydro power and the erection of pylons. In the case of hydro power, the dams were carefully planned and there was a clear policy: compulsory purchase was used where proposals were deemed to be in the public interest and compensation was paid to fishery owners and others for perceived damage or changes to their property or fisheries. Although communities could well benefit from compensation money, they would benefit only if their tourist businesses continued to benefit as well. Therefore, it is vital that people with artistic talents are employed in the building of wind farms, so that the turbines blend in with the scenery.
Until the Executive produces a cohesive and sustainable energy plan that can be properly understood, people will continue to suffer from worry and to complain. I ask the minister to tell us the Executive's policy.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am aware that a member who has already spoken in the debate lives in the vicinity of a site that is the subject of a live planning application for a wind farm. Will you give guidance on whether members who are registered objectors or who have an interest in such matters need to declare an interest?
It is always advisable to declare an interest in any matter that members think might affect them. My ruling is that members should declare an interest if they are in any doubt whatsoever.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to declare an interest—I live in the vicinity of the sites of several wind farm applications.
That belated declaration of an interest is noted.
I wish to declare an interest. I am the chair of a community council, through which a planning application for the extension of a wind farm at Novar in easter Ross is being discussed.
The timing of the debate is important. Unfortunately, the timing of the Scottish Executive's lack of leadership, the lack of evidence of its lobbying power and the lack of clear-cut Executive guidance that does not leave communities to face large companies on their own show that a lack of strategy must be addressed. That is said in sorrow, not in anger.
An attempt should be made to avoid a gold rush and to encourage planned development that could provide people in the Highlands and Islands with tremendous income that would allow them to invest the profits from wind energy and other forms of energy in local economic development, funding for which has been lacking from most other sources. That is the perspective from which I come. I can give members plenty of examples of people who look for the chance to do that.
If we were in Denmark, where four farmers started the whole operation, we would see that wind farms were in the hands of local people, which makes a big difference to how the subject is viewed. Many of the people who give us leaflets and send us e-mails to object to wind farm developments do so because they are frustrated by the fact that they believe that large companies from outside are coming in to make large profits from our landscape, which some people say will be altered irrevocably.
It has been suggested to me that a certain tonnage of cement would be required for each wind farm tower, but nobody ever talks about the tonnage of cement that was needed for each nuclear power station that has been built.
My problem with the debate is that a moratorium would slow the potential for renewable energies to take up the slack and become the main source of power. That would allow the nuclear lobby, of which the Conservative party is an important supporter, to make the case for nuclear power in future.
We must ensure that Scotland uses its renewable clean assets to the greatest benefit. Offshore wind, tidal and wave energy will come, but not for five to 10 years. We are in favour of such forms of energy, which should be the central plank of a renewable energy policy.
In Denmark, the decision was taken to have just 20 per cent of energy produced from wind power. That target has nearly been reached and development has stopped at that. We do not have a strategy that would allow us to show people how much we aim to obtain from onshore wind farms. The Executive must clearly state such a strategy so that people know that what is involved is not just a gold rush for big companies and that local people will benefit.
Wind energy is the most developed of the renewable technologies. It is sad that it has not developed commercially in Scotland, but it is the form of generation that we will rely on to achieve the challenging renewable energy targets that we have set ourselves while the newer wave and tidal energy technologies are developed to replace or augment land-based wind farms. Wind energy is also crucial to ensure that we safely cover the gap that could arise in a couple of years' time when decisions about whether to commission new nuclear power stations will be taken.
It has been considered alarming that the number of proposed wind farms is far in excess of the number that will be needed. Roughly 150 applications are in the pipeline, but all of them will have to follow the democratic planning process and not all will proceed. In some ways, a large number of applications is good, because it allows for greater selectivity.
A motion to impose a moratorium on wind farm developments until we have new planning guidance is an overreaction. We need a robust planning process to ensure the continuing sensible development of wind technology in Scotland, but we have such a process in place, through national planning policy guideline 6, which was revised in 2000, and planning advice note 45, which was revised in 2002.
I have a copy of a report that went to the Marr area committee in my constituency. It says that relevant planning policies comprise six policies under the approved Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire structure plan, four policies under the Gordon district local plan and 14 policies under the finalised Aberdeenshire local plan.
I am grateful to the member for giving way, in light of the shortage of time. If the present planning guidance is sufficient, why do not only objectors but power companies say that the planning regime is unsatisfactory?
Sometimes, if people do not get the answers that they want, that leads them to think that things are unsatisfactory.
Scottish Natural Heritage offers locational guidance, which enables areas of high sensitivity to be avoided, and planning authorities can take cumulative impact into account when determining the outcome of applications. Planning decisions are best made locally, by locally accountable elected representatives, on a case-by-case basis and taking local circumstances into account. We should let local government discharge its functions in the same way as we would expect our authority to be respected.
The Scottish Executive could be helpful by ensuring that local authorities are sufficiently resourced to deal with the high volume of applications that they receive. They could compensate for the fact that authorities do not get a planning fee for projects over a certain size, although they still have to do the work that goes into statutory consultation and incur as much work or more than they would if they were dealing with a straightforward planning application. It is not planning guidance for local authorities that is lacking; rather, there is not enough advice and guidance for local communities on how to turn any wind farm that goes ahead into an advantage for the local community.
A moratorium is unnecessary and unhelpful. It holds up progress without distinguishing between good and bad applications in any way, and it gets us nowhere.
I can tell Alasdair Morrison that it would be difficult to get a cigarette paper between our views on this subject and those expressed in Murdo Fraser's motion, which I signed. The main thrust of the motion is that we should have national guidance and that communities should lead on issues to do with wind farms; the agenda should not be imposed. That does not work, as we keep telling the Executive.
There is a huge problem in the Scottish Borders, which could now be considered as being targeted—there are already 33 proposals for wind farms there. The Borders is being targeted because it has open hill ranges, with close connection points on the national electricity grid. It is not that people in the Borders are saying, "Not in my back yard." They already have wind farms at Bowbeat hill and near Peebles. There is also the famous one at Dun law and Soutra hill, which is dramatic and is a tourist attraction. There are lay-bys where people can pull off the road to see the wind farm, so wind farms can work.
However, a problem is being faced at an area called Minch moor, where 14 turbines are being installed. They are 100m high and five of them are to be within touching distance of the Southern Upland way, which is not just a national treasure, but an international natural treasure. The people living near there are most alarmed. Although it looks as if the Borders has a series of small string developments, they in fact comprise one huge development, but it is my understanding—and the minister may clarify this—that Scottish Borders Council will not have to approach the Scottish Executive for planning consents if the developments are below a certain wattage.
I, too, have lodged a motion on the subject, and there is a petition about Minch moor. I suggest not only that guidance should be produced—that is called for in a motion in the name of my colleague Roseanna Cunningham—but that planning policy should be reviewed. We should take a look at countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, which are way ahead of the game. It is not that one is opposed to renewable energy; it is the manner in which planning is going through, without regard to national guidelines, to which I object.
I urge the minister to take on board what I have said and to do something now to satisfy those Scottish communities that are, rightly, most concerned about their heritage because of issues relating to wind farms.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I would hope that we all recognise our obligations under the Kyoto treaty to phase out fossil fuel use and to develop sustainable energy. In that regard, Scotland has vast resources of wind power, with 23 per cent of such resources in Europe, not including what we contribute in this chamber—perhaps 20 per cent of Scotland's energy needs could be generated in that form. As Murdo Fraser knows, the Executive has set a target of 18 per cent for the amount of all electricity to be generated in Scotland from such sources. Those are ambitious targets.
I share some of Murdo Fraser's concerns about how wind power is developed and I think that it is inappropriate to dismiss people's objections. People from throughout the country have objections.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time—I have only three minutes.
It is often the perception that people's objections are not given due regard.
We find among the list of wind turbines operating in Britain a repetition of names such as B9 Energy, Powergen Renewables, National Wind Power and Renewable Energy Systems. In many communities, there is often a feeling that the big businesses behind wind turbine production and implementation will get their way irrespective of what local communities think. I support the point that Rob Gibson made earlier—people would like wind turbine generation to be used for local communities. We should think globally about our obligations under the Kyoto agreement, but we should act locally to meet our electricity requirements. Experience in Denmark, Germany, Spain and other places is important. In Denmark, 30 per cent of energy is produced by wind turbines, but they are not all located on greenfield sites in rural areas. We should consider redeveloping brownfield sites, as happens in Denmark.
I have received a briefing on this issue from Friends of the Earth. There is interest in wind turbines and wind energy production. Given that that interest exists, the idea of establishing a visitor attraction where wind energy is explored has merit and would have popular support.
I will finish by sounding a note of caution to the Executive. There must be more development of solar energy, biomass energy, tidal energy and other renewables. There is far too much concentration on wind energy and other options must be considered.
Members from all parties have indicated that, throughout Scotland, there has been a huge surge in interest in identifying potential sites for onshore wind farms. That has happened in response to the Government's encouragement of renewable energy and the obligations that have been placed on the electricity industry.
I strongly support the development of renewable energy. It is vital to develop the industry to combat the effects of climate change and its impact on people and the environment. However, we must ensure that the locations of wind farms are suitable.
National planning policy guideline 6 provides useful guidance on locational considerations but, critically, it does not provide specific locational guidance. Consequently, there is a danger of uncertainty for developers, planning authorities and local communities. As has already been mentioned, SNH has produced strategic locational guidance for onshore wind farms in respect of the natural heritage. I welcome that as a first step towards providing guidance to planning authorities when they seek to identify potential areas for wind farm developments. A strategic approach will guide wind farm developments to areas where the effects on our natural heritage are minimised.
The proposals for the national planning framework indicate that it will seek to address energy issues. I welcome that, but it must also identify environmentally sensitive sites where development is inappropriate. Research that has been done in the past few years demonstrates clearly that Scotland can produce more than enough renewable energy without our building wind farms in areas that are designated as important for the natural heritage. I seek the minister's views on that important piece of research.
I am passionate about developing renewable energy, but that must be done in the right place. I have not signed Murdo Fraser's motion, as I believe that it is far too negative and I do not support the call for a moratorium on the determination of locally opposed wind farm planning applications. However, let us have a sensible debate on this issue without those who register concern about the impact of wind farms on environmentally sensitive areas being stereotyped as being anti-jobs.
There are probably more wind farms operational in my constituency than in any other in Scotland. There are eight approved sites with five operational wind farms and 11 applications are in the planning process as we speak.
Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd, the first wind farm manufacturer, has set up in Campbeltown and employs 200 people, who work three shifts to cope with the demand that has arisen since the Executive took the proactive approach of setting ambitious targets for Scotland to develop renewable energy. Carradale and Glendaruel in my constituency are looking forward to 25 years of financial benefits, which will flow from the wind farms that operate on the hills above those communities. The incomes that are guaranteed for the future will improve those local communities.
Scotland has 1,200 jobs that are reliant on the development of the wind farm industry. That number will grow. However, this young industry would be threatened if the proposed moratorium went ahead. It would be choked at birth. The moratorium would destroy jobs and strangle the industry before it has had a chance to get up and running properly.
The people of Campbeltown, whose community's fortunes have been turned round by the establishment of Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology, would be appalled by the prospect of a moratorium and the shutting down or pulling out of Vestas-Celtic from the area. Therefore, I find it strange that Jamie McGrigor supports the motion.
I recognise that communities have real concerns about the siting of wind farms and the proliferation of applications that are being made by developers, but the right approach to the issue is to decide such matters at the local level. We need to use the council structure plan and the local planning process to designate areas for potential wind farm development and allow local councillors to make the final decision. Councillors are the people who know. The issue should not be decided at the centre; it should be decided locally.
There is one anomaly, which is that applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for developments of over 50MW—which is roughly equivalent to 50 wind towers—are exempt from local planning procedures. I believe that that anomaly needs addressed.
Finally, ministers must get behind community development of wind farms. Communities do not want the same to happen as happened for hydro schemes, which involved lots of jobs in building the developments but no jobs once they were completed—Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy got all the benefits. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has a proposal for a community development company to assist communities in setting up their own wind farms that would provide a long-term sustainable future, because the financial benefits would flow to the communities. The minister must get behind communities to ensure that wind power works. Let us solve the problems of our rural and remote communities for the foreseeable future.
My colleague Mark Ruskell has clearly outlined the seriousness of climate change and our obligations to future generations. Those must form the backdrop to all our debates on renewable energy.
I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made by objectors. Wind power is a clean form of power that produces no carbon dioxide and leaves no waste, unlike the nuclear power industry. There are concerns about the energy embodied in the turbines and the concrete bases, but the clean energy that is generated by a wind farm will, within a few months, totally compensate for the energy that was used to build, transport and install the turbines. Over a 20-year lifespan, a wind farm pays that back more than 80 times over. By contrast, the net energy that is generated during the life of a nuclear power station is only 16 times its energy input. For a coal power plant, the figure falls to 11 times, when the energy used to extract and transport the fuel is taken into account. Wind turbines create no pollution in their operation. That cannot be said of either fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Let me also deal with the issue of noise. A funny little cartoon was handed out to us when we came into the chamber earlier on, but it is very misleading. It is unfortunate that such examples are put out for people to read. The actual figures for noise are that, at 350 metres, a wind farm has a decibel level of between 35dB and 45dB. The level for a quiet bedroom is 35dB. For a car at 40mph, the level is 55dB. Wind turbines are very quiet machines. I have stood under them and been able to carry on conversations quite normally. There is no way that wind turbines have a noise impact.
The other point to emphasise is that the dismantling of wind farms is built into the planning applications. After 20 years—most of them have a lifetime of only 20 years—the wind turbines must be removed. The turbines can be removed quite easily leaving virtually no visible trace of their existence. The roads to them are made of hard core rather than tarmac and become grassed over very quickly. The whole thing will disappear quickly.
It is vital that we realise that we need to have those turbines now so that we can address climate change. The other technologies are too slow and too far behind. We need to move now. I hope that I have allayed some fears today and that we will go ahead with the technology.
It is important that we reinforce the rights of people and make their agreement to future developments in their localities the determining factor when it comes to the approval of onshore wind farms. Local majority opinion is, after all, the best arbiter of what is right in any area, whose people are best placed and motivated to act in the best interests of their community and neighbours.
Most people in rural Scotland have a positive attitude towards renewable energy. However, that view is balanced with the need to avoid a precipitate and excessive skew towards onshore wind farms that could damage amenity and scenery, impact on quality of life, and undermine tourism and the possibility of attracting more people to stay in or migrate to rural Scotland.
Balance is also the order of the day in ensuring that we help those Scotland-based companies that George Lyon mentioned and which are involved in the manufacture of wind turbines. They have invested their capital and expertise in Scotland, have created many valuable jobs at home and have many engineers working internationally from their Scottish home base. We can produce an optimal blend of strategy that helps those companies to do more in the offshore sector, and that works with onshore installations that have majority local community support and can bring real benefits for communities with minimal effect on the environment.
Will the member give way?
I only have three minutes, so I will crack on.
We want to avoid being left with damaged landscapes that will result in a long-term economic inhibitor in rural Scotland when the technology moves in favour of offshore wind power, solar power, wave power and small-scale biomass plants, in particular when the wind farm has produced little or no local benefits in terms of a share of profits or lower local power costs. Of course, that is especially true when deals are struck where the biggest proportion of the profits is leached out of an area and there is little or nothing to improve local living standards or economic competitiveness.
I feel differently about projects that have a high degree of local buy-in and a mechanism to glean a tangible material return in terms of dividends and low power costs for local individuals and the community, especially when such a project is initiated by that community. An example is the current project on Gigha.
Renewables can be a key factor in the recovery of rural Scotland, particularly the Highlands and Islands, when such energy is coupled with broadband, a safe environment and the quality of life there. However, it would verge on being unforgivable if renewables were mismanaged to the extent that they undermine the most fundamental attraction—the quality and tranquillity of rural life. We therefore want a consultation process and we want important documents to be produced, such as Highland Council's "Can your community benefit from renewable energy development". We want all that to be done in a meaningful and significant way.
I go along with the things that Murdo Fraser said, but I will concentrate on the part of his motion that is about the proliferation of wind farms. I am not against renewable energy—it would be strange if I were, given that I was the manager of a string of hydro power stations before I became involved in politics. Hydro power is perhaps the most efficient of the renewable energy sources that we have today.
However, I remind members that when we start talking about installed capacity, we have to consider what we get out of it. I suggest that the best of wind farms would pick up approximately 30 per cent of load factor. Most hydro stations operate in the 20 to 30 per cent band. At present, despite its good intentions, the Scottish Executive's targets for renewables are too optimistic, given their impact.
Shiona Baird referred to the fact that there is no pollution with a wind farm: the windmills turn and we get power. However, there is pollution because behind the windmills is the spinning reserve of fossil-fuel stations, which have to be available to come on quickly when the wind stops, or the water runs dry.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, I am sorry.
When I talk about the water running dry, I point to the situation in Galloway this year, where there has been a 30 per cent reduction in the level of water available to the hydro stations. That is a real concern, and has a real effect on output. The hydro stations in Galloway are major employers, and produce in one year 250GWh—0.25TWh—of electricity. The output of nuclear power stations in Scotland is 20TWh.
We have to recognise that the environment for many people does not mean simply the landscape and walking the hills of Scotland, as I like to do—it means the heat in their homes in winter being provided at a reasonable cost. A lot has been said about Denmark, but no one has said that its consumers have the most expensive electricity in Europe. Those are the practical problems that we must face.
I go along with some elements of wind farm provision. I go along with the barrage schemes and tidal wave power, which offers great potential. We talked about it 10 to 15 years ago, but where is the Severn barrage? It was given up because the environmentalists said that providing it would have too drastic an effect on the ecology and the environment.
I declare a peripheral interest, as an application has been made for a wind farm in the neighbouring constituency to mine, just above some of my constituents.
It is easy to see that the motion is a Conservative motion. By their very nature, the Conservatives are resistant to change and meeting our climate change obligations while reducing carbon emissions will require significant change, not least in the countryside that we all love. As a result, I cannot condemn Murdo Fraser and the Tories for lodging the motion and supporting it, although I feel that a moratorium is wrong.
I am less forgiving, however, when it comes to those members of the SNP who have supported the motion. They cannot be said to be sitting on the fence on this issue, because a fence only goes in two directions. It would be more accurate to say that they are sitting on a weather vane, pointing wherever the prevailing wind should happen to blow. On the one hand, they call for ever greater renewable energy targets. Their election pledge was for a target of 50 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020. On the other hand, they are often at the forefront of local objections when an application comes up, especially when they feel there is some political advantage to be gained. The time has come for SNP members to stop posturing and present a consistent front throughout the country. Are they for renewables? If so, are they going to stop opposing every application? If not, will their environment spokesperson state this afternoon that they no longer subscribe to that target as party policy?
The fact is that a moratorium would not make for more effective planning procedures. The motion is scaremongering. The idea that the country will suddenly be covered in wind turbines is wrong, because eight or nine out of every 10 applications are refused. Community concerns can be satisfactorily addressed by the planning guidelines that we already have. They are robust enough, if they are applied properly and consistently.
There may be a problem with the resources and the capacity of planning departments and their advisory bodies in dealing with the real concerns of communities. The resources need to be in place so that all the relevant parties can get together quickly and application decisions can be speeded up. That includes involving local communities in the process and gaining, as George Lyon said, some benefit for those communities to set against the negative impacts. Developers need to be sensitive to local concerns and I see no reason why compromises cannot be made.
Finally, we are already lagging far behind other nations in the generation of wind power. Not only will a moratorium serve to put us even further behind, it will harm local business—such as NOI Scotland Ltd in my constituency, which is bidding out of Methil for a number of projects—and threaten jobs that are badly needed.
I declare an interest. I live in Kinross-shire and I am surrounded by hills. First, I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing a debate that is clearly needed. I also congratulate the Executive on the renewables obligation certificates. The ROCs have done their job and are beginning to create the interest that should have existed all along.
I condemn Christine May for her hypocrisy. Labour party members throughout the country are campaigning against wind farms just as SNP members are doing. Scotland has a problem and no one can say that the problem does not exist. The problem exists because we do not have a proactive enough planning process. We need one that directs local authorities and does not give them woolly guidelines. The developer-led proposals that are coming through at present are creating problems to such a degree that we have eight applications for every one that is successful. That is no way to run things. We should have a much more directed process, one that helps communities and developers to have much more certainty about what is going to be successful. That is how we could start to deal with the problem.
The conflict that has happened is completely unnecessary. Had the guidelines been properly drawn up in the beginning we might not be in the situation in which we find ourselves today. Why are we in that situation? If all our potential for wind was reached, only 2 per cent of Scotland would be used. Surely to goodness we can come to a solution that allows 2 per cent of Scotland's landmass to be used to reach our potential? We need to get the planning framework right.
What other factors are leading to problems? We have a problem with the grid that is leading to a concentration of resources in particular areas of Scotland, particularly down the east coast. The grid is not satisfactory in the very place that it should be, which is on the west coast, where we get most of the wind. Another concentration factor is caused by the Ministry of Defence, which blankets parts of Scotland that cannot be used. The effect of that is to push people in a particular direction, which causes further concentration. SNH also causes concentration because it, too, blankets areas of Scotland and says that developers can go to only certain parts of Scotland. We are losing the 2 per cent—more and more of it is disappearing.
Another problem is the claim that is made by local authorities about lack of resources. I do not know whether the claim is true, but I am not entirely convinced by the argument. If we are not building as many houses as we used to and if fewer applications for industrial developments are coming through because the economy is not growing as fast as it can, surely local authorities should be doing something about that. One argument suggests that local authorities should be directed to put enough planners in place—they should have the resources to make this work.
Equally, at the moment, lots of consultants are running all over Scotland in an attempt to make a fast buck. The race for those fast bucks is also causing problems. I could go on for ever on that one, but my time is up and I had better stop.
Murdo Fraser's motion raises a vital and emotive issue and, in that sense, it is welcome. The planning process needs to balance the potential for development with the concerns of local residents. A balance needs to be struck and that will not happen if a moratorium is instructed.
Like other members, I ask the Executive to do all that it can to encourage alternative forms of renewable energy. The minister is well aware of the excellent research that is being done at Robert Gordon University into tidal power and of the potential for the development of offshore wind in the Beatrice field, which is being promoted by Talisman Energy. We should do more to ensure that communities that are near wind farm developments benefit from them.
The essence of my contribution is that there should be no moratorium. Consideration of proposals must be robust. That said, I am aware that companies that want to build wind farms find that they have to make a substantial number of applications in order for one proposal to be accepted. It should be remembered that some wind farm proposals have greater public support than others do. The minister is aware of proposals in Aberdeen for wind turbines to be located off the coast of the city. I am not saying that polls are a scientific measure, but one that was conducted in Aberdeen by the Evening Express on the proposals saw an 84 per cent vote in favour of the proposals and only an 11 per cent vote against.
Of course, there needs to be more consultation than that, but I believe that the vote is an indication of the substantial body of opinion in Aberdeen. People want the city to be the energy capital of Europe now and in the long term. I do not believe that such aspirations should be blocked by a moratorium. I also do not believe that proposals should be stalled before proper consultation takes place. I agree that we have to take on board local concerns about specific proposals. However, if we are going to be serious about the need to make progress in the development of renewable energy, as we must be, we cannot support a moratorium.
I am grateful to Murdo Fraser for securing this debate. Members' business debates have rarely produced such a clear divide across the chamber or provided members with such a clear choice about the position they should take. The debate also gives me an opportunity to set out why I believe that we have put in place the right planning policies and the right policies to support renewable energy.
The starting point for our renewable energy policy is the need to tackle climate change. That is why the UK Government has set a target of generating 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by the end of this decade, and 20 per cent by the end of the next. Moreover, in Scotland, we have set targets for the same objective of 18 per cent by the end of this decade and 40 per cent by the end of the next one.
We have set higher targets in Scotland for three reasons. First, thanks to our hydroelectricity industry and Tom Johnston's vision 60 years ago, we start from a higher base than elsewhere. Secondly, as members have pointed out, we have in Scotland a tremendous resource of renewable energy in wind, wave and tidal power. Thirdly, we want to take full advantage of the economic development potential that renewable energy has to offer. Although we cannot quantify that potential with any certainty, Scottish Renewables estimates that, if we get the policy framework and the infrastructure right, the industry could be worth more than £1 billion a year and provide more than 20,000 Scottish jobs by 2020.
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I must press on.
We cannot take for granted either the potential for cleaner electricity or the potential for business and jobs. If we are to fulfil Scotland's renewables potential, we must establish policies that attract investment and innovation. Such an approach must include a planning policy that supports onshore wind energy development.
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I am very short of time.
That is the planning policy that Murdo Fraser has criticised. He argues that the current planning regime provides inadequate guidance and demands a moratorium until new planning guidance is in place. However, I believe that he is not giving our planning framework the credit that it deserves.
Will the minister give way?
If the Presiding Officer will give me more than six minutes, I will be happy to give way to all members' interventions.
I am sorry. Several members did not get into the debate and you are absolutely right to say that I have had to cut back your time.
In that case, I will take Murdo Fraser, because he lodged the motion.
I am very grateful to the minister for giving way under the circumstances.
If the current planning guidance is so adequate, will the minister tell us why SNH, the Government's own adviser on this issue, has said that we need a new national framework?
I want to answer the key point that the national planning policy framework is not adequate to its purpose. In fact, it is only three years since we reviewed our planning policy on renewable energy developments under NPPG 6, and planning advice note 45 on renewable energy technologies was reviewed only last year. That framework allows us to meet our aspirations and to maintain the high quality of the Scottish environment. NPPG 6 requires the planning system to make positive provision for energy policy
"while at the same time: meeting the international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats … from inappropriate forms of development; and minimising the effects on local communities."
Cumulative impacts of developments must also be taken into account. In our view, those guiding principles strike the right balance.
We are very interested in developing a community stake in wind farms—indeed, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has explored that very area—and in doing what we can to provide support to local communities that wish to develop renewable energy for their own use. Indeed, that is already being carried out with a £5 million grant scheme called the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. We want to develop such initiatives.
Central to many speeches that were critical of the existing planning framework was the argument that central Government should lay down a strategic framework for where wind farm development should take place. In fact, existing planning policy allows councils to do precisely that. They can use their structural and local plans either to define broad areas of search and areas where they would approve developments only in exceptional circumstances, or else to set down the criteria by which any application would be judged. Indeed, they can do both.
Councils are doing that very thing. For example, in its structure plan, Dumfries and Galloway Council has established a wind energy diagram that indicates potential, intermediate and sensitive areas. Stirling Council is currently consulting on precisely the same approach, and Fife Council has also followed that approach. On the other hand, Argyll and Bute Council, with its considerable practical experience of the industry, has chosen to take a different route by adopting an approach based on criteria alone.
To pick up on a point that George Lyon made about the impact of development plans, those larger schemes that come to Scottish ministers under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 are governed by the development plans of local authorities. Therefore, if a local authority chooses to give locational guidance, that will apply to those developments as well. We believe that it is right that those judgments are made at local level.
This planning system is also delivering renewable energy. I simply note that fewer than 10 per cent of the applications going through the system in the past five years have failed. In other words, the system is delivering renewable energy and environmental protection. A few weeks ago, as Alasdair Morrison mentioned, I visited Arnish, which symbolises the jobs potential that renewable energy offers Scotland. I therefore restate our position that the planning policy, the planning guideline and the energy policy that we have in place are the right ones to deliver for Scotland.
Meeting closed at 18:16.