 Can you can ask members who are leaving the chamber to please do so quickly and quietly. The next item of business, final item, is a members of business debate on motion 9.4.3.5 in the name of Alexander Burnett, on ensuring a just transition for rural communities. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the question speak buttons and I would call on Alexander Burnett to open the debate around 7 minutes please. I'm thinking members for their support in bringing that motion to debate. All across Scotland, communities face being under siege by wind farm developments despite strong opposition to them. I've been in touch with groups such as Nafer, Save Our Hills Moffitt and Save Straight In for Scotland, and I'm delighted to welcome representatives in the gallery today. 7 o'r tyfnidwyr ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr yn cyflawniaeth bwysig, sef hynny'n ddweud ddweud 3,400 turbine sy'n ddweud yn Sgolwyr wedi'i gwneud yn 2030. Mae'r ddweud yn ei ddweud o'r tyfnidwyr yn ysgolwyr yn ddweud yn 2025 ac 2030. Ond yn ddweud, mae'r tyfnidwyr ysgolwyr yn gweithio ddweud yn ei ddweud, os ydych chi, mae'r tyfnidwyr yn ddweud 3,500 turbine sy'n gweithio ddweud yn ddweud, i wneud chi weithio y byddai gwahanol. Felly, iawn y maen nhw'n cael eu cyfathraddau lle yn gyfreidol a'r cwmddagğau cyfathraddau oherwydd nywethaf. Mae'n meddwl that the views of communities affected are heard and properly considered. Ac rwy'n medden nhw hwnnw'n modol o'r regisdoedd, ac weithgau ond cyfnodd yn ddisgytigaf, mae'r ddweudio'r 12 kW farm yn wedi'i gweithio'r ddegade agor, o'r tynnu yn gweithio'r ddweudio mewn cyffordd o'r holl o'r cyfnodd ar y yrhaf yw, o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl. Ond yw'r ffordd mewn arlawn ac rwy'n credu i'n cael ei gael i gael i'r holl o'r holl. Felly, cyntaf o llwyddiant i gwrsau Llyfrgellfyniadol yn y Llyfrgellfyniadol yw'r gwaith yn ynnw'n ei ddweud. Felly, mae'n bwysig eu dyfodol, ac mae'n bach yn arddangos i'ch parau arall y gwylltau. Felly, mae'n bach yn cyfrifiadu bwysig o'r gwrsau aethau'r adonai'n gweithio'n gwylltau. Rydyn ni'n gweld gynghwmwyno'n gwneud yw ein ffarniadau, yw eu ddweud o'r rhan i'r rhan o'r cyfrifiadau, ac mae'n gweithio â'r minister, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r cymdeithasol. Rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r minister Richard Lochhead, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r cymdeithasol. Ond mae'n gweithio â Clashen-Darrick a'r Creg Watch yng Nghymru. Rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r 54 turbyns, ac mae'n gweithio â 146 turbyns yn unrhyw o'r 10 km. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r minister o'r cymdeithasol, if he listens to the community or whether he will just ignore his constituents? The hill of fare proposal is for 16 turbyns, some 200m tall, on a hill which is itself 300m above the landscape. If this receives approval it will be the first on Royalty side, and will set a precedent that will open the floodgates to more industrial size turbines. Destroying the landscape, protected in parts ac yn ei ddweud y rhan o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas. Y ddweud ysgrifennid gyda'r First Minister yma, mewn ddod o'r ysgolfaeth a'r 8 cymdeithas cymdeithas, mae'n ddod o'r 71% o'r rhan o'r cymdeithas, i'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas, ac mae'n ddod o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas, a'i ddod o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas. Yn y cwm ydych chi'n gweithio, llawer o'r blaennau cer definitelyale nenad yn amser gan myneddau r exploitationach, iùen i fynd yn yr hanwer o deunydd investorsdaeth ar trains. against it is too late. Thank you, Mr Burnett. Unrhyw i gradd i ddef learnsig tai, gan gwybod eich mae'r dod yn Cymru絵determ Government Un fifteen. I call John Swinney on to be followed by Oliver Golden disappointment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Alexander Burnett on securing this debate, which is an important debate to give voice to the views of people in rural Scotland on the important role they have to play, as we all have to play in the transition to net zero, because I think all of us and any of us experiencing what we've experienced in the last few weeks alone are living through the visual manifestation of the climate crisis that we face and the significant changes in climate that are being experienced. One of the questions at the heart of this debate, and one of the Conservative members earlier on today, Liam Kerr, was raising issues about water scarcity. I can hardly believe that we're having a discussion about water scarcity in June, when normally these issues are issues that we confront much later in the summer period. Another illustration of the impact of the climate crisis all begs the question, are we serious about tackling these issues? We have to be serious about tackling the climate crisis, and renewable energy, as Alexander Burnett has acknowledged, has a role to play in that question in relation to its role as part of a mix of energy sources. There are a number of calls that Mr Burnett makes in his motion that are reasonable calls. I think that the points about the uplifting of community benefit contribution rates are valid points that should be advanced, and the Government should consider those issues. We must maintain an up-to-date analysis of any societal impacts of renewable energy and the points on the noise from night-time activity. It is important that we reflect and consider those and the decision-making process. Those are all completely reasonable points, but we also have to recognise the necessity of ensuring that we have enough steps being taken to tackle the severity and the gravity of the climate crisis that we face. Along with offshore wind and hydro schemes and various other measures, the investment in solar energy that we are also seeing are all part of that mix in the transition that we have to make. The last point that I want to make relates to the point that Mr Burnett makes in his motion, where he criticises the energy consensuit in Edinburgh. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the wording of that is particularly generous or charitable, because I do not think that it is right to criticise public officials who are simply interpreting the law as the law is made by this institution. The decisions on energy consens are taken, not in some random process by civil servants, but by reference to the legitimate points that Mr Burnett raised about the preservation of the natural environment. I will do in a moment about historical sites of significance and a variety of other considerations that Parliament lays down has to be looked at in that process. However, to build public confidence, those decisions are taken by a reference to statute and evidence that is then published in marshaled information by the consent unit. Of course, I give way to Mr Burnett. Thank you, Mr Burnett, for taking that intervention. I would not like to criticise the officials at the energy consens unit, because the work that they are doing is set out by the politicians and by this place. Their remit to be able to do stuff is stems from here. However, does Mr Swinney agree that not having a single elected representative has any say in such developments is wrong? I think that that is a characterisation of the process that I would not recognise, because politicians are involved in setting the framework within which those decisions are taken. That is the proper role for politicians to say what standards should we follow and then for decisions to be taken in accordance with that framework. Of course, if you would allow me to make this last point, if people are dissatisfied—if a local authority was dissatisfied with a decision that has been taken—the local authority, as with any decision of the Scottish Government, is free to challenge that decision in the process of law. That option is available if there has been an error in the application of the law. That is the crucial point that we have to consider. I do not want that issue to separate me from recognising that there are important calls in that motion that I hope that the Government will respond to constructively, because communities that are making the sacrifice to be part of their transition must be able to share in the benefits as many communities in my constituency have shared in the benefits of wind farms that have been approved in our locality and which contribute to enhancing the health and wellbeing of the locality that I have the privilege to represent. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice the frustrations of my constituents tonight. I would like to thank Alexander Burnett for securing this much needed debate. The issue speaks to the wider contempt in which rural communities are held by this Government and, more specifically, the lack of voice they have in the planning system—a system that often feels like a sham stacked in favour of the developers. Too often we see the views and decisions of local authorities discounted and overturned. Community councils and local people saying no, yet those projects are still imposed. Objectors are treated like second-class citizens whose views count for less than that of the Government or developers. That has certainly been my own experience with developers seeking to block my participation in inquiry sessions, asserting that because I am not a landscape expert, the views that I express on behalf of my constituents do not matter, and developers arguing that community concerns are better lumped together into less formal hearing sessions, if recognised at all. It is a system where slick out-of-town lawyers and consultants rock up in their top-of-the-range gas-guzzling sports cars and tell rural communities that they do not matter. Who claim that for the sake of progress on the planet, we must see our landscapes destroyed and the devastating impacts on wildlife, peat, watercourses and biodiversity are conveniently downplayed. All the while, local people are told that they should be grateful for the pittons that they are offered by way of return—a so-called community benefit. It is nothing more than stake-condoned bribery used to divide communities and manipulate planning outcomes. It is all the more insulting when it is contrasted with the millions banked by the new renewable barons. On top of that feeling of unfairness, we see a landscape impact methodology that focuses on what are often manipulated viewpoints overlooking what it is like to live and work in the vicinity of those developments, where people intricately know, love and are connected to their landscapes across generations. Linked to that, we also see a very narrow focus on residential immunity. Forgetting the environment around them is exactly why people choose to live in the countryside. Under the current system, many pockets of outstanding natural beauty are sacrificed because they are too small to merit national protection. Tourism concerns are downplayed despite developers' own studies showing a loss of jobs in some areas post-build, and, of course, the promised new green jobs just do not materialise. It gets worse, because there is something truly sinister going on below the road it is. Of course, in this life, it is always easier to turn a blind eye, but our current planning system is being corrupted by cash payments. That is serious and turbocharging rural depopulation. Some people call it the new clearances, but it can be more accurately described as the disappearances. Secret deals take place, non-disclosure agreements, signing away people's rights to object in the planning process in exchange for payment are now commonplace in Scotland. Others sell directly to the developer or those connected by the project to reduce the planning requirements. They literally vanish from their homes and the only trace they leave is a letter in the hands of the developer with vague statements confirming that the wind farm application had nothing to do with their move. Those murky practices are gutting our rural valleys and pitting neighbour against neighbour. You cannot blame people, Presiding Officer, for taking the golden ticket, but in this context it does make those who choose to make a stand in the David and Goliath battle to stand up for their homes and their communities against attempts to manipulate the planning system all the more impressive. I pay tribute to some of those who have been in the Parliament today, but we need to act. This is not right in Scotland in 2023. Climate concerns, our environment and our people, not who can pay the most, should be at the heart of our consent regime. Minister, it is time to step in and stop the rot. Our communities deserve a fair hearing. I now call Sarah Boyack to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I also want to congratulate Alexander Burnett for bringing his motion today and managing to get it into the chamber. There are parts of the motion that I do not agree with, but it is important that we have this debate so that people can raise issues from their communities and test it in the Parliament, especially when our constituents are with us in the chamber today. I want to hold together or hold to account, rather, our colleague Mr Burnett. Indeed, every Conservative MSP has stated that we need to deliver a wholly renewable-powered Scotland and we have the wealth of natural resources to achieve that. That manifesto wants to say that we also support the expansion of onshore wind capacity in Scotland, where it is agreed by and benefits local communities as well as our country as a whole. I do not think that the motion exactly matches up with that commitment. The emphasis in the motion that I agree with, which I want to reflect on, is on the involvement of communities, because we see that in our planning system. It is utterly crucial that communities are involved, treated with respect and that local authorities consult them properly, and that we make sure that our planning system is not a top-down process where controversial issues automatically go up to the Scottish Government and then get given the go-ahead. I think that there is a need to have a more grounded local approach. In fact, in our last manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, we suggested to the Scottish Labour that we should have what we call the third party right of appeal, so that local communities could also appeal against a decision being taken. That would mean that communities were given more priority and it would encourage developers to talk to them more. I am not going to do it because I will try to stick to the four minutes. One of the things that I want to welcome is the point that was made in his opening remarks about the issue of community benefits. I think that that is a much underexplored and a huge opportunity. I think that there is an issue about communities who see huge developments taking place and they personally do not get any benefit from it. There is something that we need to change there, and that must be a frustration, not just in terms of the view but also in terms of their energy bills. We have designed a grid that incentivises building of power closest to dense urban communities, and yet the renewables transition is all about making sure that we have renewables across the country. That needs to be a fair process. There are other solutions where communities can work with developers. In Fintry, for example, we saw a fantastic development where people to this day are benefiting from the wind turbines in our area. I recently went to the Point and Sandbook Trust in the Western Isles and saw their community-owned wind farm. That trust receives an income of nearly £1 million a year, and that has been used to support the community and to support people with local people with their energy bills. I think that there is an opportunity here. The UK Climate Change Committee in its delivering reliable, decarbonised power system report projected that our UK electricity demand is going to double from about 300 terawatt hours to 600 terawatt hours by 2050. I think that we need to work together and we need to test the system as colleagues are doing today. We need to make sure that we get political leadership so that we can increase our renewable supply, but that just transition relates to local members of the public. It relates to local communities. For example, why doesn't our planning system require developers to have a proportion of the development employing local members of the public or requiring developments that are made in Scotland so that we don't just import all our winter binds. Solar is another big opportunity. We could be seeing much more in terms of solar development. I was interested to see that Highland Council is looking at three solar projects. As I understand it, developments are now taking place with technology that you can have solar and you can also farming at the same time. There are opportunities and we need to be ahead of the game. That is why we are very keen of the Scottish Labour to make sure that we are a clean energy superpower. We create the jobs that I have talked about across the country. We cut people's bills, particularly in rural communities, because the 35 per cent fuel poverty is way worse in our rural communities. Many of whom are off-gas grid and have expensive electricity bills. We need to turn that round. We need to boost energy security and play our part in tackling the climate crisis, but do it in such a way that we are working with local communities. I see that in my urban areas as well as rural areas. We need to boost the capacity of communities to work together and to negotiate with developers. For example, the work done by the cooperative movement is supporting local communities now. I would like to hear from the minister about how the Scottish Government can do more to work with communities, to fund our councils, so that we see more local ownership, sensitivity to local developments, to think about how we can make the planning system better, to make sure that local communities do not just see a renewable project installed near them without any real consultation, without any real engagement, but that they can get an actual benefit from it. If we do that, that will be a just transition. I now call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Martin Whitfield. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I would like to congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett for bringing the motion to the chamber. The route to an effective just transition is an issue that has rightly received much scrutiny in recent years. It is important to remember, however, that failing to achieve this transition in a way that is fair and proportionate is something that will impact some communities far more than others. Today's motion speaks about the impact of the unjust transition on rural communities. It is important to highlight that the views of these communities, the transition that they are willingness, is truly seen as unjust. Today's motion speaks about how many rural communities have overwhelmingly opposed on-shore windfarm proposals only to see those objections overruled through central government dictat. We have heard a number of examples today already, and there are other examples across my own region. The roads of windfarm development in Clackmannanshire were rejected back in 2013 by the council, having received numerous objections from many community groups across the area. However, that refusal was promptly overturned by the Scottish Government the following year. A true just transition for rural communities is one that works with those communities, talks about their concerns instead of riding rudshod over them and imposing, as we have already heard, large windfarm developments within the communities. It is one that ensures that those developments give back to the surrounding communities, and that has been touched upon. Today's motion is right to speak about the calls for a mandatory minimum contribution rate for renewable energy developments. The Bunfoot Windfarm Community Fund, which provides grants for communities once again across the Clackmannanshire area, is an example of that and how those developments can provide compensation for the communities that are most affected. If rural communities are to receive this just transition, they must ensure that all community funds of that kind are given back to the surrounding communities in a way that is truly fair. There are a number of ways in which the journey to net zero risks hitting rural communities is the hardest of all. Those include schemes such as the SNP's Workplace Parking Levy, which will hit rural communities who have no choice but to have and commute by car to the facilities and locations that they require. Thank you very much. I was not a steward, but I was not a steward recognised, though, that those decisions about Workplace Parking Levy are actually devolved to local government who could make that decision. Alex Neil. I thank the Minister for the Intervention, but it is rural communities that will pay the price minister because they have little choice, as I have said, in how they manage that. It is also the slow roll-out of the electing charging points in rural settings, which will make life increasingly difficult for rural communities over the next decade. Are rural communities already facing tough challenges in the transition to net zero, yet, despite that, the Government is still forcing them to accept proposals that they have objected to? In conclusion, alongside my colleagues on those benches, I will continue to stand up for rural communities whose voices are not being heard through this process, only by working with those communities and ensuring that there is comprehension, compensation and understanding, there will be an ability. We can just see how that can be achieved for people in areas throughout Scotland because today their voices are not being heard. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Brian Whittle. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to contribute to this member's debate. I congratulate Alexander Burnett, who, with my assistance, managed to reach the requisite number. I did so not because I am in agreement with everything contained in this motion, but, as others have pointed out, there are really important elements in this that need to be debated, which we have not had the opportunity to debate, which need to reflect our constituents from across Scotland and their experience of renewables and, indeed, the community benefit that they have seen flow from it. There is something about how, when these plans start, the outreach to the communities actually leaves a lot to be desired. There tends to be outreach to certain elements of it, to stakeholders of it, and sometimes the actual individuals within our communities are the last to find out, frequently from Facebook groups in their own villages and areas that point out that something is happening. However, we have the academic research and the intellectual knowledge to understand how dialogical forms of engagement, where companies, local authorities and, indeed, the Scottish Government reach out properly in a two-way discussion with constituents where support can be generated because there is confidence in what they are being told, what they see the results and what they see the benefit coming to them. I can speak of incidents from other industries, such as EDF, Tarmac and, indeed, Viridol credits, where there is close work with the community, where they share assets, money and other experience so that the communities feel part of these industries. I do see a struggle, particularly in my own experience, with offshore coming onshore but also onshore wind farms, where that can be a challenge. Inch Cape, who have a point that will be coming in impressive hands, have worked incredibly hard to reach out to their communities and, indeed, have managed to provide support before a scheme is formally in place to support the Children's Gala, to support holiday clubs, to support much work that, I have to say, much of which comes from the cuts that the local authorities have suffered. I will not pursue that point. Berwick Bank, which intends to come ashore close to Dunbar, we see challenges where a community is being expected to have infrastructure changes that are happening from a whole source of areas, and, in fact, they have to take it upon themselves to struggle to identify what the impact can be on their communities. We have the challenge, then, of the compensation of going forward. What should it look like? How much should it be? How should it be divided? The offshore communities have the challenge that, effectively, the shoreline is massive for offshore. So who is the community that is being talked about? I speak about the Berwick Bank community and the community council there, who are very specific about the effect on their quite small community, but of coming ashore over a battle site close to an industrial area that could perhaps be achieved at easier. So we need to do better both in this place, but also those that hold these contracts need to continue to do better, continue to reach out, because if we fail and we don't take our communities with us and there is a real chance that that may occur, then actually the challenge of reaching a net zero is going to be that much harder. Quite frankly, why should our communities be the ones that feel dumped on to help the central belt? Why should our local communities be the ones who feel they are last to know, and why should our local communities actually be the last sometimes to see the benefit? I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Before I call the next speaker, I would advise that, due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I would invite Alexander Burnett to move a motion without notice. Many thanks. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now call Brian Whittle to be followed by Katie Clark. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett for bringing this debate to the chamber. I'm very grateful to be able to speak in that debate. Now I'm a south of Scotland MSP and I'm consistently dealing with onshore wind issues in my mailbag. I was struck by my colleague Alexander Burnett saying that he spoke to communities who are surrounded by a ring of steel. We had a very similar issue last term in East Asia where a town ended up surrounded by wind turbines. Every direction on every hill, the view is of a huge wind turbine, despite consistent rejection from local communities. It's not just that there's not enough consultation with our communities. It's the ignoring of the community voices when they make their views known. Earlier on today, I was down in Abington where there is a public consultation going on about putting in an electricity transmission substation near Redshaw. It strikes me there that perhaps when we're doing a consultation for wind turbines, I think that the local communities do not understand that it's not just the turbines that will be put in. It is things like substation. It is like overhead cabling, which predominantly comes in with that, which are not at the... Of course. I'll leave them down. I thank Toll for taking the intervention. I just wanted if you'd agree with me that those considerations should form part of the energy consent units application process and their consideration before giving consent that should be tagged on afterwards. Brian Whistle. You've just picked up the very next point that I was going to make, Mr Midell, because it absolutely is true. It shouldn't just be about the wind turbines. The community should know exactly what it is they're being asked to put up with, and that should take into account things like substations, things like cabling as well. The whole process of dealing with the application of wind turbines must include that. I've also been dealing with a case for the last five years where a wind farm was erected despite concerns about the effects that this may have on the local water supplies, and those rural houses with a private water supply were indeed polluted. New boreholes were then established by the contractor. However, the water quality was very poor, yet they cannot get the water quality tests done regularly, as is supposed to happen. I think that this is part of the issue as well around... It's all very well as saying that we will deal with these post-building of a wind farm, but we have to make sure that these companies and CPA itself are resourced enough to be able to ensure that regulations are met. I appreciate Mr Midell taking the intervention. Does he recognise that, often when applications are referred to the Scottish Government for approval, those approvals come with conditions, but the local authorities have no capacity or resources to police those conditions? That's a fundamental error, a fundamental flaw in the Scottish Government approving such applications. From the casting that is, of course, absolutely correct, and that is exactly the issue that I would like to raise here, is that it's all very well having conditions during the application, but you have to be able to enforce those conditions. Currently, our local authorities are not resourced enough to be able to do that. I'm not against on-show when, in fact, I see them as potentially part of a solution where wind power could power, for example, hydrogen generation, which in turn could create local energy supplies off the grid. However, communities feel they are being used, they are sacrificed to power the central belt, and if we continue to develop on-show wind, honesty is required, not just directing the wind farms, but the development of those substations that we talked about and the overhead cables. We need to work at our planning issues, which has been discussed at length by just about every presenter today. 13 years from application to build is not conducive to reaching net zero. Perhaps we do need to look at how we can set areas aside where specific presumption of planning might be in agreement. Certainly, communities with on-show wind farms on their doorstep should have lower energy bills at the very least. Certainly, community voices must not only be heard, but they must be listened to. I'll leave my contribution there, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call Katie Clark to be followed by Douglas Ross, Ms Clark. I would like to thank Alistair Burnett for securing this debate and indeed for arranging the round table on the issue that took place earlier today. Many important points have already been made in this debate, and in particular I associate myself with the contribution of Sarah Boyack on third party rights of appeal. I fully support the need for a rapid expansion of the renewable sector, but, as has been said, that needs to be done with the support of local communities and with clear benefits to local people. That does not mean that every proposal from every developer should be granted. There are significant problems, for example, with the ownership of much of the sector and some of the people who are behind proposals. In North Ayrshire recently, there have been big community campaigns against both the Rickhill wind farm proposals and the Cumbry solar farm. We need to make sure that planning law and indeed the national planning framework 6 ensure that local communities' voices are listened to. I am particularly interested in the reference in the motion to the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government's joint review of the regulations ETSUR 97 on all new onshore wind farm development. I am interested in this due to issues that have been raised with me over an extended period of time by constituents in relation to low frequency noise and indeed vibration, not just in relation to wind turbines but to wind turbine testing, drill ships and a range of other industrial developments. I note that the Scottish Government is intending to implement the recommendations of the UK and Scottish Government's joint review and I support that. However, I believe that we need to go further in particular in relation to measuring the noise effects of wind turbines, as I believe the research on that has moved on and the regulations are now out of date. I am disappointed that the review does not seem to recognise the specific concerns of low frequency noise. That is an issue that has been raised with me repeatedly by constituents. Despite the fact that it has been raised repeatedly with elected representatives for many years, there is no new guidance issued on local authorities. We are still relying on regulations from 2005. Although local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints relating to noise pollution under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they are not supplied with updated guidance from either the Scottish or UK Governments. In 2011, the proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance report by the University of Salford for Diffra highlighted that individual surveyed had attributed sleep disturbance stress headaches, migraines and severe mental health issues to low frequency noise. Despite the findings of the report, we have not seen action to update guidance. We need to recognise that the sector is rapidly expanding and we need to ensure that the regulations keep up with that expansion given the rapid changes that we are seeing. In conclusion, I fully support the Scottish Government in its attempts to see the rapid expansion of the sector. However, that cannot be the wild west. We need to make sure that the views and concerns of local people are taken into account and where developments proceed that the local community sees advantages to them with what happens. I now call Douglas Ross, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond. Mr Ross. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate my friend Alexander Burnett on securing this important debate and also welcome people to the public gallery who have come to their Parliament from across Scotland to hear this crucial topic discussed. I only note the record. I assume that they will share my disappointment that in a debate about the environment, about renewable energy and about a just transition, a little over half an hour from being at full strength to support their green minister holding on to her job, not a single green MSP could be present in this Parliament to listen to this debate or contribute. Two green ministers, five green back ventures and not a single one in this chamber. I think that that is very telling for a party that claims to put environment above all else. It is really important that MSPs from across the political spectrum are here to listen to this debate and to the concerns of the communities that they represent. Alexander Burnett and I met residents from Murray and Aberdeenshire who were worried and continued to be concerned about the cumulative impact on wind farm developments in their area. The Cabra Trust brought us together because they wanted their politicians to hear the concerns of local people. Unlike them, I want to stay on record my support for a just transition, but to do that we must take people, individuals and communities with us. Sadly, in many parts of Scotland and I think in my own area of Murray and much of the Highlands and Islands, we have already reached a saturation point for wind farms and massive wind turbines. As Alex Burnett pointed out, the Scottish Government's policy could demand the installation of another 3,400 new onshore wind turbines in just the next seven years. By 2030, we could see that many more wind turbines approved and placed in Scotland. Where are they going to go? This will have a devastating impact on our landscapes. Landscapes that are often protected and which bring tourists and money into our areas for people who want to enjoy it. I am reminded when I mentioned tourism that when I chaired the Murray Council planning committee, I once had an SNP councillor who claimed that tourists would come to the area to view the wind turbines, and that is why he supported them in his space cycle and live at war. I was appalled and amazed by the comment then and I am appalled that that type of thinking could still persist, because those wind turbines put people off coming to our area. The 22-proposed turbines for Clash and Darax extension will be up to 200 metres tall. That is an industrial size in a rural landscape of exceptional beauty. A landscape largely undisturbed and of particular attraction to the thousands of tourists that come to the Cabrach every year, and the Cabrach Trust is doing more and more to encourage more to come to the area. Yet this attraction of the landscape is at stake if we continue to bulldoze our rural areas and make way for turbines that leave a scar on these areas forever. In some places, onshore wind may be desirable, workable or even agreeable, but that is the point. Some areas with local consent and buy-in must be taken with the applications. They do not deserve to have enormous developments imposed on them, yet that is how they feel. They feel ignored, let down and angry about the destruction of their local communities. As Alex Burnett highlighted, decisions about these turbines are placed ultimately with the Energy Consent Unit. I have seen decisions that I took with my committee overturned by the Energy Consent Unit in Edinburgh. I took John Swinney's point that councils could appeal those decisions in fairness, in honesty and realistically speaking. They could not afford a judicial review. I will give a bit of time. I will give way. I acknowledge the points that he is making about this particular challenge, but when an issue really matters to a local authority, I had a case in my constituency where the local authority took the Government to judicial review, not on an energy consent matter. The local authority was run by Mr Ross's party at that time, and the judicial review failed comprehensively, ruled out by the court that it was a no legal foundation for it. My point is that the decisions that were taken properly by the Government stood up to legal scrutiny. That is the point that I am trying to say. In the energy consent process, there is an obligation of following the statutory process to make sure that lawful decisions are taken as a consequence. I understand that local authorities might not like them, but they are taken in accordance with the statutory framework that we put in place in Parliament. That is the problem. The policy that is put in place by the current Government is to see more on-shore renewable energy when councils, locally elected members, who are democratically sent to council chambers to represent their constituents, take a counter-view and say that it is not appropriate for their area. It is slapped down by the energy consent unit here in Edinburgh, and that is not a positive way to make decisions. We can only secure a truly just transition to net zero if local people benefit and feel involved. I implore the minister to look up at the galleries behind us today, to look around at the people who have travelled from across Scotland because this matters to them and their communities, listen to their concerns and objections and take seriously their views. They are not here just fighting for their landscapes on our beautiful countryside, but they are also fighting to uphold local democracy, and that surely must be important to all of us. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to thank Alexander Burnett for bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been a comprehensive debate and I have agreed with an awful lot of what has actually been said across the chamber. I have disagreed with some of it. I just want to point to a couple of things that I particularly agreed with. I am going to go to Martin Whitfield's contribution on public engagement. What he said about public engagement being early and even before development begins is so important. That buy-in that you get from communities is the right thing to do first of all, but I also think that it makes really good business sense for those people to do that. If you have got the communities behind you and they can see the benefits of what has been built within their communities and that they are listened to before real decisions are made, as that planning process has gone through, then you are going to have benefits for everyone. I have seen that in action. I mean, it is a couple of examples of people that people made, but where they have seen that in action and that has been buy-in, in my constituency. I am a rural MSP myself, so it is not as if I am sat in the ivory towers of Edinburgh and this is all news to me. I know these issues, but in my area we have Aberdeen offshore windfarm, which is the visibility of the community of Balmedy and Balhelvey. That is a community that was engaged with early. The act justifies the very proud of the windfarm, but they were also very involved in how the community benefits should be spent and there was engagement from the get-go from the developer, which happened to be Vattenfall. I think that that point is really well made. I also want to go to John Swinney's point. John Swinney is alluding to the wildfires that we have seen in the last few days and the water scarcity. That has really put it into sharp focus, just what we are trying to do here when we are looking at renewable energies and reducing our need to actually burn hydrocarbons, which effectively is causing climate change. Just a few months ago, the Government had to put in place streams of funding to help families to pay their fuel bills. It is an energy security issue. We have energy security issues, particularly with regard to what is going on in geopolitics, but we have also got energy affordability as well. Communities also need to see tangible household benefits. That is one of the things that I have been saying to developers. I have only been in the job for about 12 weeks now, but I have been saying to every developer that the phrase that we keep on using is that there are only so many times that you can paint a scout hut. Sometimes community benefits can look a little bit like window dressing. Sometimes there is not a suite of options available. I do not know that communities are involved, but there is not that inventiveness about what community benefits can actually look like. I am very grateful to Gillian Mountain for giving way on that point. That then speaks back to what you discussed earlier, which is about the consultation. If there is narrowed consultation with a community, you may get, and rightly so, a repaint scout hut. That is genuine consultation. You find what the communities need both in physical assets but also sometimes in ongoing support for community kitchens and things like that, which goes back to the really important point that the consultation has to be genuine and honest and two-way. I agree. It cannot be tokenistic and it cannot be what the developers think the community might want as well. It also cannot be what even the local authorities think a community might want. It has to be the communities that are impacted as well. I had a situation in my constituency where there is a need for some help, for some ventilation systems in a technical department of a school. I am thinking, well, that is a really expensive thing to get done. That is producing the young people of the future that are going to be able to weld and going to be able to build things. Maybe that is the sort of thing that the developers can get involved in. What does your community actually need? I will come back to community benefits, because we have been talking about that quite a lot. Despite the success of community benefits in terms of the generation of £194 million to date over the past 20 or so years, and I had record £25 million last year, despite the success of that. In that point out to everyone, if you are not aware, I am sure that you all are. It is not a compulsory thing. It is not a system that is compulsory for developers. As energy regulation is reserved to UK Government, I would really like to think that after today, we can join together to say that the cause of Scottish Government has made. I am very much getting the sense across the benches that we would all like to see community benefits for developments being compulsory. Perhaps that is something that, as Scottish parliamentarians, we can all make and ask. I will take the question from the car. I think that we are focusing too much on the community benefit. I have never heard of a wind farm company refusing to give the voluntary payment, so I think that that is a bit of a red herring. Dumfries and Galloway is one of those areas that is saturated in wind farms. Local authority and communities are waving a white flag when it comes to applications, because they just do not have the capacity to even meet the legal deadlines. Those applications—50 of them have gone to the Scottish Government, 11 of them from Dumfries and Galloway—how can you ensure that the capacity is within councils' resources to ensure that the local voices are heard, whatever the community benefit is? Finlay Carson is, as usual, eloquent, if not a little verbose in his interventions there. I was going to come on to talk about some of the contributions from your colleagues, in particular. I hear the criticisms from Oliver Mundell, and particularly—I was completely concerned to hear some of the criticisms that Oliver Mundell put about the way that Oliver Mundell, as a representative, felt pushed out of a consultation when he was trying to make some points to developers on behalf of his constituents. I feel that communities need to be engaged more fully and more able to determine what their communities get, but also what is actually happening in terms of the development. I will try and be briefer than Finlay Carson. It was to ask whether the minister thinks that it is fair at the moment that communities have to fundraise in order to get professional support to oppose applications and to take part in the planning appeals process. I do not have a view on that at the moment. It is something that I may be thinking about. I was going to make the offer to Oliver Mundell that the specific concerns that he raised in his speech might be something that he might want to write to me about. It might be something that he does not want to broadcast to those who are talking about in the chamber, so I am happy to have that conversation with him. Time is running out, and there was enough a lot more that I wanted to mention. Katie Clark mentioned about ETSUR 97. That is obviously something that the Scottish Government provided some money for that short-term review project, but that was in collaboration with the Welsh Government and the UK Government. My understanding is that the good practice there has been reviewed because it was set but 25 years ago, so it is probably not fit for purpose. We are still to hear back because obviously the guidance is actually going to be reviewed by the UK Government based on the collaboration with the devolved Governments as well, so we should hear back from that. When Katie Clark is pointing out some of the mental health issues there, it is a serious point that needs to be made. I am going to say in conclusion that we have just closed our energy strategy and just transition consultation. There are a lot of issues around just what the impact could be in meeting the goals that we set ourselves for the energy transition. Energy transition absolutely has to happen, and it has to be meaningful for people. I have listened today as to some of the concerns that have been brought up. I am going to note them, and I am going to speak to my officials about them, particularly around that engagement with communities about what happens, where and what locus community has in that. I want to extend the offer that if you have particular issues, obviously you will understand that I cannot talk about live planning applications that are over 50 megawatts, which will obviously come to me for final decision, but beyond that, about the practices of companies that you might find concerning that could help your communities, you know where I am.