 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 3637 in the name of Mike Rumbles, on black hillock to contour transmission line. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, please. I call on Mike Rumbles to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Following a very contentious debate this afternoon, we now have what I hope will be a very consensual one, and that's maybe why it's not so popular in the chamber. Could I start by thanking my Liberal Democrat colleagues for allowing me to take only the second member's debate this year, which has been allocated by the Business Bureau to the Liberal Democrats? We only get three debates a year, and I do appreciate the fact that colleagues have recognised the importance of this debate to the people of the northeast of the country. I'd also like to thank parliamentary colleagues from across the chamber who have indicated their support for my motion, at which we're debating tonight. I particularly wanted to raise the issue of Scottish and Southern energy's proposed black hillock to contour transmission line, which would cause, if implemented in the way that they were planning, so much environmental damage to Aberdeenshire's beautiful and unique landscape, especially around Benahy. There are several Aberdeenshire residents in the public gallery today who would have been badly affected by the proposal had it gone ahead in its proposed form, not least from enterprises such as Inch airfield, which lay directly in the path of those proposed huge 165-feet pylons. I'm using the past tense to describe this problem because no sooner had the Business Bureau programmed this debate, then I received an email from Scottish and Southern energy informing me that the national grid had told SSE, quote, not to proceed, unquote, with this proposal. That was very welcome news to say the least. But there was a word of warning here, as it also said, that these decisions by the national grid are reviewed annually and there is a possibility that these plans could come back at some future date. That's why we're proceeding with this debate. There is a real concern that although this grid connection with its threat of huge pylons surrounding Benahy is not now proceeding, the national grid could, as I say, in future years change its mind. That's why I'm focusing on suggesting simply a one-word alteration, one-word change in Scottish planning policy, which would, if implemented, undoubtedly improve the environment around our wonderful landscapes in Scotland. The current Scottish planning policy states that consideration should be given to underground grid connections where possible. It would be immensely helpful, Minister, if that word consideration could possibly be replaced by the word preference. The current word consideration gives companies an awful lot of wriggle room. If consideration was replaced by preference, companies would have clarity over what was expected of them. I know the Minister is aware of the unanimous vote by all parties in the Welsh Assembly on the 18th of January, which said in my quote again, there should be a preference for underground cables or alternatives rather than electricity pylons in any newer current developments in Wales by the national grid. I think and I hope that the Minister will agree with me that this is a very reasonable position to take, especially as technology has moved on tremendously in recent years. New technology, already used elsewhere in Europe, based on high-voltage DC transmission, now makes the act of burying cables a feasible option when it wasn't so much before. It's a more efficient way of carrying the variable power from renewable energy sources. I believe and I hope that you will agree that it's important to stress that I'm not asking for the undergrounding of all electricity cables on the national grid. I'm not doing that. That would be unreasonable and unrealistic. What I am asking for is for the Minister to respond at the end of the debate to say that he will examine the possibility of this one-word change to Scottish planning policy. I'm not asking for a decision today, I'm just hoping that he'll be responsive enough to say that he's going to look at this. I'm sure that the Minister will agree that there aren't many debates like this where he's asked just to really examine one word, a one-word change in Scottish planning policy, but there we are. I certainly believe that this is not a party-political issue. It's an issue where we can all rally round for the sake of the communities that we represent and for the protection of our wonderful Scottish landscape. If this can be agreed on an all-party basis in Wales, then I'm sure that we should indeed be able to agree it on an all-party basis here in Scotland, too. Thank you very much. That was very succinct, Mr Rumbles. You've got everything said, well done. Caught me unawares. I now move to the open debate. I call Richard Lochhead to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Speeches around four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin as is customary by congratulating Mike Rumbles on securing this debate. It's not often that tabling a motion has such immediate impact with the cancellation of a major infrastructure project. I congratulate him on his influence. The influence was pen or whether it was coincidence, but here we are in changed circumstances having this debate. Nevertheless, some of the key points that Mike Rumbles makes deserve the attention of the Parliament and of ministers as well. I'm primarily speaking of course as the MSP for Murray because the black hillock part of the motion is next to Keith in my constituency of Murray. Had this particular development gone ahead, it would have led to the marching through the Murray countryside of rather large pylons. No doubt that led to a lot of concern locally, had that gone ahead. In fact, I visited the black hillock substation just three or four weeks ago and I had a briefing from SSE on the huge investment that is taking place there at the moment to rebuild it and expand it and the existing substation has been dwarfed by this massive complex that is now being completed there to cope with the massive renewable energy potential from the north of Scotland, which of course has to move down to the main centres of population. I was taken outside the building and I asked what size will the pylons be of the new corridor that is being proposed that goes ahead. I was shown the biggest pylon in the area and told that the new pylons would be as big as that under the new development. At that point, of course, I thought to myself that this is going to be quite a big issue in Murray if the corridor goes ahead. I just want to raise a couple of quick points. First of all, the presence of the black hillock substation, which I am told is one of the biggest, if not the second biggest substation in the whole of Europe now that has been built at Keith in Murray, means that effectively in the future it will be a magnet for many more developments coming into the area. Because we now have the black hillock substation, it means that any infrastructure that is going to be built will no doubt head towards the substation as it makes its way further south to Contour or elsewhere in the future. Already some significant developments are taking place that are leading to infrastructure being put in place, from the Cathness route coming down to Murray, also from the Beaches offshore wind project, which is substantial coming under sea, landing at the Port of Gordon and coming to Black Hillock before the Elchester is then taken south. The Dornell wind farm is also potentially being extended, which will lead to even more Elchester coming to the substation from that new wind development near Dofton. That means that Murray potentially is going to host a lot more developments in the future. I asked the minister in light of the concerns raised by Mike Rumbos, which are pertinent to all of our areas that are affected by those developments in terms of the role of underground cabling and other factors, and how we can ensure that they are properly taken into account and addressed. I know that my constituents, at the moment, with existing developments such as the Dornell wind farm, those constituents living in the Dofton and Dramur areas, some of those who are directly affected by the new infrastructure over ground infrastructure, are very concerned about the impact on the scenery, on their own properties and visual impact for their own areas. Community benefit has traditionally been seen as something that should be delivered by the generators and where the actual energy developments are taking place, as opposed to the infrastructure. However, now that we have a particular area of Scotland that is going to be subjected to potentially a lot more infrastructure as opposed to just energy developments themselves, how can community benefit be taken into account for those communities and not just those who live near wind developments or other renewable energy developments? I think that all those issues have to be looked at in more detail for the future. I thank Mike Rumbos for raising those issues today, and I hope that the minister is able to reflect on some of the issues that are raised in this important debate. I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interest, and, in particular, my involvement in renewable energy. I am pleased to have co-sponsored the motion today, and I thank Mike Rumbos for the opportunity to speak in support of protecting one of our most valued natural assets in Aberdeensia, namely Benahee. As my wife was born in the foothills, namely Inch hospital, and brought up at Pytoddry House, I have to declare a further personal interest in seeing its protection. Little did I know that, as we ascended the Snowy summit the other weekend, it was probably inappropriate footwear given the icy conditions in a seven-year-old in tow, that the threat of a pylons was about to subside, and some may think have rendered this debate redundant. However, I need to stress that this is far from the case, and the issues that arose during this matter are still very much alive and needed dressing. The obvious issues, such as landscape impact and the impact on businesses, is clear for all to see, no less than that on Inch airfield, already mentioned, and represented by my constituents Ken Wood and David Saddler. This is an airfield that's operation would have come under serious doubt if a pylons had gone up with the need for a three-kilometre exclusion zone. I'm afraid, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this was only one case of a many that got in touch. Whilst the publication of the new national grid's networks options assessment is good news, we could have a different answer in a new NOAA report next year, and that is simply not good enough. So surely with the investment jobs and concerns of constituents all on the line, there should be more certainty and transparency to such a process. Or even better, the process should allow better alternative solutions to be considered. So these alternatives are not new and come in the form of transmission by direct current, which allows for burying of cabling, a technique already working well for HVDC cables in the rest of the UK and wider Europe. It enables less network losses, resilience against weather, has less impact on the natural environment and is considered better for renewable energy production. In the late 1970s we used to bury large gas pipes with short lifespans for gas transmission. So why is it unacceptable to ask that smaller cables with unlimited lifespans have the same treatment? To speak more broadly about transmissions, it is also clear that we are falling behind in our ability to keep pace with the rest of the world. China, in 2010, introduced ultra-high voltage direct currents, a step up from HVDC and recent examples carry 20 times the capacity of Buleydenny. Recent contracts would see the equivalent of three Black-Hillock projects travelling from Edinburgh to Istanbul. We are literally miles behind international transmission companies. To conclude, I would hope that, whilst the threat of Benaheam may have gone for now, the wider questions remain and require further investigation, not just to protect our landscapes but to deliver our energy needs as efficiently as possible. I congratulate my crumbles on securing the debate and, indeed, the success of the campaign that the motion relates to. It is good to have the wider debate on the issue, although it appears to have been solved for the meantime. There is agreement that I am to underground the line around Benaheam, but there will be other areas that might require similar consideration and, indeed, of power lines that are not yet in planning. However, let us be clear that each site needs to be considered on its own merit, as undergrounding is not always a panacea. It has its own risks, while it might be aesthetically pleasing, it might not be environmentally sound, might disturb natural heritage, because it cannot underground a cable without some serious disruption to the land. It is not just the cable that needs to be undergrounded, it is the insulation, and that requires a reasonably wide trench. If there are sensitive habitats in the area that could be damaged or destroyed, different soil types should not be disturbed, because of carbon release and, therefore, might not be suitable for undergrounding, either. It is the same with areas where there is archaeology that could be easily damaged. Where those situations arise, it might be much better to put the cable overground, where it can be removed if different technologies come forward with a better solution. Cost also needs to be considered, because we all pay for distribution networks in our electricity bills, and those of us here tonight may be able to afford that, but a lot of our constituents live in fewer poverty and I cannot afford the additional cost. Therefore, we must consider each case on its own merit and make sure that the solution that is found is sustainable both financially, aesthetically and environmentally. Therefore, preference might not be a better balance to consideration as is in the current planning guidelines. However, it is clear that undergrounding is not even being considered unless there is a public outcry at the moment. Therefore, the balance in guidance is not right at the minute, and it needs review to make sure that the right vehicle for transmission is put in place at any one time. If I may, Presiding Officer, push the boundaries of the debate a little and look at the costs of transmission cabling. Myself and others have been pushing for interconnectors from the northern and western Isles to the mainland for some time, but dillies have led to increasing prices. I now understand that underwater cables may need to be buried as well, so it is not a preference where underwater looks like it may become a requirement. In some areas, it is sensible that trolling and dredging could disturb the cable, but, where there is no risk of disturbance, surely it is less damaging to anchor it to the seabed because burying it would displace large areas of the seabed and, indeed, the natural habitat that it provides. We know very little about the conditions at depth, and therefore it would be precautionary. We should be precautionary about what we do there. Therefore, I would ask that those proposals be examined to see if they are indeed fit for purpose. That, of course, increases the cost of interconnectors, a cost that is already prohibitively high. Ministers were working with UK colleagues to look for a solution, but I have heard very little progress about the outcome of such meetings. Indeed, if there is any progress being made, I hope that the minister could update the Parliament on that sometime in the near future. I congratulate Mike Rumbles again on securing the debate and allowing us to debate that and, indeed, the wider implications of the issue. The last of the open speeches is Liam Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be permitted to speak in this debate, and I am also grateful to Mike Rumbles for securing it. The opening line of the motion is instructive. The concern that has been expressed by communities in proximity to the proposed Black Helic to Contour transmission reinforcement regarding visual impact is a concern that is easily recognised. The construction of a 40-mile-long, 165-ft high corridor of electricity pylons through some of the most iconic and beautiful landscapes in the north-east of Scotland must always be treated with caution and the most intense scrutiny. It might be hard for people from outwith the region to understand what an iconic site the Benneke range is, towering over a predominantly flat, rolling agricultural landscape that is visible from miles around. The view from the Mithertap is one that draws thousands of visitors every year. It is Scotland at its finest. I am delighted that the recent publication of the National Grid Network's option assessment has recommended that the development does not go ahead, at least in the near future. What is most encouraging to me, as someone who values community and local action, is that, when it was called upon to act, the community stepped up. That is clearly a victory for people power. I, too, would like to welcome the members of the community to the chamber. Just a few of the hundreds who for many months have been campaigning hard to make sure that the proposal did not get through. I say campaigning hard, that is not the half of it. I can say from personal experience, as I am sure we all can, that my email inbox left none of us in any doubt of the strength of feeling. It is they who deserve the credit for the decision. It is they who kept the pressure on the National Grid on SSE, who flooded the mailboxes and inboxes of us, their elected representatives. The American anthropologist Margaret Meads famously said, never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. I think that it is important to acknowledge that SSE seems to have accommodated the calls reiterated in Mr Rumble's motion for effective community consultation and the importance of incorporating feedback as a means for addressing such concerns. However, as Mr Rumble has made clear, that is not necessarily the end of it. The network options assessment merely makes a recommendation and can be reviewed. The NOAA is an annual process. A recommendation can change year on year as generation and demand scenarios change and transmission development plans evolve. As such, a signal to stop or delay in one year might become a recommendation to proceed in later years. It is far from over and the Kintor route remains SSE's preferred corridor. The motion is right to highlight possibilities for substantial change and mitigation. Underground and undersea cabling in use across Britain and Europe is more reliable, as Alexander Burnett has detailed, and has less impact on the natural environment. That has been recently recognised by the Welsh Assembly, which, only two weeks ago, on 18 January, unanimously passed a motion calling on national grid to favour undergrounding when developing new transition programmes in Wales. However, I think that Rhoda Grant made important points on that. I hope that the minister will consider those. No one doubts that there is an increasing demand on the electricity delivery network in the north-east of Scotland. Mr Lockhead, I thought, made very important points that, by 2024, a huge amount of additional power will be channeled to Blackhillic for distribution throughout the network. It will come from Shetland, Orkley, the north of Scotland and the Murray Firth, and it is likely to overwhelm the existing 275 KV line south. A new solution is required. However, by supporting that motion today, we are providing a voice to the local communities who simply ask for a more imaginative solution, one that complements and maintains the landscape, one that does not threaten the tourist industry and does not threaten the quality of life for people in the region. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to close Mr Rumble's debate. I would like to thank the member for North East Scotland, Mike Rumbles, for raising the motion today. I hope that my call does not affect people's ability to understand me, but the motion follows on from the parliamentary questions on the same subject, answered by the Minister for Local Government and Housing and myself last week. As the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, it would be inappropriate for me, as someone who is involved in the consenting process, to express a view on the proposals themselves for an overhead line that may come before Scottish ministers for determination in the future. However, as the member has outlined in his opening remarks, it is now in the public domain that the proposals referred to in the motion have been recently reviewed by the national grid under their annual network options assessment. It has been recommended that the transmission company does not proceed any further in developing its proposals at this time. The member has asked Parliament to note the motion passed by the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, that has been picked up by other members, Liam Kerr and others, on 18 January of this year. I can confirm the Scottish planning policy that was published in 2014. As Mike Rumbles indicated, it has already stated that consideration should be given to underground grid connections where possible. I have noted, however, Mr Rumbles' point and that of other members present, Mr Lockhead, Mr Kerr and others. On that point, I will undertake that I will reflect on the points that have been raised. I can make no promises at this point in time, but clearly I will listen to the views that have been expressed today. However, the Scottish planning policy is clear that international, national and indeed locally designated areas and sites for landscape and nature conservation should be identified and afforded the appropriate level of protection and development plans. Rhoda Grant made very fair points of thought in relation to undergrounding and impacts on archaeology and natural heritage, and it is obviously something that has to be taken into account in terms of the process. For national designations, the policy states development that affects a national park, national scenic area, site of special scientific interest or a national nature reserve should only be permitted where the objectives of designations and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. I appreciate a lot that comes down to semantics about language and interpretation, but I want to reassure members that there is at least protection in there to prevent unacceptable damage. Our national planning framework, MPF 3, identifies high voltage electricity transmission network as a national development. That means that it is vital to meeting our ambitious targets for renewable electricity generation, tackling climate change and keeping the lights on in terms of energy security. However, the design and construction of network infrastructure is the responsibility of the network owners, Scottish and Southern electricity networks and Scottish power energy networks. That is done in conjunction with the system operator national grid. As electricity network costs are recovered from existing and future electricity bill players, it is the role of the regulator Ofgem to scrutinise and approve network investment plans in order to protect consumer interests. However, having said that, I note the concerns expressed by Mr Rumbles and indeed other colleagues such as Richard Lochhead, Alexander Burnett and others regarding the degree of community consultation. I want to reassure members that we very strongly value and indeed expect full commitment to community consultation. Scottish ministers require that any application for electricity infrastructure from transmission companies provides detailed evidence of community consultation. I expect that consultation to be meaningful. The application must also demonstrate how consultation has informed the applicants' preferred options and clearly explain what mitigation measures they have identified to address the local community concerns. I will pay heed to such matters in my own deliberations going forward. I note the points that Mr Lochhead made fairly. I think that around where you have a substation of the scale that is proposed, or indeed in other sites across Scotland, taking into account the wider impact of other infrastructure connecting into that, so I will ask officials to give me briefing on the sites of that nature, just to look at the points of detail around policy in that respect. I want to thank Mr Rumbles for providing me with an opportunity to outline how Scottish Government policy already supports and protects areas with national designations, to provide an overview of the planning and regulation of electricity networks and to highlight the importance of the Scottish Government's commitment to involving local communities in decision making. We understand that the transmission company had envisaged submitting an application. Regardless of whether it is Mr Rumbles' parliamentary motion or other drivers in relation to the proposals stated in the motion, that was due to be presented no earlier than 2019. However, as national grid has now indicated, that development of those proposals is not optimal at this point. My officials will continue to engage with the network companies to discuss all engineering options, including overhead lines, undergrinding subsea cables, which a number of members refer to, and I think of a particular interest, and ancillary technologies. Regarding subsea cables themselves, I have taken board the point that Rhodod Grant has said that I want to reassure her about our intentions around the islands communities in particular, to expect this to be on the agenda at Kohai this coming week, discussion around energy strategy and issues to do with interconnection with the islands, has been something that has been a hot topic for engagement with the island authorities. I do take her point around environmental impacts there as well. It is not always a straightforward process, but we obviously look very carefully at the impact of subsea cables being laid, but they do generally provide what is deemed to be a pretty good solution to connecting infrastructure of this kind. I would say this in general to all members that they may wish to, including Mr Rumbles, arrange their own meetings with national good. I can certainly ask my officials for those who are not familiar with contacts for national good. I appreciate it. Some colleagues probably have access to that to give irrelevant contact details to you, so you will be able to take forward your own meetings. I once again thank Mike Rumbles for bringing this important issue to the chamber today. I want to reassure members that we will always take into account the views of communities in these matters. I will look to work with members across the chamber to make sure that our policy is always as supportive as we can be of communities' concerns.