Beauly Denny Public Inquiry
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-97, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Beauly Denny public inquiry. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is concerned about the conduct of the public inquiry into the proposed Beauly to Denny 400kV electricity transmission line; notes that there is a lack of confidence from many objectors in the current handling of the inquiry and that objectors have raised concerns with Inquiry Reporters but that these concerns have been dismissed; further notes with concern that many objectors' submissions have been ruled inadmissible; believes that serious issues are not being fully considered due to the strict adherence to the inquiry timetable, and further believes that the current conduct of the public inquiry will prevent a fully democratic inquiry and does nothing to reassure the 17,000 objectors that this is a fair process.
I thank all members who have stayed for the debate and the members from all parties who signed my motion. I also thank the many individuals and groups who have travelled to the Parliament to watch the debate from the public gallery. Before I begin, it is appropriate for me to put on the record my thanks for all the hard work of individuals and groups, such as Scotland Before Pylons and the John Muir Trust, who have done so much to ensure that the voices of communities are heard. They have worked continuously on the public inquiry, and they have given up much time and resource to try to protect Scotland's landscape.
There is not enough time available this afternoon to raise all the concerns that have been expressed to me by objectors, but I will give some brief background. In July 2005, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd and Scottish Power Transmission Ltd published the proposed route for a 400kV overhead electricity transmission line. The proposed line will replace the existing 132kV transmission line between Beauly, which is west of Inverness, and Denny, which is west of Falkirk. In September 2005, the developers submitted applications to the Scottish ministers to construct and operate the line. In August 2006, the Scottish ministers referred the application to a public inquiry. The inquiry began in February of this year, and it is hoped that the report of the inquiry will be submitted to ministers during the course of 2008 for a final decision. As is fairly well known, it is the largest public inquiry in Scotland's history.
The line in question cuts through four local authorities: Highland, Perth and Kinross, Stirling and Falkirk. All four councils have lodged objections to the proposal. There has also been an objection from the Cairngorms National Park Authority, and a further objection from Clackmannanshire Council. In addition, 17,295 objections to the proposal were made to the then Scottish Executive.
The purpose of this debate is not to consider in detail the substantive arguments for or against the new line. There are real concerns relating to the proposed line—I am sure that other members will refer to them in the course of the debate—including concerns about potential health issues, the impact on the environment, the impact on the tourism industry and the impact on Scotland's world-famous heritage sites, such as the Wallace monument and Stirling castle. Roughly 60 per cent of the proposed route does not run along the existing line, and the new pylons would be roughly double the height of the existing ones, averaging 45 to 50 metres. We are holding a public inquiry in order to allow those concerns and views to be aired fully and fairly. That is the plan: to have full and open consideration of those issues.
My motion refers to concerns raised about the handling and the conduct of the public inquiry. Even before the inquiry began, it was something of a David versus Goliath contest. On one side, we have a multinational company with deep pockets, and on the other side we have community groups and charities that are stretched and find it difficult to fund expert advice against the legal and technical experts fielded by the applicants.
Evidence is being dismissed by the reporter, who states that it is inadmissible due to missed deadlines. After giving evidence, Professor Andrew Bain OBE, who is an economist and former visiting professor at the University of Glasgow, said:
"The reporters struck out some of the evidence I was giving on the grounds that it should have been submitted at an unreasonably early date – in fact, before I'd even seen the material I was commenting on. The effect of this is there has been no significant criticism of key evidence. I knew it was going to be difficult but the procedures they are adopting make it difficult for the truth to come out."
In addition, the evidence that the reporters are taking is not being fully examined because the reporters, for understandable reasons, are having to stick rigidly to the inquiry timetable. There is therefore little opportunity, in some cases, to investigate important evidence further.
Another problem with the inquiry is that it seems to presuppose that the power line is needed and that overhead transmission lines are the only way in which to transmit power from the Highlands to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no real opportunity to question whether the power line is needed at all and no recourse fully to discuss alternatives such as undergrounding and subsea transmission. The broader issues at stake are not being considered.
There is also concern about the treatment of people who are giving evidence. One individual stated:
"I have attended the public inquiry on approximately 5 days and have been shocked at the manner in which Scottish Hydro Electric's cross-examination of witnesses has been conducted. It has been both aggressive and demeaning in content and manner of delivery."
We have evidence being dismissed; evidence not being fully investigated; poor treatment of witnesses who give evidence; an assumption that the power line is needed regardless of whether that is the case; and no real chance to discuss alternatives. All that is fundamentally wrong.
The most powerful evidence on that comes from Sir Donald Miller, the chairman of Scottish Power from 1982 to 1992 and a respected Scottish industrialist. After giving evidence, he stated:
"Since there is no apparent concern by the Reporter to establish facts or to hear evidence that is not supportive of the Applicant's case it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the whole exercise is a sham. Certainly the procedures are without precedent in my fifty years' experience of Public Inquiries and are totally inappropriate for a technical and complex subject such as that under consideration. The Reporter's arbitrary rulings as to the admissibility of evidence put witnesses in an impossible position and make a mockery of the Executive's stated objective of encouraging participation in the planning process."
That is the crux of the problem. After attending the public inquiry, many of the witnesses have no faith in it. I do not want to take a decision at the end of the process when it has lost the trust of those who have presented evidence to it.
I have a number of questions that the minister should address. First, is he satisfied with the current conduct of the public inquiry? What steps will the Scottish Government take to address the concerns that I and others have raised? Has there been a full consideration of alternative routes and methods of transmitting power? Is there a national strategy for the transmission of power and electricity across the country? How can the inquiry come to a fair conclusion if it does not consider all the issues?
With so much at stake, the public inquiry must be open and transparent so that all views and evidence can be aired and the public can be satisfied with its conclusions. This is a serious issue that will impact on Scotland for generations to come. The public inquiry must get it right.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate, and I associate myself with much of what he said.
There is a temptation to engage in arguments for and against the Beauly to Denny line itself. I have frequently expressed my concerns about the impact of the proposed pylons in my own constituency. They will replace an existing line, but they will replace the current pylons with pylons twice the size. The route through my constituency is via a designated tourist route—an area where a wind farm has already been rejected for a number of reasons connected with the fact that there is a tourist route.
However, as Murdo Fraser said, tonight's debate is not so much about the pros and cons of the proposal as about the efficacy of the inquiry process. The truth is that, almost from the start, the conduct of the inquiry has caused problems. Not all opinions have been canvassed. It has been characterised by continual challenges to what people can speak to, what is reasonable and appropriate to be raised, what is ruled out because it has already been dealt with and other such questions. All that is against a background of no record being kept of the evidence that has previously been led, which would allow people to see what issues have already been raised.
All that amounts to harassment of witnesses. I understand that it is not normal practice for an on-going record to be kept in such inquiries, but the conduct of this inquiry flags up some serious longer-term concerns about process. Murdo Fraser's motion mentions that there are some 17,000 objectors. That is a massive number of people and organisations objecting to the line, and is obviously why the inquiry is taking so long and moving throughout Scotland in the way that it is.
Despite that, the balance of power is woefully out of kilter, and we are beginning to see that set of chickens coming home to roost. The rules are making it hardly worth while going along. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that there will be little point in my own attendance to give evidence. It has been almost impossible to work out in advance what will and will not be admissible. In those circumstances, it seems a colossal waste of time to try to imagine our way round the process, which is effectively what we have to do. That is hardly an acceptable position to be in.
The inquiry process may not be a matter for the minister; I am not clear whether he is in a position to respond on the process. However, I hope that he takes on board the deep dissatisfaction with the way in which the inquiry has proceeded. That dissatisfaction has been felt the length and breadth of Scotland, and it is particularly strong in my constituency. A degree of alienation has been engendered among individuals and groups, and that will continue if the process continues. I hope that the minister will take note of the concerns raised and will consider carefully how to address them.
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on his initiative in securing the debate. I also congratulate him on his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to see a fellow Invernesian do well, and I wish him well for the future. He might expect me to say that, as an ex-member of the IRA. I add quickly that I mean Inverness royal academy.
This debate is not about whether we are for or against renewables in a simplistic sense; it is about listening to our local communities, about listening to campaigners—some of whom are in the public gallery today, and about listening to our local authorities and the national park body, which have objected to the 400kV overhead transmission line.
As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I have strong concerns about the proposal—especially as the line runs through the national park. My colleague Jimmy Gray, who is leader of the Labour group on Highland Council, suggested to me earlier today that the solution is to bury the lines under the A9, especially as there will be dualling. Indeed, there would be a double advantage, because we would not need any snow clearance during the winter months.
The wider debate concerns the important role that renewables play in our energy mix. We all know the context, but perhaps I will mention a few points. We all know that, for the first time in decades, the United Kingdom is now a net importer of oil and gas; we all know that it does not look like there will be any more nuclear build; and we all know that our existing nuclear plants need so-called life extensions—Hunterston B in 2012 and Torness in 2016. Renewables—wave, tidal, wind, solar and, of course, hydrogen—will all play a vital role in meeting our climate change targets.
Being realistic, I accept that some upgrading of transmission lines will be required in the long term. However, we must not forget the important role of microrenewable schemes—which, in effect, consume their own smoke. I am thinking, for example, of wind turbines for individual homes and of biomass combined heat and power for small communities.
Let me give members one current example. On Friday, I was at an excellent conference on the future of Dounreay. We discussed the important role of the Pentland firth tidal project, which could supply power for an oil rig decommissioning project at the former Dounreay site without the need for any upgrading of the grid.
There is nothing new in such ideas. In the early 1900s, Kinlochleven had an aluminium smelter that was powered by hydro power. It supplied power to the grid in winter and bought it back in summer. Historians in the chamber will know about the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland Tom Johnston who, under Churchill, nationalised hydropower in the early 1940s. That provided poor Highlanders with electricity for the first time. However, even then—as I know from looking at the history books earlier today—people considered carefully the siting, location, design and build of dams, transmission towers and lines. People were sensitive to the role that such things would play in the economy.
I want to make a general point. It is extremely difficult for people who go to inquiries to try to cope with the mass of information that is put before them; but we also have to consider the fact that the companies who make submissions can pay for their contributions to the inquiry by increasing our electricity bills. To use Murdo Fraser's image, it is very much a David and Goliath situation.
The Highlands and Islands have built up a vital reputation as a film-friendly environment—an unspoiled landscape with growing potential for the lucrative film market. The granting of national park status was testimony to our unique status. Tourism will be at stake if this project goes ahead. Film locations will be affected. After all, who will film when there are giant pylons, double the size and seven times the volume of the present ones? I object to the proposal and think that no more should be said about it. We should object to the plans. I call for underground and undersea transmission, which would get around the problem. [Interruption.]
I remind those in the public gallery that it is inappropriate to applaud.
I rise to speak in this debate because I recognise the strength of public feeling on the issue, which many people who are attending the debate have articulated well.
Nobody doubts that difficult decisions must be taken when it is proposed to upgrade or reroute an electricity line, but that does not remove the public's right to have access to informed and relevant expertise that can outline the detailed scientific analysis and the rational arguments, which should properly reflect the economic costs and benefits of specific routes. Both are needed so that the impact of proposals on different communities and local environments can be accurately assessed.
At the early meetings that I attended at Crieff community hall and Kinbuck community hall, Scottish and Southern Energy gave us specific assurances that extensive research on the proposals had been undertaken, that there had been a comprehensive consultation process involving local authorities, interest groups and the general public, and that sufficient work had been undertaken to ensure that the proposals were consistent with Government regulations and land use policy. However, in time, it became clear that the conduct of the inquiry was falling well short of public expectations and the democratic process. Members of the public were frequently left without complete information. In particular, written records of meetings were absent; there seemed to be no flexibility within the timetable for hearing important evidence; and access to a great deal of information seemed to be limited to internet access. Those difficulties—particularly the lack of written records of deliberations—were exacerbated by the meetings being held across a wide geographical area, which made it difficult for the public to keep up to date with what was going on. Moreover, several interest groups found that their dealings with Scottish and Southern Energy were fraught with confusion and red tape and liable to conflicting information. There were signs—I say this with sadness—of a lack of common courtesies.
In such an inquiry, especially an inquiry that involves so much public money, members of the public have a right to expect access to informed expertise so that they fully understand the complex technical considerations that are involved, but such access has often been available only if interest groups could hire expensive advisers and Queen's counsels. That seems to be grossly unfair when it is set against Scottish and Southern Energy's application to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to be reimbursed to the tune of £7 million from electricity customers throughout the UK.
In short, there seems to have been anything but a public inquiry. The procedures that have been used throughout the lengthy process have been bureaucratic, incomplete and seriously at odds with democratic principles that should, first and foremost, set out fully to engage the public in an extremely important debate about the future of energy policy in this country.
I thank Murdo Fraser for lodging the motion and giving members an opportunity to discuss the matter.
The route of the proposed pylon line cuts right through the centre of my constituency. Members will appreciate that the proposals have generated a massive number of objections. Communities from Achiltibuie to Fort Augustus and beyond have united in their determination to protect their heritage and landscape and to prevent them from being destroyed and permanently blighted by the intrusion of megapylons across the Highland landscape.
I have with me a petition that was handed to me by the chairman of Highlands Before Pylons. It is a measure of people's objections to the pylon line. It includes 10,000 signatures. Some 17,000 objections may already have been made, but I have another 10,000 objections. I hope that I can get a minister or cabinet secretary to accept the petition in the next few days.
The public inquiry that is currently being conducted has been a huge disappointment so far—it has mainly demonstrated how large commercial interests that can afford to employ expensive lawyers can trample over the interests of small and vulnerable communities. That has been evident during the course of the inquiry.
However, the inquiry has provided a focus around which communities from Ullapool to Denny have been able to unite in their opposition to the Scottish and Southern Energy pylons plan. If Scottish and Southern Energy is so anxious to establish an interconnector between the Highlands and its perceived market in the south—as we have heard, the need for such an interconnector has not even been established—it should do so without damaging the Highland environment and the economy that it sustains. Many people agree that the company's current proposals are ill conceived and are designed to enhance Scottish and Southern Energy's profits, but would do nothing to protect the natural environment of an area that stretches from Ullapool to Denny through the very heart of Scotland.
The Highlands of Scotland have already made a substantial contribution to renewable energy through the many hydro schemes that, as many people will be aware, already exist in our Highland glens. With another large scheme—one of the biggest ever undertaken—currently being constructed in Glen Doe, the Highlands cannot be accused of not contributing to renewable energy sources.
We have yet to develop the unlimited resource of tide and wave power, which could connect to a subsea cable stretching from the north of Scotland to the south of Scotland. That would eliminate the need for Scottish and Southern Energy's overland pylons monstrosity. As we have heard, in some areas the megapylons would stretch into the clouds. I believe that a subsea cable is an affordable and far-sighted option that has not been fully explored.
A buried cable would also be preferable by far to pylons. Such a move would show willingness on the part of Scottish and Southern Energy to consider the wider economic and environmental impact of its commercial interests.
I welcome the terms in which Murdo Fraser opened the debate. It is entirely worth our while to consider the process of the inquiry without necessarily getting into the rightness or wrongness of the project.
Just as Murdo Fraser made the case that prior assumptions had been built into the inquiry, I will begin with an assumption of my own: I believe that few people object in principle to the development of onshore wind in Scotland. I understand the concerns of those who do, but I think that they are very few. On this day, on which we had a first informal meeting of MSPs to discuss the need for a cross-party group on climate change to ramp up debate on this most urgent of issues that face humanity, I believe that it is worth our while to reflect on the process of change that has led both the people and the political parties to come to such agreement. My assumption is that many objectors are reasonable people who seek not to prevent the development of renewables in Scotland, but instead to reduce the impact of such developments on people and the environment.
All members have in front of them a copy of the minister's conclusions on the legal submissions that were lodged recently. The conclusions argue that the terms of the inquiry and the various types of evidence do not need to be reconsidered. In legal terms, the ministers might well be right about that, but a question remains about whether that should be the case. Regardless of the differing views that people might have on the need for the upgrade, reasonable people who have engaged in the process and who have often spent a great deal of their own time, effort and money in doing so should be able to expect a reasonable process.
Is the public local inquiry process reasonable? I can refer only to my experience as a witness at the public local inquiry on the M74. The overwhelming sense was of the huge imbalance between the resources of objectors and the resources of developers and local authorities. It was an intimidating process; I had been fairly intimated by being elected as an MSP a couple of months beforehand, but the process of giving evidence to the public inquiry for the first time was even worse than standing in the chamber. A degree of political bias was also built in—three days before the inquiry began, the then First Minister had made a commitment in Parliament to build the road. The terms of the inquiry were also restricted. Given all those factors, it is amazing that we won and it is rather disappointing that ministers ignored the successful conclusions of the inquiry. I do not recall Conservative members or members of any of the other political parties that are represented in the chamber expressing a great deal of support for the objections that we raised and the motions that we lodged at the time. If we are debating the fairness of the process, rather than the merits of the project, perhaps other parties should review their positions on the M74 public local inquiry.
There will always be controversy surrounding major infrastructure projects. We will never get a process that makes everyone happy with the outcome. However, both sides—developers and objectors—should welcome the fairest, most rigorous, most comprehensive and most thorough process possible, because such a process is most likely to persuade those on the losing side, whichever that happens to be, to accept an unpalatable result.
I understand that ministers do not want to reopen the debate on planning legislation, but they have flexibility in the work that they are still doing on the regulations that result from it. Will they reconsider the idea of records of inquiries, either written or video records? The latter might be cheaper. Will they look again at the health and social factors that could be included in planning decisions, and at the idea of health impact assessments? Will they ensure that there is the broadest possible interpretation of their duties on sustainable development in relation to infrastructure projects in the national planning framework, including all social, economic and environmental factors?
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I am happy to support the motion and do not disagree with anything that I have heard from members so far. It is gratifying that so many members from different parties have come together to work in a common interest. I hope that that will add weight to the representations that we make today.
I commend my constituents and their fellow protesters—those who are here today and others—for their commitment during the process, which has been extraordinary in some cases. One or two of my constituents have, given the absence of a written record, sat through hours of the inquiry in order to provide reports to others on what was happening. The motion states that 17,000 people have objected to the development; we understand that the figure is now 27,000. Many have objected because they believe that in certain areas the line will be an eyesore.
I share the concerns that Murdo Fraser and others have expressed about the process. An increasing number of cases have come to me that place in question the role of the inquiry reporters. This week there was an interesting article in The Courier about the issue, which would bear further scrutiny.
My constituency is not the only scenic stretch of the route—far from it—but Ochil is scenic and historic. The Wallace monument, which is no less than a symbol of Scotland's nationhood, looks out on to a landscape that will, if the proposal succeeds, be bisected by concrete and steel. Those of us who are familiar with Scottish history will recognise the significance of the battle of Sheriffmuir, where the struggle between the Jacobites and Government troops came far closer to ending the newborn Act of Union than the more celebrated uprising 30 years later. I worry that, 300 years on, we may as a country take a decision that would run huge electricity pylons right through the middle of that battlefield.
Historical and aesthetic reasons are important, not just because of the past but because Stirlingshire currently depends a great deal on the Wallace monument as a tourism resource. The atmosphere and the aesthetic bring more than 100,000 visitors a year to the Wallace monument. Scottish Natural Heritage called the Ochil hills, which the Wallace monument looks out on,
"a landscape experience that is unique in Scotland"
and
"one of the most visually sensitive areas in Scotland".
My predecessor as MSP for Ochil, George Reid, said that he was stunned by the proposals and that no other country in the world would think of despoiling an area of such national importance.
I have worked in Stirling for the past 15 years and, for most of that time, I have driven to Stirling on the A907 through Tullibody. On that road, drivers can see the vista opening up before them, with the Wallace monument sometimes shrouded in cloud. That fantastic view will be despoiled, if the proposal succeeds, with huge pylons right in front of that view. The pylons are massive—up to 65m high, which is 220ft, in old money. It is worth thinking about the fact that no building in Edinburgh is as tall as that, not even Appleton tower or Martello Court.
We do not have time to go into the health issues, but I hope that they will be taken into account by the inquiry, if it should relax its procedures. In that regard, I refer members to the recent Westminster report that talks about recommended areas either side of pylons that might generate emissions.
The eastern villages of Stirling are often forgotten about in this context but have regularly been seen as a dumping ground for pylons and various other public utilities, to the detriment of their people. I hope that their interests will also be taken into account.
History has shown us that when decisions on what is beautiful and what is ugly are made by the state, the result is as often as not cultural vandalism or concrete monstrosities. I do not think that any of us want that to happen in relation to the areas that we are discussing. Some 27,000 people are now offering their opinions. I hope that the inquiry is flexible enough to take note of them.
I join other members in congratulating Murdo Fraser on securing this debate. As is usual in members' business debates, there seems to be a great deal of unanimity around today's motion.
As members have said, the debate is not about the arguments for and against the route of the new line or whether all of it or part of it should be buried because of economic, tourism and health issues—that is a matter for the reporters when they make a recommendation to the minister. The motion is about the process. Many members have asked whether the process is fair and reasonable and, most important, whether it will result in a decision that is appropriate. If the process is not correct, the decision might not be correct.
I was not in the Parliament when the planning laws were changed, but whatever the planning procedures are, it is unreasonable for the sea route not to be considered as an option. I ask the minister to give an undertaking to consider the option of a sea route so that it can be appropriately considered by the reporter.
The second flaw in the process is, as others have said, that the proceedings are not being fully recorded. It is an Alice in Wonderland situation that an objector can stand up and be told that they cannot make a statement because it has been made before. Unless they have attended all the other meetings up and down the country, they have no idea whether that is the case. That is bizarre and acts against the objectors. Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission have a massive team of lawyers who record everything themselves, but they do not appear to be prepared to make that record available to the objectors. The situation is unfair and biased and needs to be addressed for this inquiry and for future inquiries.
We will not go into the health evidence today, but I want to draw a parallel between this issue and what happened in relation to smoking in the first session. During the first session, Kenneth Gibson and I worked with Action on Smoking and Health to try to bring in a bill to limit smoking in pubs and restaurants because the evidence of the harmful effects of passive smoking was growing. However, the evidence was not huge and it did not come from many countries. Because the evidence lacked a certain weight, the Executive wished to try other measures rather than accede to smoking legislation. During the past few years, the evidence of the harm of passive smoking has become abundantly clear and, to its credit, the Parliament has now, with a huge degree of unanimity, banned smoking in public places.
With that in mind, I say that if I had been asked six years ago about the health issue in relation to pylons, I would have said that there is no evidence of harm—but such evidence is growing day by day. I am making a point about the process rather than about what the evidence says because the evidence has to be admitted, because it is growing.
Some evidence—for example the Draper report and the report by the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electric and electromagnetic fields—has been admitted, but we do not know whether the same will apply to other research such as the bioinitiative working group report or the Lowenthal paper. The evidence is growing daily and the inquiry will not reach an appropriate result unless the appropriate evidence can be led at any point in the proceedings. It should not simply be dismissed.
SHETL's proposal to reimburse its costs with £6.5 million or £7 million of public money—which we will have to pay for, one way or another—is a total nonsense in light of what the protestors have been able to obtain, and needs to be addressed in future planning concerns.
Keith Brown referred to Stirlingshire's eastern villages. The fact that SHETL has already moved the proposed line closer to those villages and away from the new village that is to be built is another indication of commercial interest; after all, house prices in the new village would be affected by the presence of the line. If there are no health concerns, why has SHETL responded in such a way? Surely it should build on the original line. I suspect that there are other matters that still need to be brought out.
My final point is that after the loss of the mining industry in the eastern villages and given all the health inequalities and the major economic and employment problems in the area, I think that it is a total disgrace that pylons should be dumped on these people as well.
First, I respectfully remind Patrick Harvie that although it is tempting to widen the debate, it is clearly about the way in which the public inquiry has been conducted. I also point out that none of the written objections that I have read opposes renewable energy. I also thank Murdo Fraser for securing this debate and for the points that he has raised.
Politicians hear many complaints about the decisions of public inquiries, but I have never heard so many complaints about the conduct of an inquiry as I have about what has been Scotland's longest ever public inquiry. We have to hope that lessons can be learned from the experience, to restore faith in local democracy and to encourage local people to participate in the planning process in future.
As Richard Simpson said, it is incredible that SHETL and Scottish Power are claiming £7 million from Ofgem to cover their inquiry costs. The objectors, on the other hand, have paid their council tax to be represented, they have paid their own travelling and accommodation costs, and they will now have to pay the applicants' costs through electricity charges.
Why does the directorate for planning and environmental appeals insist on taking down all the evidence in longhand and then ensuring that documents have not been accessible at the inquiry? I have to say that I was proud to hear that even in the inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building, all the documents were fed into the computer, which meant that everyone present had the same access to the same documents at the same time. As a result, there was, apparently, no confusion.
The public inquiry on the Beauly to Denny power line has been unable to keep to any timetable. Many people have turned up to give evidence on their appointed day, only to be told to come back the next day. Many others have incurred travelling and accommodation costs and have given up holiday entitlement to attend day after day, only to be called four or five days after their appointed day.
Why could we not have had a two-stage inquiry? The first stage could have been given over to a consideration of strategic aspects to reach a decision on the principle of the need for a connection and, as Murdo Fraser suggested, an examination of the costs of overheading and undergrounding the line.
All local authorities and community councils, the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage, the National Trust for Scotland, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Ramblers Association Scotland, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the John Muir Trust, VisitScotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, landowners, community groups and thousands of others all along the route have raised objections.
The public inquiry was an opportunity to get things right, but people lack confidence in it because many concerns have been dismissed and submissions have been ruled inadmissible. SSE has consistently failed to meet submission dates that the reporter has set, but still introduces new evidence. Even while witnesses are giving evidence, SSE has been allowed to change swathes of its evidence and introduce new documents. Objectors, on the other hand, have been refused permission to introduce any evidence outwith the submission dates.
Other members have covered many of the points that I wished to make. The applicants' team of advocates and advisers has been accused of filibustering when examining and re-examining witnesses. Their questioning leaves little time for objectors to squeeze in a few questions at the end.
Like the director of planning for Highland Council, I request that a summit meeting be arranged for all the participants in what will be a year-long inquiry to thrash out ways of improving the efficiency, fairness and transparency of such inquiries. We cannot turn back the clock, but we can learn from this inquiry and ensure that there is democratic and local participation in future public inquiries, which would restore people's confidence in them.
I warmly and genuinely congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber and putting his concerns, to which I listened intently, on the record. I also noted the uniformly supportive comments of other members and the multifaceted nature of the issues and concerns that have been raised. I have listened carefully to members' points and I recognise the wide interest in the Beauly to Denny proposal, not just in the chamber but throughout Scotland and beyond our borders.
The debate topic that is before us focuses on the conduct of the public local inquiry. Murdo Fraser and others will recognise that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the application at this point. As with any planning case or any case under the Electricity Act 1989, ministers do not comment until they have all the relevant information before them. Equally, it would be entirely inappropriate for ministers to seek to interfere with the independence of the inquiry process. Calls to stop or redirect the inquiry are at odds with the need for an objective process that listens and reaches a balanced judgment. Nevertheless, this debate will further inform that process and further define all the factors that ministers must consider in due course. I am happy to respond to the points that have been made.
The minister just made the same point as members made previously, which is that ministers will take account of the inquiry's results but make their own independent decision. What assurance can he give about the processes that are available to ministers to take further advice, for example, on research on having an undersea cable, to which Richard Simpson referred, or on the cost of undergrounding? Can the minister assure us that, before ministers make their final decision, they will use mechanisms that can give vent to voices that might have gone unheard at the inquiry?
It is best to answer that by saying that ministers, too, desire to further all Scottish interests. We are reasonable people and we seek the best possible outcome.
Some of us have commented on the inquiry's timetable. It was not set arbitrarily but was devised by the reporter in the light of the statements of case that were submitted by different parties before the commencement of the inquiry. Taking into account the number of parties and witnesses, the programme was planned to run over 29 weeks but avoid the April and the summer school holidays. Those breaks were provided primarily to recognise objectors' commitments.
The timetable that was set at the outset has been maintained. That is important, as it has ensured that one part of the inquiry has not overrun at the expense of another. Equally, some members have argued that more time might have been allocated. I suggest that, as in all inquiries, our aim must be to have the tightest timescale that allows adequate and fair examination. Indeed, I believe that that is what we must have. We are already looking at an inquiry that will run from February to December. After the inquiry finishes, a report must be written that takes into account written submissions and oral evidence. That will be a hugely complex task and ministers do not expect to receive the report until late in 2008. The report will then be considered properly before a determination is reached. Even in the current timetable, a determination is unlikely before early 2009.
Members commented on the reporter's refusal to admit late additional documents in evidence. That has happened only when the reporter was given no cogent reason why evidence was provided after the inquiry commenced. I hope that members will acknowledge that acceptance of such late evidence could make the inquiry open-ended and would require parties to the inquiry to deal with a moving target. That is not reasonable and would prolong the inquiry.
Will the minister give way?
I will do so when I have finished making my point.
It is not just objectors who have been treated in that way; the applicants, too, have been turned away when they attempted to introduce late or changed documentation. However, many additional documents have been admitted where good reason for late submission has been shown.
The minister has almost answered my question, which is about objectors' allegations that late submissions from them have been refused while many late submissions from the applicants have been accepted. Does he accept that that has happened?
I accept that a balance has been struck and that many additional documents have been admitted, where good reasons have been shown.
Legal submissions have also been made to the inquiry on the adequacy of information before the inquiry. Those submissions were fully considered by ministers and in respect of each it was decided that the inquiry should proceed as scheduled. Members will understand that the shortness of time for today's debate means that I cannot fully set out the conclusions that led to those decisions. However, the conclusions are set out in letters of 29 June, which are available for everyone to read on the well-used inquiry website. The key point is that all parties to the inquiry must be treated in exactly the same fair manner. As a person who wants to see Scotland befriend continuous improvement, I am keen that all parties should listen and learn.
The inquiry has been timetabled and structured to allow the examination of the statements of case that have been submitted. When the reporter is producing his report, he will consider the totality of the written submissions and oral examinations. That will provide the balanced democratic process that members seek.
I will not comment on the merits of the case, but I will comment briefly on the policy context. The Government wants Scotland to have secure supplies of energy, which will take advantage of our huge potential in renewables, help us to meet our climate change objectives and allow us to export energy. However, we have made it clear that we will not pursue that energy agenda at any price. We accept that we must take into account, for example, other environmental considerations. That is what we do with every application for generation or transmission of electricity that comes before us.
Public local inquiries can play an important part in the examination of evidence. I have tried to show members that the objective is to run the Beauly to Denny inquiry fairly and effectively. I think that members' comments will strengthen that objective, which is fully in keeping with the democratic principles that we all share. I urge members to show their support for the process, so that the application and submissions can be properly examined, the evidence heard and the report produced in the planned timeframe.
Meeting closed at 17:58.