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 1738 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
My question is based on what the cabinet secretary said about timescales. You are seeking a four-nations approach and want all the nations to move at the same time, which sounds sensible. If timescales diverge and there is a need for discretion, do you have an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that would allow you to make a decision about Scotland going first or going later?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
If manufacturers could bring the price of rechargeable vapes down to the same price as disposable vapes, would people not just buy rechargeable ones but continue to chuck them away? In that case, would it not be more sensible to have some kind of minimum price, even for rechargeable vapes, so that we do not just perpetuate the current disposable culture, in which people have vapes that are technically rechargeable and refillable but which are so cheap that they just chuck them away, as they are doing now?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
To be clear, if there is no DRS, businesses will have to pay through the nose for EPR post-2028. A wine and spirits company, for example, that is using glass extensively may be looking at the lack of a DRS scheme for glass right now and thinking, “Well, we’ve got out of that.” However, come 2028, if there is no DRS for glass bottles, it will have to make a payment through the scheme to enable local authorities to collect all of its glass. There is no way to get away from paying for the cost of collection; it is just a case of which mechanism it might go through. Is that a fair assessment?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
What do you think will happen with the DRS, given the context of the EPR being brought in with a backstop of 2028?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
You have not requested an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
I will come in on that briefly.
I am also interested in the wider picture of rail reform and I am wondering where that is at the moment. The bill has been a good first start on improving relationships between the two Governments and, I hope, between all devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The next most substantial reform will be to set up GB rail. What timeframe do you see for that coming through and will the Scottish Government be directly involved in its governance? Is there a clear model for how devolved Administrations will be involved in that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 September 2024
Mark Ruskell
Do you have a view on the open access operators? Would you prefer the entire rail network to be brought under national control?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Mark Ruskell
I want to focus on compensation for improvements. Will new schedule 5 to the 1991 act, which will be inserted by section 14(9) of the bill, improve the process for agreeing improvements between tenant and landlord? In some of the evidence that we have had there has been a bit of concern about the split between those measures that require notice and those that require consent. What are your thoughts on those splits and on schedule 5?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Mark Ruskell
My final question is about the process of diversification and whether you have comments on that, following on from our discussion about environmental improvements.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Mark Ruskell
I will come back on that briefly. Mr Doris is right to highlight that there are elements of the statutory instrument that enable alignment with the EU. However, there are other aspects, particularly when it comes to the phasing out of certain POPs within the regulations, where there is active divergence. I do not think that Mr Doris is right to say that this is a temporary measure and that the UK’s—and Scotland’s—approach will eventually align with that of the EU. Yes, it is about adopting regulation of the chemicals that are highlighted under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and there will be continuing alignment on that matter, but on the pace of change in ruling out and removing these toxic chemicals from our waste streams and our environment, there is now active divergence. That is why I oppose this SI; it is not to do with the other elements that Mr Doris mentioned, which are welcome.