Formal Complaint by Stuart Young to the Deputy Presiding Officer

in respect of

Mr Fergus Ewing’s failure to correct a statement made in Parliament

by Mr Mike McKenzie during the 21st February 2013 debate

on the

EET Committee Report into meeting Renewable Energy targets,

which Mr Ewing knew to be untrue

Documentation accompanying letter to Independent Advisors on the Scottish Ministerial Code

• 7th March 2013 – Letter to John Scott Esq, Deputy Presiding Officer

• 7th March 2013 – Letter to Mr Fergus Ewing MSP

• 14th March 2013 – Letter from John Scott Esq, Deputy Presiding Officer

• 15th March 2013 – Letter from Sue Kearns

• 19th March 2013 – Letter to Sue Kearns with newspaper clipping attached

• 19th March 2013 – Letter to the First Minister

• 3rd April 2013 – Letter from David Wilson

• The supporting documents which accompanied the original Formal Complaint to Mr Scott Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO KW14 8YD

7th March 2013

John Scott Esq Deputy Presiding Officer The EDINBURGH

Dear Mr Scott

It was me who called out “That is rubbish” while Mike McKenzie was speaking during the debate on the EET’s Report on Renewable Energy Targets on 21st February.

I apologise for the interruption but I was enraged to hear this particular untruth being spoken in Parliament by Mike McKenzie: “the myth that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables now known to be of the order of £21 per annum. A tiny fraction of annual fuel bills”. This can be found in the Archive Video footage after 68 minutes and 50 seconds have elapsed.

I attach a copy of a letter I have today sent to Fergus Ewing. The relevant part is the last section commencing “I turn now to my main purpose in writing”.

I wish to make a formal complaint in that Mr Ewing, the responsible Minister, allowed Mr McKenzie to remain uncorrected when I know without a shadow of doubt he is fully cognisant of the true cost of subsidising renewables. I have met with Mr Ewing and had correspondence with him. I know he is aware that the cost to consumers is greatly in excess of £21, but he did nothing to correct Mr McKenzie’s statement.

At the very least Mr Ewing should apologise to Parliament for knowingly allowing it to be misinformed, and make a statement in Parliament which outlines the true cost to consumers of the Renewables Obligations and the ’s Renewable Energy Targets.

For substantiation of my contention that Mr Ewing knows that £21 is not the true cost of renewables to consumers, please refer to the following documents, which are assembled in a single volume:

• An extract from a briefing note prepared for a meeting Mrs Lyndsey Ward and I had with Mr Ewing on 22nd October 2011. Mr Ewing took a copy away with him. • My letter to Mr Ewing dated 17th October 2012. • A letter from Mr Neal Rafferty dated 10th December 2012. • My response to Mr Rafferty dated 31st January 2013.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Young

Enc Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO KW14 8YD

7th March 2013

Mr Fergus Ewing MSP The Scottish Parliament EDINBURGH

Dear Mr Ewing

I attended the debate on 21st February on the EET Committee’s report on achieving renewables targets. It was an unedifying affair with the only contribution of note coming from Iain Gray. You will have noted the rumble of discontent from the gallery when you once more recited the mantra that the Scottish Government will “only approve the right developments in the right places.” This rumbling of discontent will no doubt be a very familiar sound to you by now.

During your closing speech, Rob Gibson intervened to draw your attention to the IGNIS scheme in Wick which he described as “a great success”. It is actually too early to say whether the scheme is successful or not as it has only just arisen from the ashes of the spectacular £15 million Council fiasco which was Caithness Heat and Power.

However, I note that you have been invited to visit Wick. When you do, please take time to see for yourself how well the Government’s policy to “only approve the right developments in the right places” has fared in Caithness.

Visit Lythmore to see how horrifyingly Baillie Windfarm towers over local residents and consider how well their residential amenity has been protected. Drive along the North Coast road to see Bettyhill Windfarm rising in the centre of the finest view on the North Coast. Visit the ancient Grey Cairns of Camster. Try to recreate the feeling of timelessness which has vanished in the shadow of Camster Windfarm and consider how well their historic setting has been protected. Visit the Tesco store in Wick and look toward Wathegar Windfarm, currently under construction, and reflect on the fact that the phrase “unacceptable cumulative visual impact” might have been coined with Wathegar in mind.

I turn now to my main purpose in writing. You heard an angry voice call out “That is rubbish!” during Mike McKenzie’s speech. It was mine. I was enraged to hear Mr McKenzie say “the myth that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables now known to be of the order of £21 per annum. A tiny fraction of annual fuel bills”. It might be that Mr McKenzie is simply ignorant of the truth or that he has been seduced by wind industry and Scottish Government misinformation, but I have made it my business to ensure that you are fully aware of the cost of Renewables and I was appalled that you, the responsible Government Minister, allowed such a falsehood to remain uncorrected. So much so that I am making a formal complaint to Mr John Scott, the Deputy Presiding Officer, who was on duty and noted my involuntary outburst at the time, see copy letter attached.

Yours sincerely

DG ENTERPRISE, ENVIRONMENT AND DIGITAL Directorate for Energy and Climate Change

T: 0300-244 1224 F: 0300-244 αβχδεφγηιϕκ 1140 MrE Stuart Young Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO KW14 8YD

___ 15th March, 2013

Dear Mr Young

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Thank you for your email and enclosures which you sent to Fergus Ewing dated 7th March. I have been asked to review the details which you set out and to provide a response on the minister’s behalf.

Your main purpose, as set out in the letter to Mr Ewing, is to draw attention to a formal complaint which you have made to the Deputy Presiding Officer. Your complaint refers to a statement made in the Parliament on 21st February by Mike McKenzie MSP. Mr McKenzie said:

“Another myth was that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables, but the figure is now known to be of the order of £21 per annum, which is a tiny fraction of annual fuel bills.”

You contend that this figure is false, and provide correspondence between yourself and Neal Rafferty from this Directorate to support your claim that Mr Ewing therefore knew this figure to be false.

I have reviewed your exchange of letters with Neal Rafferty. I reproduce an updated version of the calculation presented in his letter to you:

A – Size of the RO in 2011/12: 37,676,829 ROCs (Renewables Obligation Certificates) B – Buy-out price per ROC: £38.69 (as set by the RO Orders across the UK) C – Total cost of RO: £1,457,716,514 (A x B) D – Domestic supply proportion* 35% E – Estimated cost of domestic supply £510.2 million (C x D) F – Number of UK households** 26.4 million G – Cost of RO per household £19.32 (E / F)

This is based on more recent figures for the Renewables Obligation (RO) during the period covering April to March 2012. It produces an estimated cost for household bills arising from the RO during that period of just under £20.

In your letter to Mr Rafferty date 31st January, you contend that the calculation is wrong for the following reasons:

• It is based on the RO buyout price, rather than the average sale price of each ROC. • It does not include the cost of the Climate Change Levy (CCL). • It does not include the cost of transmission upgrades necessary to connect renewable generation

Our view is that the cost of the RO as presented in the original calculation and the updated version included within this letter remain correct. Firstly, the calculation assumes that the RO is met in full. Under such circumstances, ROCs would not attain the higher (recycle) value that forms part of the ROC price quoted in your letter, and would be worth no more than the buyout price – hence the calculation above.

If the calculation were to use the price of a ROC including the recycle value, then it would also need to use the number of ROCs submitted by suppliers instead of the total size of the RO for that period. Swapping those numbers into the calculation above produces a virtually identical answer (£19.28).

Secondly, the cost of the CCL is a separate matter, which does not affect the calculation presented. The costs of the CCL are presented separately and explicitly within energy bills. The measure itself also supports low carbon energy rather than just renewables, such as combined heat and power generation.

Finally, although there are indeed costs involved in upgrading the electricity networks, these are not entirely attributable to renewables. Nor do they alter our estimate of the costs of the RO mechanism to households alone.

I have compared the estimate which we have calculated with estimates provided to the House of Commons by the Minister of State for Energy in January 2012:

Year Estimated average amount added directly to domestic energy bill by RO payments, 2007-11 (real 2010-11 prices) Estimated average RO cost on domestic energy bill (£) 2007 13 2008 14 2009 16 2010 17 2011 19 (estimate given in advance of final Ofgem costs for the year)

There is a clear consistency between these estimates, just as there is with Ofgem’s recent estimate of the cost of the RO to consumers (£21 – see http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/household-bills.pdf).

I have also looked at figures and estimates provided by the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC published a report in December 2012 entitled Energy prices and bills – impacts of meeting carbon budgets. It is available at http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/ENERGYbill12/1672_CCC_Energy- Bills_bookmarked.pdf

This document estimates that the total costs of supporting low carbon generation in 2011 (including the cost of mechanisms other than the RO, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) was £35 – 7% of the average household electricity bill.

Having reviewed this information, I am content that the estimates mentioned in our previous correspondence – consistent with that used by Mr McKenzie in the debate – are accurate.

I hope that this reply is helpful. I have sent a copy to the office of the Deputy Presiding Officer.

Sue Kearns Head, Renewables Routemap Team

Dunmore Westside Dunnet KW14 8YD

19th March 2013

Ms Sue Kearns DG Enterprise, Environment & Digital Directorate for Energy & Climate Change The Scottish Parliament EDINBURGH EH99 1SP

Dear Ms Kearns

Thank you for your letter of 15th March and your updated calculation. While I am grateful for that, I am afraid you have missed the point of my complaint against Mr Ewing.

Mr Rafferty’s calculation and your review and update substantiate the fact that the element of the average household electricity bill in 2010/2011 (and updated to 2011/12 by you) was £17.59 or £19.32 or something of that order. As you point out, the calculation can be fine tuned, but it doesn’t matter that much. It is what it is, namely a calculation of the element of the average household electricity bill which is directly attributable to the cost of the Renewables Obligation.

That is not the subject of my complaint against Mr Ewing.

You quote Mr McKenzie’s statement to which I took objection from the written archive record of the debate in Parliament in spite of my having pointed out in my letter to the Deputy Presiding Officer, quoting Mr McKenzie verbatim from the video recording:

““the myth that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables now known to be of the order of £21 per annum. A tiny fraction of annual fuel bills”. This can be found in the Archive Video footage after 68 minutes and 50 seconds have elapsed.”

The archive record is a transcript. It is accurate enough for record purposes, but it is not the words Mr McKenzie used, nor is it the words Mr Ewing and I heard. Mr McKenzie did not say that the cost of the Renewables Obligation in the average household bill was £21. He said “the myth that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables now known to be of the order of £21 per annum. A tiny fraction of annual fuel bills”. As this discussion is about semantics, it is important that we are both addressing the correct words.

Some people might argue that £21 is not a “tiny fraction of annual fuel bills” but £21 is not the cost of “subsidising renewables”, neither individually nor for the average household.

Mr Rafferty in his letter of 10th December 2012 acknowledged, and did not dispute, my contention that ultimately the entire cost of the Renewables Obligation is borne by “consumers”. Your review ignores this point.

You tell me that the total cost of the RO in 2011/12 was £1,457,716,514 and that there are 26.4 million households in the UK. The average cost of the RO per household was therefore £55.22. It doesn’t matter how you fine tune the calculations, £21 is not the cost of “Renewables”. Your calculation is a reasonable (and reasoned) assessment of the cost of the “Renewables Obligation” to the average household. That is all it is.

You/

-2-

19th March 2013

Ms Sue Kearns

You gloss over the cost of transmission upgrades as they are not part of the cost of the RO to households, and it is not entirely attributable to the cost of the Renewable Obligation. I agree that not all transmission upgrades are attributable to the use of renewables, but the larger portion certainly is.

I would remind you that my complaint is in respect of Mr Ewing failing to have corrected Mr McKenzie’s statement in Parliament which was about the cost of “renewables”.

You cannot buy a pint of milk without paying for the bottle. You cannot buy a unit of electricity without paying for the transmission system. In the DECC’s response to the EET Committee’s final report on the achievability of renewables targets, Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy, wrote “the Energy Bill (currently passing through the Westminster Parliament) is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.”

That is £4166.67 per average household, most of which will be solely attributable to the cost of using renewables.

The Beauly/Denny transmission upgrade is solely required to allow renewables to be used. It will cost in excess of £600 million. That is approximately £113 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

Whilst researching for my paper “Overview of the Scottish Government’s First Annual UPDATE of its2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy” which I prepared on behalf of Communities Against Turbines Scotland, (copy attached), I noted the very large sums of money ploughed into the research and development of marine renewables. That is also attributable to the cost of renewables and funded by the consumer.

As an aside, it is worth noting that in spite of the scale of public funding for marine renewables, nine years after the opening of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney there is still not a single commercial scale wave or tidal generator operating in UK waters. No doubt further R&D funding will be required to make it happen. That funding is also a cost of renewables to the consumer.

The abominable Feed in Tariff regime is a very substantial cost of renewables visited upon the consumer. In Caithness alone, a small county of only 26,000 people, the cost at today’s rates of wind energy FiTs over its lifetime for the consented small turbines and only 75% of the applied for but not yet determined ones is a staggering £36 million. More applications flood in every week.

I did not calculate, and I suspect that nobody actually knows, the cost to consumers of the solar panels funded by the consumer through FiTs.

Mr McKenzie said that “renewables” cost the consumer £21. Mr Ewing knows that to be incorrect. Mr Ewing did not correct Mr McKenzie. That is the basis of my complaint.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Ewing does not want the consumer to know the true cost of renewables.

I/

-3-

19th March 2013

Ms Sue Kearns

I attach a scanned copy of an article written by Mr Ewing and published in the New Era supplement of the Sunday Herald on 17th March 2013. You will see that Mr Ewing persists in not telling the public the full cost of renewables.

I am copying this to Mr Scott who has advised me that it is not the province of the Presiding Officer’s department to deal with such matters.

I have now submitted my complaint to the First Minister who is responsible for ensuring adherence to the Scottish Ministerial Code. Mr Salmond might have some difficulty in addressing my complaint because on 6th September 2011 in Elgin, he told me face to face that the cost of renewables in the average household bill was at that time £15, the same half-truth which is at the heart of my complaint.

Fortunately, Mr Salmond has access to independent advisers who can help him resolve the matter without compromising his own position.

Yours sincerely

STUART YOUNG

Enc

Dunmore Westside Dunnet KW14 8YD

19th March 2013

Alec Salmond Esq First Minister The Scottish Parliament EDINBURGH EH99 1SP

Dear Mr Salmond

Formal complaint against Mr Fergus Ewing

Following the Renewable Energy Targets Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee Debate on 21st February 2013 I lodged a Formal Complaint about Mr Fergus Ewing with the Deputy Presiding Officer, Mr John Scott. Mr Scott has advised me that the Presiding Officer does not deal with Ministerial Conduct and that I should make my complaint to the Scottish Government.

My reading of the Ministerial Code of Conduct tells me that you are the responsible person for enforcing the Code, therefore I have attached all the papers sent to Mr Scott, a letter from Ms Sue Kearns dated 15th March 2013, my response dated 19th March 2013, and an extract from the Sunday Herald of 17th March 2013.

The essence of my complaint is that Mr Ewing knowingly failed to correct a statement made by Mr Mike McKenzie during the debate about the cost of renewables. I believe this to be in contravention of clause 1.2 (c) of the Code:

(c) It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the First Minister;

You may find it improper for you to determine the outcome of my complaint given that you told me on 6th September 2011 outside Elgin Town Hall that the cost of renewables in a domestic electricity bill was only £15, the same half truth at the root of my complaint against Mr Ewing. I note, however, that you have access to independent advisers to assist you in such circumstances.

I attach a photograph of our encounter which might help to refresh your memory.

Yours sincerely

STUART YOUNG

Enc: Elgin/

Elgin 6th September 2011

DG ENTERPRISE, ENVIRONMENT AND DIGITAL Directorate for Energy and Climate Change

T: 0300-244 1050 F: 0300-244 1140 E: [email protected] Mr Stuart Young Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO KW14 8YD

___ 3rd April, 2013

Dear Mr Young

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Thank you for your letter and enclosures to the First Minister dated 19th March. I have been asked to reply on the First Minister’s behalf.

Your complaint is that Mr Ewing, having knowingly failed to correct a statement made by another member which he (Mr Ewing) knew to be incorrect, had breached clause 1.2 (c) of the Scottish Ministerial code.

The Scottish Ministerial Code relates to the actions and statements of Ministers of the Scottish Government. Ministers are not responsible for statements made by individual MSPs in a Parliamentary debate. As such, the issue which you raise in your letter of 19th March is therefore not a matter for the Scottish Ministerial Code.

While I accept that you continue to disagree with our position on the matter of renewables costs, I am satisfied that we have responded fully to these issues as part of our previous replies to you.

DAVID WILSON Director of Energy

Formal Complaint by Stuart Young to the Deputy Presiding Officer

in respect of

Mr Fergus Ewing’s failure to correct a statement made in Parliament

by Mr Mike McKenzie during the 21st February 2013 debate

on the

EET Committee Report into meeting Renewable Energy targets,

which Mr Ewing knew to be untrue

Supporting documents

• Briefing note for the 22/10/11 meeting Mrs Lyndsey Ward/Stuart Young/Mr Ewing

• SY letter to Mr Ewing dated 17th October 2012

• Letter from Mr Neal Rafferty dated 10th December 2012

• SY letter to Mr Rafferty dated 31st January 2013

6th March 2013

Extract from Briefing note for the 22/10/11 meeting

Mrs Lyndsey Ward/Stuart Young/Mr Ewing

PRESENTATIONS. The true cost to the consumer of wind power including transmission upgrades. We are aware that the Minister has recently been briefed by Mr Colin Gibson and Members of the Royal Academy on the technical aspects of transmission and associated costs, and that he will be aware of the nature and scale of transmission reinforcement that is needed to accommodate wind energy on the grid.

The true cost of wind energy is not just the element that appears in electricity bills. The cost of the Renewables Obligation which is met by commerce and industry is ultimately paid for by the consumer.

Beauly/Denny transmission upgrade has just started and is already expected to be double its estimated cost. The Parliament Building and Edinburgh Trams spring to mind. It will deliver wind energy to Central Scotland which is already overprovided for. The consumer will ultimately pay for Beauly/Denny and all other as yet uncosted transmission reinforcements.

There is inadequate cross border capacity to export wind energy to England. It is perverse to generate energy and provide the means of transporting it only half way to its point of need. However this is resolved, the consumer will bear the cost.

Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO Caithness KW14 8YD

17th October 2012

Mr Fergus Ewing MSP The Scottish Parliament Holyrood EDINBURGH.

DELIVERED BY HAND AND BY POST

Dear Mr Ewing

One year ago in you were good enough to meet with Mrs Lyndsey Ward and me. You listened carefully, and indeed took pains to ensure that you fully understood what we had to say to you. In particular, we discussed my illustration of how the full cost of the Renewables Obligation is ultimately borne by the 66 million people of the United Kingdom, and that simply to refer to the direct cost to consumers through domestic electricity bills is disingenuous and misleading.

Mrs Ward and I were encouraged that the new Minister was aware of and understood this and other matters we raised. However, it soon after became apparent that despite your intellectual grasp of these matters, you were bent on pursuing the energy dictat of Mr Salmond, regardless of its flawed logic and basis on a tissue of lies.

When you announced the support for Renewables on 13th September you said, or allowed yourself to be quoted as saying, "Estimates suggest that the RO currently costs domestic consumers between £15-£20 a year, rising to £50 per year by 2017 ."

It is inconceivable in your position as Minister that you are unaware that the cost of the Renewables Obligations alone in 2011/2012 is estimated by DECC to be £1.764 billion*.

That is £26.73 per person (£1.764bn÷66m people). If only 40% of that cost is borne directly through domestic electricity bills and a household is taken as 2.4 persons, then the total RO cost per household is £64.15. (£25.66 for domestic electricity and £38.49 paid through the electricity cost element of all goods and services purchased.)

You made no reference to the massive cost of transmission infrastructure needed to meet the SNP's "ambitious targets". It is inconceivable that you do not know that the cost of the Beauly to Denny transmission reinforcement (a very small part of the transmission expansion required) if borne by the people of Scotland alone, will be in the order of £114 per person (£600m÷5.25m people).

It/

1

-2-

17th October 2012

Mr Fergus Ewing MSP

It should be inconceivable, but it clearly is not, that a Minister of State should rely on weasel words such as "Estimates suggest " to misinform the people of Scotland. It is your job to know the facts and it is your duty to tell the truth to the people of Scotland.

You come from a family (whether I agree with its views or not) with a long and honourable tradition of service to Scotland and its people. In one short year, by your adherence to the dominion of Mr Salmond's lunatic energy policy, you have done more harm to Scotland and its people than all the good previously achieved by your family.

Mr Ewing, unless you have the courage to embrace the truth and stand up for Scotland against Mr Salmond, the damage caused through his energy obsession to the people, the economy, and the land and seascapes of Scotland will be the lasting legacy of the Ewing dynasty.

Someone has to be the first to break rank and openly challenge Mr Salmond's ruinous Renewable Energy aspirations for Scotland. Let it be you and the nation will be forever grateful.

Yours sincerely

As I am presently abroad, please respond through Mrs Lyndsey Ward.

* Extracted from REF Publication "The Probable Cost of UK Renewable Electricity Subsidies 2002-2030"

2

Dunmore Westside Dunnet THURSO KW14 8YD

31st January 2013

Neal Rafferty Esq Energy and Climate Change Directorate Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw G2 8LU

Your ref: 2012/0035285

Dear Mr Rafferty

Thank you for your letter of 10th December in response to mine of 17th October addressed to Fergus Ewing MSP. I do understand that the Minister has a great deal of correspondence to attend to and I am grateful for the reply. I also apologise for my delay in replying.

I did not express any view on the cost of renewables, I simply divided the estimated cost of the RO from DECC figures for 2011/2012 by the number of people in the UK, and that came to £26.73 per person or £64.15 per household, assuming that the average household comprised 2.4 persons, and that 40% of electricity production was used by domestic consumers.

I note that you agree that the Renewables Obligations are an added cost to suppliers and also note that you do not disagree that those costs are all ultimately passed on to consumers, nor do you point out any discrepancy in my calculations.

I am surprised that when actual RO costs are known, you chose to illustrate how “the theoretical maximum cost to domestic consumers” is calculated and how you “go about calculating or sourcing the numbers that ministers have stated publicly”.

Your calculation to establish the partly true cost of ROs in domestic electricity bills is in itself only partly true. The buy-out price of ROCs may well be set at £36.99 but it is the market value of the ROC which is passed on to the consumer. The average sale price of a ROC according to NFPA auction prices over the 2010/11 April to March period was £48.10. http://www.eroc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm .

I am happy to accept that the domestic supply proportion of electricity is 36% and that there are 26.3 million households in the UK but the figure of £17.59 per household for the cost of the ROs which you arrived at should have been £22.88.

I don’t pretend to understand how it works, but the value of the Climate Change Levy Exemption (CCLE) is also passed to the consumer, and that is around £5 which has to be added to the £48.10 ROC price. Including this in the calculation adds a further £2.15 to the domestic bill making your partially true calculation £25.03, not £17.59.

-2-

31st January 2013

Neil Rafferty Esq

When I use your figures for the number of ROCs issued in 2010/11, the £48.11 actual average auction price of a ROC, £5 for the value of a CCLE certificate and 26.3 million households, the true cost per household of ROCs and CCLE alone in 2010/11 was £70.17.

You make no mention of the cost of transmission reinforcement necessary to accommodate the wind generated electricity foisted on us by this Scottish Government.

Thank you for sharing with me the means by which Scottish Government Ministers justify (in my opinion) misleading the electorate. Since your figures cannot be right, I look to you to advise the Minister of the true facts, so that he can keep us all properly informed.

You may wonder what prompted me to respond to your letter after such a time had elapsed. It is to be found in the final paragraph of the attached article from the Telegraph on 30th January 2013, my apologies for the poor quality copy. The phrase in question is “that there is already guidance that suggests a 2km barrier between windfarms and settlements”. This presumably refers to the final paragraph of Clause 190 of SPP. You and Mr Ewing will be well aware that there is no suggestion that a barrier exists or is even contemplated by SPP between wind farm developments and settlements. If Mr Ewing did not indeed give the journalist the impression that such a barrier is suggested in guidance then can we expect him to ask the Telegraph for a correction to be printed?

Finally, I attach a copy of my paper “Overview of the Scottish Government’s First Annual UPDATE of its 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy, An Overview on Behalf of Communities Against Turbines Scotland, November 2012” which you might find to be of interest and to which I should be grateful if you would draw Mr Ewing’s attention.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Young

Enc