The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3259 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
How could we ever compete when we have very high CFD prices? I imagine that energy from a solar farm in the middle east would be a lot less expensive.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
So it is really just a case of storing more of the fuel at the end.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Would zonal pricing have meant that SAF production was much more attractive for Scotland, because there could have been cheaper electricity closer to where the source was?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Ralph, do you have a view on whether zonal pricing would have helped Scotland with SAF production?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I guess that, in Acorn, you would capture that SAF would be produced, but the carbon would still be released when the fuel was burned by the aircraft, would it not?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I have a question for Simon McNamara. To go back to the economics of SAF, should we, as passengers, expect to pay increased costs for air travel in the future, as we use more and more SAF?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
However, if you were—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Zonal pricing.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I am disappointed that the Presiding Officer does not have a view on that.
When we look at the applications from Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, we see that the pylons are much greater in size—they are up to 50m tall, if I am not mistaken. They are much larger than the pylons that are in place just now, and people have concerns about that. They also have concerns about the sag height of the cables, and operating farm equipment under them is a big concern, too.
Amendment 254 would require a landowner to set out what mitigations had been incorporated if pylons were planned for an area. Those mitigations should be made with an independent expert with knowledge of pylon construction.
Amendment 255 would ensure that, if pylons were proposed, it would be set out why the line could not be undergrounded instead.
If the Government is serious about transparency and giving communities a greater say when it comes to monster pylons, I am sure that it will support my amendments.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Douglas Lumsden
There is a theme to most of the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3—I am nothing if not predictable.
The Scottish National Party Government talks about community involvement and giving communities a say, but, when it comes to energy infrastructure, communities feel ignored. Communities right across Scotland are angry with the scale of the monster pylons, battery storage and substations that are appearing across much of rural Scotland. It is not just the look of these monster pylons that people are angry about; people are seeing their property prices slashed and they are concerned about the loss of countryside, the impact on health, the impact on tourism, safety and the destruction of farmland.
Amendment 240 would require “high quality agricultural land” to be identified in a land management plan—I do not think that there is anything contentious about that. Amendment 249 sets out that the high-quality agricultural land that is identified
“is not used for major energy infrastructure.”
We often hear about energy security, but what about food security? We should not destroy our farmland; we must protect it for generations to come.
Amendment 251 is just about looking for some transparency. If land will be used for pylons, that should be in the land management plan that the local community can have a say on. If a landowner intends to enter an agreement to allow the construction of pylons, amendment 253 would obligate the landowner to take the “cumulative impact” of energy infrastructure into account. Communities are also concerned that it is not just pylons that will come into the area but other infrastructure that will come on the back of pylons, such as substations, battery storage and hydrogen plants. It is the cumulative impact that is so devastating to our communities.