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 3723 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
Scottish Green MSPs believe that everyone in Scotland deserves to benefit from affordable, accessible and reliable transport, including from their local bus services. Having access to better buses has hugely positive impacts on people’s lives, helping everyone to access education and work opportunities, to be connected to vital local and national services and to connect with one another. It also plays a role in addressing the climate crisis, because it encourages us all to leave the car at home and cut climate pollution.
However, people across Scotland still struggle with the affordability and accessibility of public transport, especially buses. Over the past decade, the cost of bus travel has risen by more than 60 per cent, which is faster than the rate of wages and the cost of living. Those fare increases put significant financial strain on families across Scotland and disproportionately impact people on low incomes, women and people from minority ethnic communities, as they are more likely to rely on the bus.
However, it does not have to be that way. The Scottish Greens have continuously fought to make public transport more affordable, accessible and reliable, which has included delivering free bus travel for all under-22s in Scotland from January 2022 and working constructively with the Government on successive budget deals. Three years on, we can see just how successful that scheme has been: since its roll-out, more than 250 million journeys have been made and there were over 800,000 cardholders as of June. I live with two of them at home. In my region, the scheme has been taken up by just over 100,000 young people, which has resulted in some 26.5 million journeys.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
To what extent does case law help us to make a distinction between “significant environmental harm” and “severe environmental harm”?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
I guess that it would depend on whether the harm was severe or significant, in which case the higher sentencing would be available.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
How can criminal liability be established within large corporate entities and multinational organisations?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
I am particularly interested in the threshold of intent and recklessness.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
I want to go back to the threshold for liability. The bill requires intent or recklessness, but could it extend to negligence or provide for strict liability for organisations? That would be moving more into the territory of section 40 of the 2014 act, rather than staying purely with intent or recklessness. As Iain Batho said, that involves a much higher bar for proof, and there would then be a choice about which provisions to go for.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
And short questions—okay. The panel has already touched briefly on some of the definitions of ecocide, such as severe environmental harm and harm that is widespread and long term. Can you offer some comparison with how other jurisdictions have defined ecocide and say where you see the definition that sits in Monica Lennon’s bill? Ricardo, you covered this briefly earlier. Do you want to say anything more about how those terms are defined in the bill?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
Yes.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
Can I get other views on the threshold for liability in the bill?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 5 November 2025
Mark Ruskell
It has been a very interesting evidence session. I have a couple of questions for you and your team. First, you alluded to a letter that was sent to you from the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the SSPCA and the Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary. In that letter, they make a commitment to rehome any dogs as a consequence of the bill. It mentions that between 40 and 60 dogs may require to be rehomed. Does that give you confidence that the bill, should it go to a stage 3 vote and be passed, could be implemented sooner rather than later, and certainly within the 12-month implementation date in the bill?