Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 21 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3647 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I am not going to be content with what is before us.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I am objecting in principle to what is before the committee this morning.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

It is quite clear that the system is broken. I have sat in this committee and in our predecessor committee, and we granted extension after extension. I do not see the system ever working. It is important that the UK Government thinks again about whether having a separate UK REACH database will ever get us to the point of having up-to-date data about public health and safety. I do not think that we will ever get to that point.

It is for the UK Government and other ministers around these islands to think about what the next system should be. If, in two years’ time, we get to a point when the Government cannot meet the deadline and is seeking to extend it again, I do not know what that will look like. Perhaps the system could fully align with the EU. Perhaps the Government could take another approach.

Right now, there is no alternative but to add another two years on to the deadline. I want it to be noted that we have a completely and utterly dysfunctional system, which is not gathering the data. Industry does not know what kind of data it should be gathering. The whole system is broken, and serious concerns need to be raised with both Governments about the adequacy of that system. It is a joke to have an eight-year extension for something that was envisaged as taking only two years, in replicating the database. We are effectively being forced to vote for something that is redundant, inoperative and dysfunctional. I will do so through gritted teeth.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I want to ask about negative emissions technologies, which are a massive part of the climate change plan. Your modelling shows 12 megatonnes of carbon reduction as a result of NETS, which is double the 6 megatonnes that the Climate Change Committee recommends. You just outlined how, with some of the policy choices over livestock and peatland restoration, NETS will be picking up some of the slack, although we will find out exactly how much later on.

Given where we are with Acorn, and that the Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran and the Grangemouth refinery have now shut, there are questions about where the emissions will come from to make Acorn viable. What is your thinking on the viability of Acorn? Is it viable if the Peterhead gas-fired power station does not feed into it?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

Right. I am reading into it that there may be a route to Acorn being viable without Peterhead. However, we are where we are.

Let us imagine that Acorn does not get the go ahead or is not viable. Is there a plan B? Is there a contingency plan? You will remember that the Climate Change Committee has been calling for years for Government to have such a plan. Is there one? I know that you want to talk up Acorn—that is fine and I understand—but let us imagine that it does not happen. It may be unimaginable but, if it does not happen, what is the contingency plan?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

So it would be back around the table, with other cabinet secretaries chipping in as to how many megatonnes they could contribute to the process.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I have one more question.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I wanted to link to a question about energy-from-waste sites. We do not have a lot of time to get into detail, but there is an assumption that 45 per cent of energy-from-waste sites will install CCS by 2032. I am assuming that that means that carbon will be taken off from energy-from-waste incinerators and go up to Acorn. Are there concerns about the ability to meet that reduction in carbon emissions, and how many megatonnes would have to be reconsidered if that does not happen by 2032?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Budget Scrutiny 2026-27

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

Last week, we asked the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about how the net zero assessment was working. She indicated that it is used in the early development of policies but that you would be the best person to talk about how it is being rolled out across Government.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Budget Scrutiny 2026-27

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

It would be great to see more detail about that, particularly if there is early thinking about capital infrastructure projects or programmes. This goes back to the conversation that we had about the climate change plan. If the work is being done, it would be good to know whether it is being done across the whole Government, with the 10,000 tonne threshold being the trigger for the work, or whether it is being done just in the transport and housing portfolios. If there is such evidence and information, that would be good to see.

Climate change is clearly not the only factor in making decisions, but, if a policy decision results in going over the 10,000 tonne threshold, it would be good for that work to be considered and for us to see the output. That would let us know the impact of the policy and whether it is positive or negative. The taxonomy just puts the spend into groupings; it does not tell us the extent of the impact of policy decisions in a positive or negative way.