I welcome this debate on a very important subject, actually. The spread of electricity supply in the 1920s and 1930s liberated many from much drudgery, but it did mark our landscape and rather transformed it in an ugly way. Whereas the romantic poets saw Wales as one of the great areas of the sublime and beautiful, we now all too often have to look at what would be wonderful views if it wasn’t for the fact that these huge pylons march across them in many areas. So, I do think that this is something that is really worthy of consideration as alternatives now present themselves. I do note—and Simon Thomas did refer to it briefly—that the National Grid itself has currently a plan to remove the bulkiest pylons from beauty spots around the UK, and Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons are included in that programme. It is set to cost £500 million in the first phase, which may sound a lot, but actually, you don’t get to bury that much with that sort of investment. But, at least, it is a sign that they realise that things are changing in response to public demand, but also a greater desire to see the landscape restored.

I note that the debate in Anglesey has been particularly heated. I think that that is a sign of things to come, frankly, because people will ask quite fundamental questions: ‘If we have got to put up with the power plant, why do we have the least attractive way of then transmitting that power?’ Isn’t it part of the deal you do with the local economy that you try to help them as much as possible? The costs are not inconsiderable. As a rough rule of thumb, it costs twice as much to bury a cable as to have it overhead. But I do think it is the alternative that should always be considered.

There are general advantages also that go beyond the obvious benefits to the landscape. Buried cables are more resilient of severe weather conditions. My researcher here has got in brackets ‘apart from earthquakes’; well, I’m not going to include those. It’s a natural phenomenon, so perhaps we should be mindful of that, but fortunately we don’t suffer from very strong earthquakes in Wales. There’s less of a hazard: the safety for people, wildlife and aircraft from burying cables is considerable. Also, they don’t need as much land, believe it or not, despite the fact they’re buried, as—[Interruption.] No, they don’t. If you bury a cable you need half as much land as you do for the overhead cables.

So, there are many advantages. There are disadvantages, the cost being the obvious one, but they’re also more difficult to repair and maintain, so we need to bear that in mind. However, I do think that does not take away from the general argument in favour of burying cables whenever possible, and certainly implementing a programme to bury cables wherever feasible in areas of great natural beauty.

Where we have overhead cables, I think when they’re replaced we should be looking at less intrusive versions. I am glad that the so-called T-pylon is now being tested. That’s a lot slimmer and also shorter than traditional pylons, so that may be a way, where we have to use overhead pylons, of letting them blend in a bit more, anyway, to the landscape.

Can I say that we will support the motion? Should we get to the amendments, we will support the amendments as well. The visual impact provision programme, I think, should be continued. We need to look at how we can plan this sort of programme of work, because it is a big investment. It will take time, but I’m glad we’re discussing it this afternoon. It’s a very worthy thing, and I’m sure future generations will thank us if we make this a particular priority now.