 The final item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 10744, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on objections to Tala Avaha Windfarm and NPF3. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I'll be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could please press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Murdo Fraser to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Can I start by thanking colleagues from across the chamber who signed my motion and allowed this debate to take place? I also welcome to the gallery those who have come along to watch the debate, among them members of the John Muir Trust and people from the local community in Rannach. The trust, the Rambler Scotland and the Mountain Union Council of Scotland have all been vocal in support of this motion, as has been the local campaign group Keep Rannach Wild. I appreciate that it is unusual to have a parliamentary debate on a live planning application. I also appreciate that, in responding to the debate, the member's remarks on the subject will be somewhat limited, and that he will not be able to say anything that will prejudice the outcome of the planning application. However, there are important issues that are raised by this particular application, which I wanted the opportunity to highlight and allow Parliament to discuss those issues. In my view, and that of many other interested parties, the TALA application represents a test case to determine whether the Scottish Government is serious about protecting our wild land. The proposal is for 24 turbines of 125 metres in the Moorland area between Loch Rannach and Loch Erecht. Crucially, the turbines that are proposed for the site would be erected in an area that is identified by Scottish natural heritage on their map as wild land. Anyone who has visited the location would understand why that is. Rannach Moor is at the very heart of Wild Scotland, and there are views from over 30 Munroes and Corbets that should be irreversibly affected if the application got the green light. I use the word irreversibly, because although the turbines might themselves be temporary, the infrastructure that goes with them, the tracks—I understand that in this case it would be some 12.8 kilometres of access tracks—would be visible for a lifetime if not longer. A few weeks ago, I climbed some of the hills to the north of Ben Alder. This area is as close as we get in the central highlands to a true wilderness, and it would be a tragedy to see it despoiled with an industrial development. Today's debate is not only important for the communities in the area around the proposed Tala wind farm, but for the 41 other areas across Scotland that are identified as wild land by Scottish natural heritage. Their unspoiled status is also now in question. I use the term our wild land deliberately. Scotland's wild places are a gift to everyone in this country and should not be sacrificed for the sake of some additional megawatts of renewable energy, particularly when existing and consented renewable energy projects are very close to reaching the 2020 electricity generation target. The Tala application is attracting a huge amount of interest both locally and nationally. The Scottish Government has received nearly 1,000 statements in opposition to the development in contrast to just 23 in support. Those statements have come from all parts of the country and, indeed, internationally, but locally there is also opposition to the application. A recent survey undertaken by the Rannach and Tunnel Community Council showed that three quarters of local residents are in opposition to those proposals. Many of those in opposition have livelihoods that are dependent on tourist revenue, earned thanks to the natural beauty of the area. For example, there are over 30,000 people a year climbing the popular Shehalian mountain, and walking tourism is a major contributor to the local economy. Diana Gabaldon, who is the author of the Outlander book series, now, of course, part of a TV series being filmed in Scotland, has also voiced her opposition. She has said that you cannot put a price on our landscape, and if approved, this development would be both a tragedy and a disaster for wild Scotland. In their submission to the application from Scottish Natural Heritage, SNH highlighted the significant damage that this development would have on the Rannach, Moor, Peatlands and Blanket bog, features that have been identified as nationally important under Scottish planning policy. SNH has also given a damning verdict on the diligence of the environmental statement that attaches itself to the application, and SNH believed that, if approved, the Peatlands and Blanket bog resource would be permanently lost. This is important because Peatlands are carbon sinks, and destroying them to build wind farms is an illogical move that could result in higher, rather than lower, carbon emissions. I would like to concentrate for the remainder of my remarks on the question of SNH's wild land map and what that means. Just over two months ago, the Scottish Government released its third national planning framework, which included a commitment to protect 19 per cent of our landscape from onshore wind turbines. When announcing NPF3, the planning minister at Mr Mackay assured the Scottish public that, we have taken steps to ensure that no wind farm developments can go ahead in our cherished national parks and national scenic areas, and we have strengthened the protection of wild land. Of course, the TALA application will be located just two kilometres north of the Lochranach and Glen Lion national scenic area. At the time, I cautioned that those guidelines did not go far enough, as developments would still be possible on wild land. That was confirmed by comments from the Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, in 2013, who said that, and again I quote, that, sorry, wind farms could be built on wild land, but only if substantial mitigation were put in place. Many will have seen the recently published map from the John Muir Trust, highlighting the visual encroachment of wind farms across most of southern and eastern Scotland, and, indeed, increasingly in the highlands. If approved, the TALA wind farm would substantially add to the parts of Scotland from which wind turbines would be visible. One of the truly wild places in Scotland would join the long list of casualties that have fallen to the impact of wind turbines. I would like to hear from the minister today, in responding to this debate, that this is a site unsuitable for the development of this nature, but I appreciate that he is prohibited from making that particular statement. But instead it would be helpful if he could clarify the precise status of the SNH wildland map and in what circumstances renewable energy projects would be permitted on the wildlands identified. The Scottish Government talked tough on protecting wild land, and this application represents its chance to prove it. We have heard a lot from the SNP over the past week about honouring vows and promises, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is now their time to honour their commitment to protecting Scotland's precious wild land. Many thanks. I congratulate Murdo Fraser for securing this evening's debate. Although I am not a local member for the area affected by this particular wind farm proposal, it gives me an opportunity to revisit an issue that I raised in March of this year in relation to the failure of NPF3 to set out how much we can protect our wildlands. In that debate in March, I noted that the NPF3, the main issues report of April 2013, stated that, in addition to our nationally important most scenic landscapes, we also want to continue our strong protection for our wildest landscapes. Yet for all of those welcome words, there was a removal of the core area of wildland map from NPF3. That would be a very grave omission in my view, and it is one of the main reasons why the debate that Mr Fraser has brought before Parliament this evening has to happen. If we do not recognise the need to protect our nationally important and scenic landscapes, then those areas of Scotland will continue to fall victim to the onward march of the renewables industry at the expense of our natural environment. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to wind farms in principle. I fully accept that wind farms have a part to play in our future energy production capacity, but I am far from convinced that the right balance is being struck between their development and protection of our wildlands. As I said in March, I cannot agree with Scottish renewables that NPF3 presents significant risks and would create a barrier to the economic and environmental benefits that renewables could bring to Scotland. The reality is that it is not the renewables industry that is at risk but our natural landscapes if we fail to ensure their protection. If we do not cite wind farms appropriately, we will continue to lose more of Scotland's greatest natural assets. If the plan for the proposed TALA wind farm is approved, it will undoubtedly transform Rannach for the worse. It will, as Murdo Fraser said, adversely affect views for more than 30 million rows in corbets, with the wind turbines being visible from the west highland railway line and the A82, which, as everyone knows, is the main tourist route through the west highlands. Now, if a developer was to suggest building a multi-storey building taller than Glasgow's red road flats on Rannach Mwya, it would get laughed out of any planning committee. Yet here we have a proposal to put turbines taller than those flats on just that natural landscape because we have no proper control of the sighting of wind farms in Scotland. The threat that that would pose not only to this particular highland vista is concerning enough in itself but the harm that will be done to rare bird species is equally worrying. The proposed development is also located almost entirely within an area of deep peat and priority peatland. That habitat is identified by the Scottish planning policy 2014 as being nationally important and worthy of significant protection. Rannach's reputation as natural beauty is the main drive for tourism to the area and it is hard to see how that reputation will not be damaged. It is one of Scotland's last great wildland areas and we need to protect it as a major test for Scotland's planning framework. If it cannot be protected by using NPF3, then what other wildland area can be protected and what one will be next on the agenda of our renewables companies? Many thanks. I now call Rob Gibson to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I did not sign the motion because I cannot agree with the motion that was put forward. I think that we should look a little bit at the history of the Loch Rannach area. If we think about it over a period of 300 years, we are talking about what was a cattle herding in a small tenant area that was swept away by the 1745 uprising. Fortunately, the Forfeited Estates Commission managed to save part of the Black Wood of Rannach in the south side of the Loch. As the Forestry Commission says, it is one of the largest areas of ancient pine forest that once stretched across Britain and Europe and which we would hope to expand again. A correspondent with Alexander MacKenzie, who compiled his history of the Highland clearances, informed MacKenzie that, in the 1830s, there was a large amount of clearance taking place along the north side of Loch Rannach, and he details the places, some of which are in the estate of Talavie. If he recognised that those people were removed and that, indeed, there were still some families there, you have to then come forward to the discussion about the Crofting Bill in 1885. The members for Perthshire, Barbampshire, Bute and Aberdeinshire kept their areas out of the crofting law. The crofting law ensured that there would be communities there, and indeed in most crofting areas there still are communities. What a pity that Rannach side wasn't one of them. Today's landlords know that shooting and fishing alone won't pay their running costs, hence their look for other forms of use of their natural resources, such as wind applications. That is also set in the context of a renewed concern for land reform. Indeed, the land reform, which I hope will see taxes on land owners of such large properties, including Talavie, and it's one such example that, if they have some income, could be directed in the form of taxes that they probably don't pay at the moment and perhaps pay in another country. Forestry and hydro schemes gave employment after World War II, but the local population kept dwindling. Today, just over 30 pupils are to be found in the local primary school and nursery. Presiding Officer, it's very likely that 99 per cent of those young people will leave their home area for education and careers and never return under the current system of the economy. Should local people not benefit from the development of natural resources such as wind power? Should they not have the benefit of a cash source that is constant and isn't relying on the potential cuts in local government funding, the potential cuts in national government funding, which are threatened by the Tory Lib Dem austerity programme that is set to buy even deeper now in the next few years? No, I don't want to take any interventions. What we have is a fragile community that should benefit under Scottish Government spatial planning guidelines. To be a low-carbon place, yes. To be a natural place to invest. A successful and sustainable place and a connected place. That's how the planning minister and the environment minister saw the issue. They told the RACI committee at the time of the NPF3 in their view that the identification of land as a core area of wild land does not mean that there is a ban on development taking place. Development can still take place as long as it can be done in a way that is fully mitigated and the environment can be protected. The clinching factor is the inexorable pressures of climate change. The clearances removed the small farming economy. The lure of the city robs small places of their most basic services. Now, climate change, if unmitigated, could destroy the very scenery that some people talk about. I've climbed Shehalyan, Benalda, Mulavuri and many other of those hills. The distance between many of those things and any proposal for such a wind farm are things that we have to take into account. I therefore think that it's a pity to pity the plumage and forget the dying bird. As far as I'm concerned, I think that the socio-economic issues that take into account the potential for a small community expanding, not dwindling, is something that has to be looked at very seriously. The proposed wind farm is not in my region. It will not particularly affect my constituents on a daily basis, but the consequences of its approval, if that happens, will be felt far and wide. If it proceeds it will be viewed as having met the conditions for the new planning framework and Scottish planning policy, which stipulate that any significant effects on the qualities of those areas must be substantially overcome by citing design or other mitigation. How on the earth can you design out the impact of 100m-plus high turbines against the background of one of Scotland's most rugged and wild landscape? That is a very basic question that we have to ask. I want to take the opportunity to speak in this debate to highlight the concerns of my constituents about their landscape—also a very different landscape from that around Loch Rannach. For the people of villages such as West Calder, Curt Newton, Addiwell, Longridge, Fault House, their landscape is just as cherished. It is an insult, whether that comes from planners or whoever, to infer that their natural heritage is any less value than any other natural heritage. It seems appropriate at this point to refer to a letter that I have kept for around 15 years. It is the evidence presented by Mrs Mary Allison of Black Ridge and West Lowland to a planning inquiry into an opencast co-application affecting the village that she grew up in. Mary's contribution is as relevant today in relation to wind farm development as it was then in relation to opencast development. I would like to listen to what she said. She said of the and inverted commas experts paid to provide evidence to any inquiry. Many of the presentations heard prior to mine have the lure of scientific objectivity. However, I would contend that those presentations do not give us answers. They provide a collection of research facts that are neither wrong nor right. They are simply facts that have no meaning until we bring our values and our judgments to their interpretation. The wind farm developer in this scenario has a set of corporate values, the Government's set of political values and the community's set of community values. None of those values are free, neutral or objective. We see each in a different light because we each stand to gain or lose different things from the proposal. I would contend that the community can only lose. Any economic gain will be short term while the longer-term consequences will be negative. Speaking of her community, Mary, a senior research fellow, said that those landscapes and the experiences are what give me my sense of place in the world. Where I come from, the communities that made me, those are valuable to me and could never be recreated. That is the same irrespective of where you live and beauty and the value that we place in our communities and the higher of the beholder. I love, for example, the five sisters, Shale Bings and West Lothian, just as much as I love the landscape that is being discussed here. We may be here to debate the construction of a wind farm in Rhanakmur, but as of today, in my area, 12 wind farms housing 83 turbines have been given approval to go ahead and are operational in West Lothian. The problems with the Scottish Government's wind farm policy, and I fear that this may happen in the wind farm as well, is the problem of over-concentration. When one application succeeds, the developers pile in with a whole lot of more applications and communities feel under siege. It is a free-for-all, and I fear that it will get worse under the new planning policy. That is not to dismiss the necessary move towards renewable energy. It is vital that Scotland plays its part in reducing carbon emissions. However, one of the main issues with all of this is ownership. The application is by Eventus BV, a Dutch company, probably a Dutch multinational. The applications in my area come from Spanish, French, Italian and Danish multinational. A recent one came from an Austrian prince. None of them are owned by the community, none of them are owned by local government, none of them are owned by the public sector. Therefore, the money flutters off to the boardrooms of Madrid, Paris, Rome or Copenhagen or wherever. I believe that what we need is a national special plan that avoids the over-concentration and the ruination of natural landscapes such as this, while ensuring that, where we have wind farm development, communities are rewarded for wind technology being applied in the area. We need a plan that takes into account everybody's views in Scotland, each voice-giving and equal footing, each community's view respected. The Scottish Government must be careful, because its imbalanced and mismanaged pursuit of renewable energy targets is turning people against renewable energy, and that is a very dangerous thing. All I would say is that some of the applications in my area are as likely to turn people against wind farm development, as this application is in this area. Presiding Officer, as has been mentioned, the ministerial code is clear that I must take particular care to avoid conflicts of interest when dealing with planning matters, including the granting of energy consents. This is the second time in recent months that a member's business debate has come forward, which focused on a live planning application. It is well known that ministers cannot comment publicly on live planning applications as this could potentially prejudice the final decision. Given that, I have concerns that such debates have been conducted. I should also make it clear that the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, who cannot attend today, takes decisions on section 36 applications, and rightly as the code states, I cannot express an opinion publicly on a particular case that is before ministers for decision. Following the debate this evening, Presiding Officer, I will be seeking to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to seek their views on whether the guidance on motion and amendments can be reviewed in light of the Parliament accepting motions for debate on live planning applications. Moving on, any current planning decisions should not be considered as setting a precedent. Future proposed developments will be assessed on their own merits, given the unique circumstances of each case and always in the context of relevant policy and guidance, of course. Neil Findlay. So all this talk about an open Parliament, discussed in the debate and the issues of the day, we are now going to get a political fix that avoids people to discuss in the very issues that all those people in the gallery want to discuss. I think that that is quite an unfortunate intervention when what I am trying to do is to uphold the integrity of the planning system, and that should work in a way that inspires confidence in the system. If we indulge in quasi-judicial matters in the chamber, then that risks even the rights of objectors within the planning system as well. Murdo Fraser, to his credit, has raised issues of concern in due parliamentary process in terms of the committees and studying national planning framework 3 and Scottish planning policy. Mr Findlay has not taken the same approach in terms of supporting the changes to SPP and MPF 3. I suggest that, if you object to Scottish planning policies, you do it on the basis of policy objections in the right place, as opposed to trying to use mechanisms that may be counterproductive to those who you seek to represent. In terms of the statement, I think that I need to make progress on the issues that have been raised. If you want to come and later once I have made the further progress, I am happy to take you then. Let me emphasise the clear position that I set out when I published the national planning framework 3 and Scottish planning policy this June on all matters that I appeared before the Parliament and offered to return to the committees of Parliament on any matter of policy. MPF 3 is quite clear and I quote, national scenic areas and national parks attract many visitors and reinforce our international image. We also want to continue our strong protection for our wildest landscapes. Wildland is a nationally important asset. The pressing challenge of climate change means that our action on the environment must continue to evolve, strengthening our longer-term resilience. A planned approach to development helps to strike the right balance between safeguarding assets, which are irreplaceable, and facilitating change in a sustainable way. We must work with, not against our environment, to maintain and further strengthen its contribution to society. In setting that out in MPF 3, supporting delivery of a low-carbon place, the new Scottish planning policy provides clear guidance and clear guide to preparing spatial frameworks for onshore wind energy development. Parliament did not comment on the detail in the policy, but it called for greater clarity in SPP. Let me be clear again, the Scottish Government has stated that wind farms will not be acceptable in national parks and in national scenic areas. That is our policy. I also set out in SPP that I expect significant protection to be given to national and international designations such as nature at 2,000 sites, other nationally important mapped environmental interests such as wild land and an area around settlements where visual impacts need to be considered. That is our policy. Proposals outside of NSAs still have to be assessed for their impacts on landscape, including effects on wild land. Not only do those new policies provide certainty about our natural heritage interests and parity for our communities, but they set out a very clear approach to planning for onshore wind that I expect to see in development plans across the country, an approach that is appropriate to the scale of development. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way and setting out on the record what he has just done. I wonder whether he could specifically address the point that I made towards the end of my speech. In what circumstances would he see renewable energy projects being permitted on areas that are designated as wild land? I do believe in. I am being very careful to avoid reference to any live application, but I believe that the detail is set out in NPF-free and SPP, where all those considerations have to be taken into account and a judgment made. I reinforce the point again that one decision is not precedent for another. Every case must be judged on its merits with all the relevant material considerations to hand. It would be wrong for me to pick a live application or a hypothetical situation to make the policy point when I believe that the policy guidance is much stronger than was there before. I have a number of organisations, including the John Muir Trust, that agree with that point that the guidance there is much stronger and much more supportive of the environment than was the case before. It is the responsibility, on a related point, of planning authorities to prepare spatial frameworks. Since the publication of SPP, many frameworks are now in preparation and my officials are working closely with planning authorities as those come through our development plan gateway and as proposed plans head towards examination. We are working closely with our environment agencies, industry representative bodies and planning practitioners and all others across Scotland, either face-to-face and gatherings at events or by conducting research on the impact of onshore wind. We will continue to draw in the verifiable evidence to implement those policies in such a way as to ensure that we steer development to the right places so that the benefits are not outwead by the negative impacts. In relation to climate change and decarbonising our electricity production, the Scottish Government has made its energy policy a top priority and has achieved great progress, despite being limited in terms of the responsibilities. The industry has expanded rapidly over the past decade, bringing millions of pounds of investment to local areas throughout Scotland, empowering often-remote rural communities to the tune of some £13.5 billion since 2010. The renewable sector now supports at least 11,695 jobs in Scotland, around 3,000 of them in skilled engineering jobs alone. Some companies report rising tender activity over the last three months, showing scope to return to the same workload level of 2013. Reducing energy demand by 12 per cent by 2020 and focusing on energy efficiency are important elements of our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. We want to meet at least 30 per cent of overall energy demand from renewables by 2020. I hope that members will share with me the importance for the direction of travel in relation to renewables to strike the right balance. Climate change is a huge challenge and we saw in demonstrations across the globe just last week. Climate change mitigation is a European obligation, and domestically our climate change legislation needs to secure decarbonisation of the energy sector and are pinned by efforts to meet a range of targets that I have just mentioned. By no means do I infer that all onshore wind proposals will gain planning permission of the 310 wind turbine-related planning appeals since May 2007. 194 per cent were refused, and 168 per cent were allowed. Ministers refuse or modify inappropriately-scaled wind farms routinely, and ministers will consent appropriately-scaled and located wind farms too. To demonstrate our balanced approach, Parliament lead looked no further than the policies that are supported when I published MPF-free and SPP. They are designed to secure the right development in the right places and to protect our natural and built heritage and communities in equal measure. That concludes Murdo Fraser's debate, but before I close this meeting of Parliament, could I just say that I do note the minister's intention to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee about the issues? That is a matter for the Scottish Government. However, with regard to the debate this evening, parliamentary business, including members' business, was agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau and by the Parliament.