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 12 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2844 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

Are you saying that, if we give it another couple of years, it will be fixed? Is the HSE telling you, “It’s fine; we’ve got it under control”? The industry does not know what it is meant to be collecting right now.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

Okay, but the committee cannot see it.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I am finished, convener. I will let other members come in.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

I think that this is a mess. The UK REACH process was set up in 2018, and I do not think that it has ever worked. I appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary has made. This is a situation that Scotland does not want to find itself in with Brexit.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Mark Ruskell

No, that is fine. I have problems with both of them, but I will start with that one. I have concerns in relation to the role of the HSE. It is acting as both a regulator and a policy maker, which feels a bit like a power grab.

There is certainly a lack of transparency. We do not even have a consultation document for the regulations. I am concerned that decisions are being made without transparency. I do not know what is meant by alignment with the wider UN rules. I do not know whether we are going to end up aligning with the regulatory regimes of other nations, rather than with those of the EU. There are particular concerns about certain classes of hazards, such as children’s toys and endocrine disruptors. There might be other cases where we are effectively falling out of alignment with the EU, which would have serious implications. It would also have implications for trade.

I am concerned. I do not think that we have been presented with the full picture, and the HSE should, at the very least, be in front of the committee to answer questions before we agree to such a far-reaching set of chemicals regulations that could take us further out of alignment with the EU.

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?