Official Report 829KB pdf
Welcome back. Our fourth item of business is an evidence session with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, focusing on the agency’s annual report, accounts and current priorities. I welcome Lisa Tennant, the chair; Nicole Paterson, the chief executive officer; Kirsty-Louise Campbell, the chief officer for governance, performance, and engagement; Alex Flucker, the chief operating officer for data, evidence, and innovation; and David Harley, the head of regulation, business and environment. Thank you for the written submission.
Before we move to questions, Nicole will make a brief opening statement.
Good morning, everyone. I am Nicole Paterson. As the convener said, I am chief executive and accountable officer at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or SEPA, as we are more commonly known.
Thank you for the invitation to give evidence. We will do our best to answer questions from the committee and we welcome the opportunity to be here with you. We seek to be open and transparent in all that we do, and we will provide the committee with the very best evidence that we can. I have brought representatives from our board and our leadership team, but you will appreciate that we cover a vast range of disciplines, activities and delivery. If necessary, we are more than happy to follow up with the committee in writing.
When I joined SEPA in autumn 2022, the agency faced a number of significant challenges that had impacted our confidence and our delivery. I was struck then, as I am now, by the passion, professionalism and purposefulness of our people, who, despite those challenges, ensured that SEPA continued to deliver for communities up and down the country. Those same traits have recently become our agency values.
Scotland’s environment is at the very heart of our identity, our success and our development as a nation. It is fundamental to our culture, our economy and our quality of life. It is precious and it is valuable. It is my privilege to lead the nation’s principal environmental regulator in delivering for the communities of Scotland. We remain resolute in our focus on improving the environment and protecting it from harm, and on protecting Scotland’s people from the impacts of harm to the environment on their health, wellbeing and quality of life.
As an agency, we do that by protecting our valuable land, air, ocean and rivers from pollution. We work collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure an appropriate balance between environmental protection and sustainable economic growth. We monitor the impact of climate change and we play our part in realising Scotland’s net zero ambitions.
SEPA is first and foremost a regulator—that is our core purpose. We require compliance. We work to encourage positive behaviour change, using all the tools at our disposal. We want businesses to flourish through being environmentally responsible. We want to ensure that we are appropriately robust and proportionate in how we regulate, and that we are transparent about the impact that that has.
We work in collaboration with a multitude of partners to deliver a multiplicity of benefits on hundreds of delivery projects and initiatives across all parts of the country. In communities, we deliver projects such as the Leven programme, the Kinneil Kerse landfill site, and our new and innovative satellite emergency mapping service, which we used to support a multi-agency response to storm Éowyn late last year.
We are an evidence-based organisation: science and data are at our heart. There is no better illustration of that than our agency’s evolution to provide Scotland with crucial data, forecasting, modelling and advice on flood risk, which is information vital to our communities’ resilience and to helping families to protect their homes and businesses. Our flood forecasting and warning is crucial to meeting the challenges of today and understanding those of tomorrow. We have developed a track record of accurately predicting flood events and warning those who are at risk from them, such as those who unfortunately experienced the impacts of climate change during the 2023 floods in Angus.
Those challenges of tomorrow and our knowledge of the changing environment around us—not least when it comes to climate change and biodiversity—mean that our work to prepare the agency for the challenges of the future has started in earnest. Our new leadership team and our predominantly new board have a clear focus on resetting the agency by empowering our people, challenging the status quo and delivering a widespread transformation programme, and looking at our approaches, our systems, our processes, our data and our structures—rewiring the agency, if you will—to ensure our efficiency and effectiveness so that we deliver value for money for every pound that is invested in us by the people of Scotland. It is a programme that will directly support public sector reform, exceed our customers’ expectations and clearly demonstrate our delivery and our impact.
We will continue to lead in innovation, finding creative solutions, harnessing new technologies and investing in our people to ensure that we are fit for the future and are ready to face the challenges head on with that same passion, professionalism and purposefulness.
Thank you once again for the invitation to provide evidence to the committee. We look forward to discussing our work with you.
10:30
Thank you very much, Nicole.
Before we begin questions, I want to be open and transparent, as I always like to be, and refer members to my declaration of interests, because I am not sure where our questions will go. As a farmer in Speyside, I come across SEPA when it comes to abstraction from the River Spey and, obviously, farming regulations. As a joint owner of a fishery on the River Spey, I also come into contact with SEPA, again through abstraction from the river, and also through catchment management planning and all that that involves, as the Spey Fishery Board, of which I am part, plays a role in that. I hope that that is clear. My full entry can be seen in the register of members’ interests.
Nicole, I guess that this question is coming to you—not everyone will get to answer all the questions, so you will have to make sure that you allocate them correctly. I hope that I am starting in the right way. Your annual report for 2023-24 states that you have been “resetting” your organisation. What does that mean and how has SEPA changed?
Thank you for that question to start us off. I highlighted in my opening statement that the agency has had challenges—I have no doubt that you are aware of that. Over the course of the past two years or so, I have worked very hard to build a new leadership team that comes with the passion, the energy, the experience and, importantly, the confidence to lead the agency into the future. There is absolutely no doubt that, despite SEPA’s impressive past 29 years, what sits ahead of us in the next 20 years requires a different approach—it requires us to harness new technologies, and I think that you will hear from colleagues on how we are doing that to make our delivery all the more impressive—so we have reset the leadership team. We have also had an opportunity to reset the SEPA board. Our new chair is with us today and the predominantly new board members come with significant experience and expertise that will allow us to lead into the future.
Some of our work in relation to the reset of the agency has been about getting us fit for today’s challenges. To be honest, convener, it is also about drawing a line under some of the more challenging components of our past and enabling us to move on and to look to the future. This is an agency that is delivering for Scotland and whose people are passionate and purposeful, and we need to allow them to move on. The leadership team has the very best combination of leadership that we could find, with experience and, more importantly, confidence. The work that they have done in their other organisations means that the team has confidence not just to reset but to lean in to the transformation of the agency. That is how we will be able to harness the opportunities that are ahead of us as far as possible.
A lot of our work has been around our people—I will ask my colleague Kirsty-Louise Campbell to come in on that. We know that, if we support our people, they are able to do a better job and will, in turn, deliver better for Scotland. Some of the rewiring work has taken place around our own people, who are often Scottish, United Kingdom, European or world experts in their own way. As a data, science and evidence-led agency, we have always had an absolute focus on subject matter expertise, which is crucial to an agency such as ours. However, one of the resets that needed to take place in the agency is around the fact that good leadership and good management are crucial, too. That feeds into that rewiring.
Kirsty will give you a bit more flavour of some of what we have delivered.
We have been doing a lot of work with colleagues across SEPA, which is a really important part of the reset, as Nicole Paterson has described. We have very much been looking to reset the agency’s culture and behaviours and to understand the wider opportunities that SEPA has and some of the legacy challenges that SEPA has faced.
We have focused on performance and efficiency, and we are looking to develop our skills for the future and to enhance our wider services for the people of Scotland, not just in the areas of science and regulation, but with a focus on how we lead, innovate and transform together.
Listening to colleagues has been a really important part of that journey. The values that we have spoken about—passionate, purposeful, professional—were co-created with our colleagues. From a colleague group of around 1200, we had more than 900 responses to our survey, which gave us feedback and input about what they need for the future. We continue that engagement and involvement in real time with surveys, engagement and so on.
Our recently published people strategy shows our real commitment to our people. The delivery of that has been under way for some time, and our key objective is to create a safe, welcoming and supportive environment where our colleagues can absolutely be at their best. Other focuses include retention, working in partnership, innovation and thinking about the future. There were 600 applications for our trainee environmental protection officer scheme, which is absolutely fundamental to SEPA’s future.
I understand resetting. The other thing that you had to do was reboot the computer system. It has never been made clear how devastating that was and how much work had to be done to get back the information that you lost. I would like to have some clarity. I bet that you still do not know half the consents that were given by SEPA in the past, where they were, what the grid references were or what was actually consented to, because they all disappeared. Is that correct or incorrect?
You are absolutely correct about the devastating nature of the attack. If that has not already been explained to members and to the public, I can give a sense of the scale and scope of that attack. We lost virtually everything. We lost our door entry fob systems and the payment details of the staff who work for us. We lost much of the data and evidence that the agency is known for and that is important to the work that we do. It was a devastating attack. I have colleagues who have told me that they have suffered cyberattacks too and that it was tricky to be without their systems for a week, but SEPA was without all systems and every system and lost all its data and much of that could not be recovered.
That sense of rebooting the agency is absolutely real. I always try to be positive, as does the agency, because, although it was a devastating cyberattack, it was a real opportunity to reboot. Not many organisations would wish for that but not many organisations would get that either.
We have tried to maximise how we have built back. Right from the outset, colleagues said that they wanted to do better. There are opportunities in the situation that we found ourselves in and they have tried to maximise those. Our work with a number of national agencies has continued in earnest. We work very closely with the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Scottish business resilience centre and the National Cyber Security Centre to improve the agency.
One thing that we have been able to do quite successfully since then is to advise other agencies about their cybersecurity and preparedness. Members may recall that, in an independent audit carried out by Audit Scotland, SEPA was found to be very well prepared, although the attack was so significant and sophisticated that we were unable to withstand it. Since that point, we have been able to give considerable advice to other agencies throughout the UK that have suffered significant cyberattacks.
I will stop you there. I accept that there is no doubt that others will profit from your pain and it is right that they should. However, we could look at any catchment across Scotland and I could ask whether you know every single extraction licence and every borehole in that catchment. Would you be able to say yes to me about all those and about all the discharge consents?
Given the detail required to answer that very direct question, I will ask my colleague, David Hartley, to come in.
David is itching to come in.
Yes. It was an arduous task, but we have recovered all our main consents and authorisations.
Your use of the word “main” concerns me.
We possibly do not have all the registrations for the very minor activities, but we have all the registrations for licensed activities—that is, for core abstractions, discharges and emissions to the environment.
Define “main”.
All of our licences and activities—
You know every licence that SEPA has ever issued.
We have recovered that.
You have recovered that.
We have a picture of all the main emissions, discharges and abstractions.
What about those in existence before SEPA took control?
We have those in paper copies.
Okay. Good luck with finding all those. That is an interesting comment.
I want to ask about prosecutions, because there has been criticism in the media about the rate of successful prosecutions going down quite substantially over time. I want to get your reaction to that.
In answering, will you say a little bit more about how you ensure that there is transparency? Take the Mossmorran plant for example, which had a high profile four or five years ago. A report was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about flaring and nothing has really happened since then. What a lot of people see when action is taken is that nothing really happens for years. It would be useful to hear your thoughts about transparency in relation to reports that are generated and submitted to COPFS and that whole process.
You have received stark criticism from folk who have said that your enforcement actions are reducing and that you are not bringing as many successful prosecutions as you were in the past. It would be useful to get your reaction to that.
First and foremost, we recognise that criticism, which we hear often. Often, we are at great pains to explain how we use the full suite of enforcement tools that are available to us. You heard in my opening statement that much of the work is to do with compliance. There are no two ways about it—we require compliance. However, compliance comes in many different forms. Often, the enforcement actions and the prosecutions that are shared with the public are the very end of the road for us. A significant amount of work goes into a whole range of cajoling, positive behaviour change and encouragement. We walk all of our stakeholders and customers along that route.
I will pass to David Harley, who is primed and ready to come in on the enforcement actions that we have taken and, perhaps, to share with the committee some of the figures for each component of that.
I am. I would like to give some wider context. As Nicole Paterson said, enforcement covers a huge amount of activity. Compliance is a minimum expectation. We have a range of tools and approaches. Over the past 10 or 15 years, we have developed a specialist team to help us with that, which works in partnership with many other regulators and particularly with the police. The team uses digital interventions, such as Facebook and social media, to find out where people are using illegitimate businesses and tackle that right at the start, before any issues have emerged. I can maybe talk a little bit about that aspect later. There are a lot of upstream interventions. For us, the ultimate success is if we have avoided non-compliance.
The other element that we have built up over the past five years is the use of other types of penalties. Writing a report to the procurator fiscal is a long and time-intensive task, and it can take some time before we get to a matter going before a court. We have other formal enforcement tools, such as final warning letters, notices, and a range of fines that we can apply, which we have worked hard on over the past three or four years. For example, last year we took 100 formal enforcement actions, including fines. This year, we have taken 142, so we are really building on that. We had 15 monetary penalties in 2021-22. Last year, we were up to 38. We have also got—
Sorry to interrupt. I know that you have a lot of figures, but I want to consider this from the perspective of my constituents. If they have a concern about a particular factory or polluter, can they go online and track what has happened over time? Can they track whether there has been enforcement action, a penalty notice has been issued, remedial action has been taken or improvements have been made? Is the story of a particular site or operator—when they failed to meet compliance or when there was a rectification of action or a penalty—really clear, for our constituents to understand it? At the moment, I am not really getting that clarity.
10:45
I have a couple of points to make on that. We produce a list of the enforcement actions, including fines. There is, of course, a degree of confidentiality about a report to the procurator fiscal, so we can only publicise that when it is concluded, but when it comes to fines, a page on our website is quite explicit about those.
We recognise that we need to be more open about the compliance journey, which is why we are building our environmental performance assessment scheme. That will give us a snapshot of the compliance history of all our regulated sites, at either a site, regional, sectoral or national level, at any point in time—most years, that will usually cover about 10,000 sites. The scheme will be consulted on this spring and we aim to implement it next year. That will be a big step. That said, we do understand compliance at each of our sites, but this is about being able, as you mentioned, to have the full process open, transparent and understood.
I go back to Mossmorran then, which has been in the system for years and is with the procurator fiscal. What is the communication with the surrounding community? Is it a matter of, “Job done, the operators have already invested in the site, therefore not a problem,” or is the expectation that some form of action would still take place that SEPA would support in court? It feels like a lot of those issues kind of drift off to the procurator fiscal and then it is difficult for folks to see where the follow-up action is.
As you have acknowledged, there is an inevitable confidentiality issue about reports to the procurator fiscal. I think that we could review that and maybe come back to you with an update on what engagement there has been in the interim.
Yes, okay.
Sorry, do you have other questions?
I do, but I could move on if you want, convener.
I think that you had some other questions.
We have other examples. SEPA has come in for considerable criticism in relation to issues surrounding the disposal of salmon morts, in North Uist in particular. The public perception is that not enough is being done and that this happens time after time. I know that the salmon farming sector used up quite a lot of SEPA’s time a few years ago. Can you say anything about the particular case in North Uist—I think that it happened at Whiteshore Cockles processing site? There have been other examples reported in the media, which people are looking at and asking, “How is this allowed to happen?”
I will ask David Harley to come in on the detail of that particular site, but our interactions with the industry are extensive, on-going and collaborative. I ask David to provide details on the example of fish morts.
Oh, sorry, I got carried away by referring to David—I meant Alex Flucker.
That is okay—do not worry. Thank you for the question, Mr Ruskell.
We have looked into the Whiteshore Cockles event—obviously, we were engaged in it when it took place. The regulation of morts in the salmon industry is undertaken by the fish health inspectorate; at that time, we supported the investigation with regard to their disposal. We also supported follow-up actions and site visits to check that burial was no longer taking place. At the time of those inspections, burial was not taking place, and we were happy with the inspections. A live investigation is now in place with respect to the operator, and I hope that you understand that it would be churlish of us to speak about live investigations.
We took forward the compliance follow-up and we were happy with it at the time. We had further engagement with the operator in the time between the event taking place and the triggering of the formal investigation.
You wanted to come in on this matter, convener. I have another question after that.
I remind everyone that I was clear about my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The salmon farming industry has seen 25 per cent fish mortality—although I believe that got better towards the end of last year—with 33,000 tonnes of dead fish being disposed of in 2023. Do you believe that you are on top of that? Surely, the incident that Alex Flucker has talked about would give everyone cause for concern that you might not be on top of it.
I appreciate the sentiment. As I said earlier, the regulation of fish mortality is undertaken by the fish health inspectorate, which is part of the marine directorate.
Fish mortality can potentially have implications for the environment. We have a comprehensive monitoring plan: we monitor the sea bed around fish tanks and offshore fish sites. We are confident that the biomass fallouts from morts do not unduly impact the environment and we think that we are in a good place in respect of that.
In the broader trends of compliance and environmental outcomes in the sector, there are good indicators. We regulate primarily on the application of medicines and on biomass exceedances on fish farms. Let me give you some of the trends for those: in 2021, we found 41 cases of non-compliance in biomass exceedances across a sector that has, on average, 196 operators in it. From 2022, that number of exceedances fell progressively, to two last year.
Similarly, we regulate on medicines that are applied to fish. You might be familiar with invermectin benzoate: that was a particular case in which we stepped in to bring about change in the sector. In 2021, there were 78 cases of exceedances of the compliance thresholds; in 2024, there were zero cases. We have a comprehensive compliance auditing programme for the areas that we regulate.
With respect to whether we are on top of it, I think that we are showing some good trends.
My question was particularly about the disposal of that amount of dead fish.
Before I leave the subject and we go back to Mark Ruskell’s questions, I refer you to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s report that was published on 17 January 2025, which I am sure that Nicole Paterson has read. It was a follow-up to the previous Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report that was published in November 2018. In the 2025 report, the RAIC is clear that a lot of work needs to be done. Paragraph 160 refers to SEPA and states:
“The Committee also recommends that the Scottish Government prioritise supporting SEPA in the development of techniques to accelerate the analysis of seabed survey samples as a matter of urgency and ensures SEPA has sufficient expertise and capacity to analyse seabed samples.”
Have you got it? Are you going to get it before next year, which is the timeframe for the results that the RAIC is looking for?
I am familiar with the conclusions of that committee report and we have been working hard on those recommendations. Alex Flucker will come in with the detail on our readiness.
The short response is: yes, we have got it, and yes, we will have it in time for the deadlines that were set by the committee.
We have developed an environmental DNA methodology and approach and we have rolled out the first phase of it. We are waiting on second-phase developments to drop that we will be implementing and rolling out over the course of this year. That EDNA approach and methodology is pioneering for the sector. It is a ground shift for our ability to analyse more than 400 complex substances, chemicals and pollutants in a single sample.
We are confident of what we are taking forward in relation to the committee’s recommendations.
Is that approach based on information that you have gathered or information that is given to you by the industry?
We can apply that technique to both.
So it relies on both.
It depends on the nature of the sample collection. For the information that we gather, we are geared up to that standard, to be able to deliver against the EDNA methodology. I will need to come back to the committee on the particular point about the information that we gather from the sector.
Thank you. Mark, you kindly let me in. I know that you have another question, and then we will go to Douglas Lumsden.
Your question was useful, convener.
I want to ask about issues with electrical and battery waste, at Friarton in Perth in particular, where we have seen four fires under the site’s successive owners. We have seen similar fires at other waste management sites around Scotland, too. I suppose that that touches on elements of fire safety, which are potentially outwith SEPA’s remit; as with salmon farming, you share regulation of the sites with other bodies.
I just wanted to get your reflections on that, though, because what the public are seeing are the same sites and the same fires, time after time. It would be useful to know whether you believe that the regulatory framework that you work under is enough at the moment to tackle not only those huge pollution incidents but the elements of risk that workers at the sites and local communities face? It seems that we are seeing a vast increase in the amount of battery waste in society, and there are perhaps questions to ask about whether that will be regulated effectively, given that we do not seem to fully understand the risks around fires and other such issues.
Nicole, did you want to come back in on that?
Yes, of course, and thank you for the question. It is extremely timely, given that there have recently been more incidents up in Perthshire.
The UK has seen a proliferation of fires at waste sites and in bin lorries. Since 2022, there have been eight fires in Scotland alone, and they were specifically related to lithium-ion battery disposal. In that respect, members will be familiar with the challenges around vapes, for example.
The member is quite correct: the management of the fire audit of a site is in the hands of the responsible person. However, as the environmental regulator, we still have an interest, and we still regulate those sites. For example, we will look at how best the site manager is able to compartmentalise in order to manage any fires that might arise.
In Scotland, we have more than 400 licensed waste management sites. I will ask David Harley to say a bit more about the work that we do on those sites and to give you some confidence that, although we have seen three fires at the site that you mentioned, our investigations have been quite conclusive. David will share that with you.
We do share your concern, Mr Ruskell, and thank you for recognising that responsibility is shared between us and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Regulation might be part of the answer. We regulate the storage of the material—the waste—and the Fire and Rescue Service deals with the fire risk element. In the particular case that you highlighted, we are still investigating, and it is likely that we will take enforcement action—that is still a possibility.
There is a societal element to this, and a producer responsibility element, too. These products should not go on fire spontaneously, and agencies and relevant authorities should be ensuring that producers make the items safe. Another issue is public awareness of the risk and, therefore, the disposal of such items. Far too many batteries are being disposed of in the residual waste stream, so there is a real public education element to this, too. There is also the provision of safe collection and disposal routes for batteries.
Regulation is a part of this, but there is a societal issue, too, and critically there is an onus on manufacturers to make these things safe.
To what extent is SEPA able or willing to make such recommendations? If you see that improvements are needed to local authority waste collection or that there needs to be more of an emphasis on the producer, how confident do you feel, as the regulator enacting and upholding the regulations, that you are able to make that case? Are you reliant on Environmental Standards Scotland and others to come to conclusions about what needs to change, because, ultimately, that is not your role?
When SEPA has given evidence to the committee in the past, I have felt a reluctance on your part to talk about whether the regulations or the laws are actually fit for purpose, perhaps because you do not see that as your role. However, I am just going to push the boundaries today and see what you are prepared to say. After all, this kind of waste is a very visible problem in Scotland, and I am interested to know how you will fix it. Indeed, you have given an inkling of that already.
We are Scotland’s environmental authority, so we absolutely have the confidence to advise and influence. We sit on various stakeholder groups and work really closely with the Government to influence change, whether through Scottish or European legislation. We take that role seriously across all the media that we regulate. We are confident that we do that, and we do it as a matter of course.
11:00
Mr Ruskell, perhaps you would like me to emphasise that. In that sense, we are an independent regulator, which gives us the ability to lean in and advise Government and industry with the data and the evidence that we hold. We are quite prepared to do that, and, indeed, we do.
The flipside of that is that we are also very clear—we often cite to the committee where our roles and responsibilities lie—that there is not a beginning and an end. As David Harley said, it is not our job as Scotland’s principal environmental regulator to draw lines where we believe the boundaries are, so we lean in and advise.
Members have many questions here, so I go to Douglas Lumsden, followed by Bob Doris and Michael Matheson.
I am staying on batteries, but I will talk about bigger batteries and battery energy storage systems. Do you feel that there is a role for SEPA to play there? You spoke about leaning into Government and advising it, but I do not think that anything has been done by SEPA on BESS yet. Is that something that you are looking to do?
Yes, absolutely, and we are already involved in battery energy storage systems. David will give more detail on that.
We are concerned about the risks associated with battery energy storage systems. There is not a specified regulatory framework at the moment. We have been working with the Government on options for that. There was talk of using COMAH—control of major accident hazard—regulation, which is UK legislation. We have discussed that with colleagues south of the border, but that is unlikely to happen, so they are thinking of using more environmental authorisations. That is an active consideration for us.
We have 350 of those in the planning system now, and a lot of the feedback that I get from constituents is that SEPA does not really have a view on those battery storage systems. It is good to hear that you have concerns about the risks that are involved. When will you publish those risks, and when might the Government change the regulations, based on the advice that you are giving?
We absolutely have a role in advising the planning authority. We advise in the planning process on risks accordingly, along with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
We could consider whether we should make a more formal statement on that. There is not yet an actual timescale for when a legislative change might happen.
I think that that would be helpful, because there seems to be a void at present. It came back from a freedom of information request that no written SEPA documents contained plans for a thermal runaway, for example.
Be reassured that that is certainly a concern of ours, and we are discussing it with all relevant partners and Administrations.
We will be jumping around a bit here. We go to Bob Doris and then to Michael Matheson.
My question is inspired by Mark Ruskell’s line of questioning. It is slightly different, but it is about getting SEPA’s reflections on a recurring situation in my constituency, on which SEPA has been proactive, I must say. Late last year, SEPA, Police Scotland and the fire service and I had a meeting about Promat, which is a former industrial site in the Springburn part of my constituency. It is a huge derelict site, it is incredibly difficult to secure its perimeter, and there is a dangerous building. I am convinced that criminal elements are fly-tipping there—I am talking about not occasional fly-tipping, but industrial-scale fly-tipping, if you like. Goodness knows what is in there. Tonnes of stuff appears there from time to time.
In the summer months, young people breach the perimeter, go in and have fun. Mr Ruskell talked about fires, and fires tend to happen there, too. The fire service does not know what is in there and SEPA has deep concerns. However, it is a constant war of attrition and I am sure that there will be additional issues when the summer months come again.
I genuinely think that Police Scotland, SEPA, the local authority and the fire service are all doing what they can with their existing powers. Regarding the responsibilities of the site owners, I make no judgment about the work that they are or are not doing because that is not the reason for my question. I suspect that Promat is not the only site in Scotland where such things keep happening. Does SEPA have a view about how all public agencies can work more effectively to tackle such hazards? I do not expect you to comment on the Promat site in my constituency, but is there a more general gap in legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and if so, what is it, and how could we plug it?
The truth is that I have, unfortunately, spent the vast majority of my career dealing with fly-tipping and littering in one form or another.
Scotland sees 60,000 instances of fly-tipping each year, so the site that you have detailed is not the only one in Scotland to experience fly-tipping.
I apologise for cutting in and really do not mean to be discourteous, but I am not talking about a man with a van dumping a few mattresses; I am talking about organised, high-volume, industrial quantities of waste.
That is serious and organised crime.
That may or may not be a wee bit different from the 60,000 instances of fly-tipping, but I would like a bit more information about the scale of what you are talking about.
That is okay, Mr Doris. The important point is that, of those 60,000 instances, only 100 involve SEPA because the nation has 32 local authorities that have the authority to deal with fly-tipping in their areas.
You are right that there is an unfortunate proliferation, not only in the volume of fly-tipping but in the involvement of serious and organised crime in fly-tipping. Vast sums of money are involved in waste disposal, and particularly in illegal disposal.
At the moment, we take a team Scotland approach. SEPA will look at the most serious cases because we cannot look into all 60,000—the local authorities are more than able to do that. We try to disrupt much of that activity, because just coming in at the end to work with landowners on clearing up is a really significant problem. We try to work upstream and to disrupt some of the serious and organised crime groups, but that is very challenging.
David Harley may want to add to that.
I can give a little more context. The kind of activity that you have spoken about, Mr Doris, is at the sharp end of our enforcement. I mentioned our enforcement team, and my educated guess is that about 90 per cent of its effort goes into exactly the sort of impact that you are talking about. For example, we have 12 cases on our books at the moment that are being prepared to go to the procurator fiscal, of which 11 fit the territory that you mentioned. It is about removing a blight that has major impacts on the environment and, in particular, on communities, quite often in areas that already have enough troubles.
That is an absolute focus for us, but it relies on that team Scotland approach. I think that it works well and that we have come a long way. As I said in answer to a previous question, our activity—the amount of enforcement that we have done—has risen exponentially in the past two or three years. We are working really well with local authorities on intelligence and have long-established and constructive relationships with the police and with equivalent organisations south of the border, because it is often a UK-wide problem.
SEPA is sometimes criticised. so I am trying to pay you a compliment by saying that there is clearly partnership working going on here. However, the nudge that I am looking for is for you to say whether you think that there could be more on the statute book to assist SEPA and other public agencies—I am not talking about the Promat site; I am talking more generally—to tackle the issue. The committee would be interested to hear about that. If there is nothing, that is okay and I will not ask any more questions. Is there anything specific that you would like to draw to our attention?
I do not think so. The new integrated authorisation framework provides us with more nuanced powers for the removal of waste. You are probably aware that, in the past, our power was limited to getting the landowner to remove waste, which can be really difficult and problematic when they are not the source of the problem. Now, when we have the evidence, we can go after the people who dumped the waste, or those who are responsible for the damage, to get them to remove it. That enhancement really helps us. Other than that, I do not think that there is anything. Tackling the issue really relies on prioritisation and good collaboration.
Thank you.
Bob, you will remember that we looked at the problem of waste being dumped by organised criminals and the difficulties of dealing with it when we considered the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. Of course, I have faced difficulties with people just coming and throwing their stuff into a field and the cost of dealing with that. Thank you for raising that issue.
Michael has some questions.
Good morning. I want to stick with the theme of waste management. I was struck by the figure that you mentioned of there being just over 400 waste management sites in Scotland. Building on the issue of the problems that there have been with fly-tipping, do you know how much of the waste that the nation produces is managed through the 400-plus sites that we have in Scotland? What percentage of our own waste do we deal with through those sites?
The residual waste that is dealt with through those sites is, in part, a good news story. Scotland has seen a reduction in our residual waste from 7 million tonnes per year to, currently, 2 million tonnes per year. That is still a substantial amount of material running through each of those sites. Part of the challenge now is the sophistication of those materials. For example, we talked about lithium-ion batteries earlier and, despite the number of licensed waste management sites in Scotland, only four of them are able to process lithium batteries, so it is quite a challenging picture.
Going back to my question, what percentage of the waste that we produce as a nation each year do we deal with in our registered waste management sites?
I can partially answer that question. I do not have the exact percentage figure here today—we can supply it later—but it is significantly reducing. The biodegradable municipal waste ban—I always struggle to say that one, so let me call it the BMW ban—which is coming into place this year, will phase out the disposal of residual waste entirely, and what there is over the next five to 10 years will be dealt with largely by incineration. Of course, in the mix is the need to recycle far more. However, it is a really significant reduction. As Nicole said, it is a very good news story, albeit not one without risks.
Of course. That is helpful, and it would be helpful if you could provide that data.
Are there gaps in our waste management capacity in Scotland that result in waste having to be outsourced to other parts of the UK or other parts of Europe for processing? If so, why is that the case?
In some specialist areas, we do not have the capacity to process all the waste or recyclable material within Scotland.
Which areas are those?
I do not have that detail. We could provide that.
It would be helpful to understand that. I understand that, from a regulatory point of view—and you emphasised that SEPA has an advisory role as well—it is important to try to manage waste as close to source as possible, while reducing it as much as possible to fit in with the principles of the circular economy. We do not have sufficient capacity in particular areas of waste management, so we need to look at increasing that capacity in order to deal with more of our waste here. Further, in areas where we have no capacity at all, we have to look at developing capacity for that waste to be managed here. I am trying to get SEPA’s perspective and the advice that you give on that
I am trying to understand. I know that the issue does not all sit with you, as Zero Waste Scotland and others have an interest in it, but you work in partnership with them, as you mentioned. I am trying to get a picture from you—the regulator—of your advice and what we need to do to increase our capacity in waste management in Scotland. Are you able to provide that?
11:15
That sits with us in part. We have discussed that the picture is evolving. I come back to our exact position on it. I said that the picture is evolving because, as David Harley mentioned, the ban on municipal waste is coming in at the end of the year. That will remove landfill capacity from Scotland, and the picture is still emerging as to how that 2 million tonnes will be dealt with.
We have some incineration capacity. Again, as you said, we are taking a partnership approach. It is not for SEPA to determine how many incinerators there should be or where they should go, but we will regulate them once they get through the planning process. I would like to come back to you to ensure that we give you a full statement—unless David wants to add more.
We should do that anyway, but I can also say a little more. We do not have a strategic planning role in relation to Scotland’s ability to manage different types of waste. As I said, we work closely with and advise the Government and other partners.
I draw attention to the particular role of our trans-frontier shipment team. Its prime purpose is to ensure that waste is not exported from Scotland. It does a lot of work in harbours and ports. Last year, it inspected 200 containers and held back 19 or so, because of the concern that we were exporting our mess—our waste—to other countries, where it could cause environmental damage or public health risks. That is what that team is tasked with.
That is helpful. I am grateful for your feedback.
Good morning. We all know that climate change is leading to more extreme rainfall events. What challenges does that lead to in the regulation of sewage pollution? Sewage pollution often affects our waters, but it is affecting more and more land in areas where pipes are not fit for purpose anymore. How is SEPA working with the Scottish Government and Scottish Water on those issues? Feel free to add any detail that I may have missed.
That is a pertinent question. There is no doubt that we are seeing significant impacts from climate change. I mentioned our role as a flood risk warning and management authority. Last year, we issued the largest number of alerts since we took on that role in 2010.
There is no doubt that climate change is having significant impacts in Scotland. I will get David to talk in a moment about our river basin management planning, but we work very closely with partners such as Scottish Water to advise on and influence the work that we do, and the work that we require of others, to ensure compliance and to manage sewage outfalls.
Just to give a bit of context, despite climate change and development, Scotland’s water environment is protected and improving, which we are proud of. Maybe I can get a chance to talk about that a little bit more.
However, without doubt, there are problem areas. The public is particularly concerned, and quite rightly so, about sewage increasingly being discharged into the environment as a result of combined sewer overflows—the safety valves in the system—spilling into the water environment at times of heavy rain.
Three years ago, we required Scottish Water to produce the “Improving Urban Waters—Route Map” to allow us to get to a better place.
There are several elements to the route map. One element is the ability to understand the performance of discharges through live telemetry, so that the country, including members of the public, has a better handle on that. Really good progress has been made. This year, Scottish Water met the target of producing 1,000 new pieces of kit—monitors—to provide that telemetry. That is a big plus. In addition, 108 combined sewer overflows have been prioritised to be fixed by 2027. Scottish Water is on the journey towards meeting that target, and we will hold it to account for that.
There is a systemic element to this as well. We have to think about how we design our towns and cities for climate change, and that is where the real opportunity lies. We can regulate Scottish Water, as I have described, but the real prize is in thinking differently about how water is managed in our towns and cities, ensuring that our waste water is confined to the waste-water system and goes to the sewage works, and holding back surface water on the land, which would have multiple benefits, including, potentially, for biodiversity, public amenity and better urban spaces. We have several examples throughout the country of where we are working closely with local authorities and Scottish Water to shift the dial on that. Those areas are Edinburgh, Glasgow—where there is long-standing partnership working on that—Dundee and Aberdeen. We would really welcome being able to show some of you some of that innovative work in action.
I recognise some of the work that is going on.
I will take you back a little bit. In the main, you have talked about water, but some of the problems with surface water and sewage seepage are happening on land and in communities. A number of years ago, there was a real difficulty at the Green in Aberdeen—some folk call it the merchant quarter; I still call it the Green. Thankfully, that was resolved, but we know that more capital works are required to deal with that.
Earlier, Nicole Paterson said that SEPA is led by data, science and evidence, and David Harley mentioned telemetry work, including in the great city of Aberdeen.
My question is about co-operation with Scottish Water. Is it listening to you? Is it looking at the evidence, data and science when it comes to formulation of its capital programmes? If it is not, does that mean that you will have more dealings with it in the future because it is unable to deal with the ever-increasing problems of surface water that result from climate change? I do not know who wants to answer that.
I will start to answer, Mr Doris.
I think that Mr Doris will take that as a slight.
I apologise. I mean Mr Stewart.
Before we get into whether that is a promotion or a demotion, I suggest that you just crack on.
I apologise. That was not my intention, convener.
I have some positive news about how we work with Scottish Water and the specific question whether it is listening to us. There is a new partnership arrangement with Scottish Water. Of course, SEPA is the independent regulator, so we retain that independence, which is fundamentally important.
As we walk together with Scottish Water on the actions that need to be taken for the benefit of the people of Scotland, we are informing a number of levels in Scottish Water what the actions are, using our data, science and evidence. The caveat is that I think that even in the next cycle of Scottish Water’s investment, the number of actions that need to be taken will not be completed in that cycle. The work that needs to be done is a challenge for Scotland. However, we are engaging very heavily with various levels in the organisation, and with Scottish Water’s other regulators, as well. They are, to date, listening. David Harley is involved with different groups.
I have nothing to add. There is a well-evolved governance process of input from the various regulators into Scottish Water’s investment programme. That works well, notwithstanding the fact that, as Nicole Paterson said, we always have a regulatory backstop, which we will use if we need to use it.
You say that the process is “well-evolved” and “works well”, but is there room for improvement? Should the Government, Scottish Water, you and local authorities—the list goes on—be more in step with regard to what is required in that respect? Mr Harley said earlier that planning should resolve some of the surface-water situations, but that does not deal with historical places where it would be impossible, for example, to put a sustainable urban drainage system in. Are we all working in tandem to get this right?
I think that we are, although there is always room for improvement, and that improvement could come. I refer to the recent national planning framework 4, which puts great emphasis on that type of resilient urban drainage. That puts an extra onus on the planning authorities to consider that way of working and those concepts, and to get them designed into new developments.
We are working with the Scottish Government on developing new legislation, on improving our ability to understand pressures on urban drainage and on enhancing partnership work. I should not speak for the Scottish Government on that, but I know that that work will progress over the coming years.
We go back to you, Michael, for more questions, I think, outwith Aberdeen.
Yes—we will move on to Falkirk.
I want to unpick that a wee bit further. How much of the surface water and sewerage pollution that is caused in the system is generated by changes in our climate or by poor infrastructure investment planning?
I will start, Mr Matheson. There are challenges in respect of both, so I am afraid that there is no straightforward answer. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change is having very significant impacts. I mentioned our flood forecasting and warning. We also look at surface water problems: we are seeing many more instances of them.
The flipside of that, and in the simplest sense of the issue, is that the important thing with infrastructure is maintaining it, because it then retains its full capacity and can operate well and effectively. Sometimes the challenge is that the cycles of maintenance, repairs, refurbishment and operation are not all entirely joined up, because they sit with many agencies that make their own decisions on many different things. It is a complex picture with many facets, but climate change is definitely playing a part. We are seeing very significant impacts, in the data and evidence that we hold.
My colleague Alex Flucker will give you more detail on that, Mr Matheson.
On climate change driven rainfall that can impact on our surface water, Nicole Paterson mentioned in her introductory statement that we issued record numbers of flood forecasts and warnings last year—more than 930 flood forecasts and warnings across Scotland. What we see in our trend is increasing rainfall—which is an obvious statement to make—across more of the country more of the time, and more intense rainfall than we used to have. That is the trajectory that we are likely to experience going forward.
With regard to our inputs on planning, from our strategic role as the flood advisory authority for Scotland, we deliver planning advice to all 32 local authorities and the two planning authorities in the national parks.
11:30We provide support through issuing guidance that allows local authorities and planning departments to interpret national planning framework 4—particularly policy 22, which relates to flood risk, as David Harley mentioned earlier. The guidance allows local authorities and planning departments to deal with the simplest cases—the ones that are easier to address—but we also provide them with intense support through an additional service in which our specialists and experts look at more complex cases that require more sophisticated analysis and input. Last year, we provided such support in 1,400 individual planning application cases, and we are on track to do the same this year. That gives you an idea of the volume of support that we provide across Scotland.
Regarding the rate of performance, 99 per cent of the 1,400 applications that we review are in line with national planning framework 4 and, when local authorities make their final determinations on individual planning applications, 99 per cent of the 1,400 applications on which we opine a view, following consultation, are in line with our advice. Therefore, there is, from a planning perspective, strong collaboration across Scotland in relation to our support in managing and mitigating future build-up of flood risk as we build communities, schools, roads and so on.
That is helpful. There is no doubt in my mind that we are experiencing more intense local weather events than we have experienced historically. At times, such events overwhelm existing infrastructure, no matter how well maintained it is, because it is not able to cope with the intensity, so the need for climate adaptation is becoming more and more apparent here. Given the nature and intensity of such events and the frequency with which they are occurring, you are suggesting that greater climate adaptation through infrastructure planning will become more important.
You will have a good understanding of where the hotspots are in relation to existing infrastructure that is struggling to cope and is resulting in a negative impact on our environment. If Scottish Water, for example, knows such information, is there shared understanding between it and SEPA, as public bodies, of the key infrastructure investment that should be made to maximise mitigation of the risk of negative environmental impacts? Is that reflected in Scottish Water’s infrastructure investment plan? You probably cannot speak for Scottish Water, but do you have a single shared plan that addresses the environmental risks and deals with the infrastructure investment that is needed to mitigate risks?
The simple answer is no: we do not have such a plan at the moment, but we work very closely and collaboratively together. We share our information with Scottish Water, and it is certainly listening. Although we do not have a single shared plan, I expect that, through the work that we are doing, our shared priorities for Scotland will be included in Scottish Water’s next plan, the name of which has escaped me.
It will be called “Spending review 27”.
Thank you. We are working very closely with Scottish Water on that plan by giving advice and assurance on how, from our perspective, infrastructure investment would best be spent. Scottish Water has a number of other priorities, too.
It is worth reflecting on how we deal with such weather events, because they are becoming much more frequent. As a society, we have always looked at end-of-pipe solutions. Once water falls on to and goes down a catchment, we often try to protect communities at the outfall areas—members will be familiar with areas such as Brechin and Stonehaven, where there are flood defences. We advised the Scottish Government on its recently published flood resilience strategy, which begins to tackle the issue by considering the work that we need to do upstream.
It is not just about pipe solutions or flood defences downstream. We need to look at changes and adaptation work that we can do in an entire catchment. That is important because, when rain falls in a catchment, it all comes down in that “V”, and water flows very fast to the outfalls and outlets. That often overwhelms our drainage systems and combined sewer overflows, and sometimes, unfortunately, our communities are devastated by that impact. We must shift our gaze upstream in catchments for the adaptation and mitigation work that we can do there. We have already started some of that work with agricultural landowners and others. We need to make that shift on a macro scale.
That is helpful.
Sarah Boyack has some questions that she would like to lead on.
The questions follow the discussion about the increased climate impact and nature emergencies that our constituents are experiencing.
SEPA recently updated its assessment of areas that will potentially be vulnerable to flooding between 2028 and 2034. Can you give us an update on that assessment? Has there been much change in the vulnerable areas for that period? I am very conscious that businesses and constituents are increasingly having problems just getting insurance for their properties. It is a real-life issue, now.
Of course. Our recent publication on the potentially vulnerable areas is part of a cycle that we undertake as part of our role as the flood risk warning and management authority. Alex Flucker has more detail on that, so I will ask him to come in on that cycle, and then to talk about PVAs in particular.
Earlier this year, we published our consultation and the outcomes of our assessment of potentially vulnerable areas. It is a six-yearly cyclical process. This year, we changed our approach to assessment of potentially vulnerable areas for this cycle, by moving from what was originally a catchment-based model to a community-based model. That gives us a much greater localised understanding of the risks to people from flooding. We received more than 400 consultation responses from flooding forums, community groups and various industry stakeholders across the landscape.
That shift from catchment-based to community-based PVA assessments has, naturally, significantly increased the number of PVAs that we are identifying. I do not have to hand the exact numbers that show what that change is—how the new baseline compares to the original catchment-based model—but I would be happy to get back to the committee in writing on that.
It would be very helpful to see that geographic impact, not just at the regional strategic level but down to the constituency level, where we actually support people.
My second question on the issue is about flooding impact. We are two thirds of the way through the period of the river basin management plan, which aims—you are all nodding immediately—to have 81 per cent of all Scotland’s water bodies receiving a “good” or better classification by 2027. Are we on track to deliver that? It is just two years from finishing. What are the key SEPA interventions that are ensuring that we deliver that target?
I will not delay on this question—I will simply hand over to David, because he has the information to hand.
The key interventions are threefold. Controlled activities regulations were provided for us in the mid-2000s with this purpose in mind. When discharges to the water environment cause an impact that downgrades the water environment to below “good” status, we have the powers to review licences and vary them, such that mitigation is put in place so that we secure “good” status. Our being able to do that was one of the main reasons for the controlled activities regulations.
We have been undertaking a series of what we call sectoral licence reviews over the past 15 years to meet those targets. The reviews cover a range of sectors. We have talked about the Scottish Water investments—the licence reviews essentially underpin that process.
We are also working with the hydro sector. Quite a lot of water bodies have been downgraded by the hydro sector in Scotland, as a result of barriers to fish migration and altered flows downstream from installations. We work with a plethora of other industries at local level, including distilleries, fish hatcheries and many others, to secure mitigations. We have regulatory powers for the bodies that we regulate and that hold authorisations.
The second area is work with landowners on diffuse pollution, which has, by a stretch, the largest impact on Scotland’s water quality. Back in 2007 and 2008, the country developed general binding rules for diffuse pollution, and it is our job to ensure that landowners comply with those rules. Over the past 15 years, we have taken a risk-based approach involving farm visits to ensure compliance with the general binding rules. The farm visits are very much about education and advice and are conducted by staff who understand farming. That has worked very well—we have secured high levels of compliance with the general binding rules in the catchments that we have visited.
However, diffuse pollution is a very complex problem, and compliance with the general binding rules will get us only so far. We recognise that it will be difficult to meet the targets in that respect. We have that in common with every other country in Europe, because diffuse pollution is a really difficult nut to crack.
The third thing is that we fund physical alteration of rivers and removal of barriers to fish migration. We deploy a fund on behalf of the Scottish Government called the water environment fund. That work has two main strands. One is removal of barriers to and easement of fish passage, on which we have made significant progress. Since we started on that, about 1,400km have been opened up to fish migration.
The other strand is river restoration. That happens where a river environment has, through industry or agriculture, been altered so much that we need to renaturalise the environment. We have several of those projects on our books at the moment. They are quite expensive, but the added value is huge. If we pool our resources with those of the local authority or other partners, we can remove the CSOs, which we spoke about earlier, reduce flood risk downstream and create a much more positive and healthier environment for the community.
For example, Nicole Paterson mentioned the Leven project, which is quite a high-profile one that we launched this year. We have equivalent examples in Barrhead and in on-going work in Edinburgh, just east of the Parliament. There are several other projects around the country where we have improved the water environment in that way. That work is dependent on our having enough funds to do it.
You asked how we are getting on. In a nutshell, we are in a good place on the regulatory elements. Achieving the targets that are associated with diffuse pollution, in particular, will be a challenge. We have made a difference, but it might not be enough for 2027.
I would be particularly interested in an update on the project in Edinburgh and the Lothians that you mentioned, because that is very much on the agenda locally.
That leads me to another question. At the start of the session, you talked about the evolution of the agency and the issue of engaging with constituents and enabling them to get involved. I know that you are putting more information online, but I have been told that you are considering making the 24/7 contact centre automated. There will be a loss of staff with skills and experience, but it will also be much harder for our constituents to feed in questions or get information. Will you comment on that?
11:45
I will make a start on that. At the outset, I spoke about the reset of the agency. One aspect of that reset is our becoming more customer focused. We are all public servants and we serve the communities and individuals of Scotland. That involves recognising who our customers and stakeholders are and beginning to understand what they need from us, how they need it to be delivered and how we can best provide that. As a data science and evidence-based organisation, we have a wealth of information, which is all the more powerful if it is shared.
We migrated what was our customer contact centre to a customer hub on 6 December. We have already done that—rather successfully, if I might say so. However, I will ask my colleague Kirsty-Louise Campbell to give you a bit more of a flavour of that and to answer the specific question about whether it will be more difficult for constituents to get in touch with us and get the answers that they need.
We have been working to redesign some of our services through the lens of ensuring that they have a specific customer focus. Elements of that work include looking at our consultation and engagement framework, thinking about participatory approaches and so on.
Over the course of the year, we redesigned our customer hub. At the heart of that process was the fact that we are an emergency responder. SEPA is really proud of that, and it is at the heart of the work that we do. As Nicole said, we shifted the customer hub approach and model for the out-of-hours service on 6 December. Ahead of that, we had a significant period—around eight weeks—of testing, monitoring and twin-tracking of both services to make sure that we took account of any learning or potential concerns that came through.
From launch up until 31 January, we took 182 out-of-hours calls, 24 of which were from our emergency responder colleagues. Of the remaining 158, 21 related to our statutory pollution requirements and were taken on the pollution hotline. Out of the total of 182 calls, those groups of 24 and 21 calls were dealt with effectively in exactly the same way as they would have been before the shift in the customer hub service.
With regard to our colleagues and colleague support, there has been a shift in the model for the customer hub. As a result, we have worked closely with our union colleagues. We have also worked in accordance with SEPA’s policies and procedures and the change framework to ensure that colleagues will have the best possible destinations as a result of the review work that we were required to undertake.
Another focus for us is on the fact that some of our systems are not as streamlined or as digitally enabled as they could be, which affects people’s ability to engage with SEPA in relation to applications for authorisations and so on. We will be strongly focused on that over the next year. An important element of our work is that we best understand the needs of customers and communities and that we respond to those as effectively as we can.
Would it be possible to get a briefing on that so that we can translate what you have said into what that change means for people? It sounds very nice, but I would like to know how people put in a complaint and ask for information. As I understand it, the system no longer involves speaking to someone—it is an automated system. Could you provide us with a briefing on what that means?
Does the redeployment of staff mean that nobody has lost their job? I was told that staff redundancies were coming.
There have been no compulsory redundancies of colleagues. Our policy and change framework builds on the redeployment.
On the customer hub, not all calls are taken by the integrated voice recognition system. Anything that is an emergency will go straight to a colleague.
It would be good to get a briefing on that.
I am sorry to cut across you, Sarah, but I would like to clarify something. If it is not an emergency, is it the case that I will speak to a machine?
You will initially go through the integrated voice recognition system. Profiling takes place and calls are triaged, which means that, in the appropriate circumstances, you will be passed on to a person. That is very much in line with the model that is used by other public sector customer hubs.
That sounds really retrograde.
That is why I wanted a briefing on it—to understand what it means in human terms, so that we can convey that to constituents. With things like wild swimming, we now have people who want to know that the water is safe and when they can swim.
So, there are emergencies and there is also the day-to-day communication and the ability for people to talk to each other. A briefing on that would be useful.
My second point is about the reset and reboot of SEPA that Nicole Paterson talked about at the start. I want to ask about the redeployment of staff and whether staff redundancies are being made or jobs are being contracted out. It has been suggested to me that jobs are being contracted out and that the process is not very transparent. One example that I was given was the Adaptovate contract. The contract is worth £250,000 but, because it is in phases, it is not subject to Scottish Government scrutiny or accountability. Will you comment on the Adaptovate contract, other redeployments and the potential loss of staff due to contracting out?
I will start with the sense of reset. As I said in my opening statement and in response to the first question from the convener, what is important to the agency is that we reflect on the challenges that we face and where we are going. We began that reset with the corporate leadership team. As you will see before you today, the corporate leadership team has almost entirely changed.
As we go through restructuring, individuals make their own individual choices. Because we have raised the altitude at which those roles are operating—we have been very clear that they are leadership roles and are not principally based on subject matter expertise—some colleagues have chosen not to go for the jobs when they have come up, and, as Kirsty-Louise Campbell said, those who have been unsuccessful at the interview stage go through our policy and procedures. That process is overseen by the Scottish Government and, where appropriate, by Scottish ministers. Just to confirm, there have been no compulsory redundancies as part of that.
The work that we undertook on the leadership team, with colleagues choosing to leave or to go into different roles, has saved the public purse some £400,000, which is a recurring saving. That is part of the investment that we are making in public sector reform. As I mentioned before, although we have the reset, it is important for us to lean into transformation, which is a more significant and future-focused programme of change, to ensure that we incorporate the best available technologies, continue to be innovative and are more efficient and effective.
In line with many other agencies that are going through change, we have a redeployment pool for colleagues. At the moment, the number of colleagues in our redeployment pool—meaning that they are being retrained and looking for other opportunities—is in single figures. I can get the exact number for you.
Regarding specific contracts and as we look to the future, the greatest challenges in my two years with the agency have not been the headline ones that we are all familiar with, such as those around Covid, cyber and the change in the chief executive. Some of the greatest challenges have been around inheriting an agency that, despite the remarkable skills, abilities and innovation of its people, has lost confidence, has become very siloed and has not best understood the part that it can play in team Scotland—and an agency that has had so many key components.
In my opening statement, I talked about wiring, and there was a clear sense among the new leadership team that a lot of the wiring had been disconnected. What do I mean by that? I mean that we did not have a performance management framework. As a public agency, we are very clear that we should be held to account and be providing that information so that committees such as this one, the citizens of Scotland and the Parliament can hold us to account. That information was not available—it had been dismantled.
As we move into this new phase, it is hugely important that we become more efficient and effective. We have invested in areas such as performance management, so that we have that framework, and in a proper project management office, because in leaning into transformation we have developed a runway of more than 200 public sector reform and transformation projects that we will look to deliver over the next three to five years.
What I am trying to illustrate for you is that the shift is significant. Despite how remarkably skilled our 1,200-staff body is, with subject matter expertise—I cannot emphasise that enough—we have skills and roles that the organisation had not even dreamt of previously, such as digital architects and roles in the project management office. We bring proper professional management to the projects that we need to deliver, to ensure delivery and value for money. Adaptovate is a good illustration of our having had to bring in skill sets that we do not hold as an agency—I will pass to Kirsty on that point. Importantly, however, we do not need to hold those skill sets in the long term; it is about transition and change as opposed to needing to invest in full-time staff. I ask Kirsty to come in.
Before you pass to Kirsty, I note that the clock ticks away and is always my enemy in this committee. If I do not get all the committee members in with all their questions, you will be fine—you will be able to walk out thinking that I did not get them—but I will be the one who suffers afterwards. Briefly comment if you want to, Kirsty. Then, if Sarah Boyack has finished her questions, I must bring in Mark Ruskell and Douglas Lumsden.
Very briefly, the Adaptovate contract is there to support the design, development and delivery of the change programme that we have spoken about in relation to SEPA’s work. The contract is in three phases, with a stage gate at each for us to assess the product that comes to us and the next stage of work. In relation to our wider procurement processes, the contract has followed our policies and procedures and so on.
That is useful. I was told that it had been awarded without a tender, so it would be useful to have some detailed feedback on that.
To raise awareness of change, you have to bring everyone with you, and it is about ensuring that all the skills of the SEPA staff are used. I want to flag that, given that I am the sub for Monica Lennon, quite a lot of concerns have been raised with me about that in advance of today’s meeting. That was not weeks ago; rather, people immediately got in touch when they clocked that I would be here today and would have the chance to ask those questions, to make you aware that some staff are concerned about losing opportunities.
Thank you, Nicole. That was a useful corporate insight.
I have a set of questions about air quality. First, do you believe that the current air quality standards in Scotland—in relation to nitrous oxide and fine particulate matter—are appropriate and adequate for the delivery of a healthy environment?
As you know, SEPA has a really important role in supporting the Government with regard to the two cleaner air for Scotland strategies. Scotland currently has the best air quality in the UK. On the detail, I will pass to Alex Flucker—he is smiling at me, so I think that he can give that information.
I did not ask for a comparator with other parts of the UK. I want to know, on the best evidence that we have, whether the current standards are adequate to deliver a healthy environment.
I am alive to the conversation that was had with the committee when we attended it in December, and to the comments that you made to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are aware of the petition that looks at World Health Organization guidance and standards for air quality guidelines.
The standards in Scotland were set in 2005 and were aligned to the World Health Organization’s guideline standards when they were set, because that was a good process and it was good to do. We perform well against those standards: from 2005 to 2020, nitrous oxide has been reduced by 61 per cent, particulate matter by 52 per cent and sulphur dioxide by 92 per cent. That is real progress. We have a good track record on improving the air quality for the benefit of the environment and our people through our collaborative work in relation to our regulatory approaches and through the support that we give to local authorities with regard to the cleaner air for Scotland framework and low-emission zones.
On your question whether the guidelines are right, that is a matter for the Scottish Government. If the Scottish Government were to undertake a review of them, we would be supportive of a shift towards aligning with the new WHO guidelines from 2021.
12:00
You are a science-based organisation. What does the science tell you?
The science tells us that certain gases in the atmosphere are harmful to humans when they are above certain concentrations. Our current levels of those gases do not align with WHO’s recommendations; that organisation’s guidelines are far more robust than ours in relation to the details. If the Scottish Government were to consult on or to explore moving towards aligning with the 2021 WHO standards, we would be supportive of that.
Have you already provided guidance to the Scottish Government about the implications of adopting those 2021 WHO standards?
I do not know the answer to that. I would be happy to come back to you about it. I know that we have had some more focused conversations about ammonia—
We will come on to ammonia in a minute. I am asking specifically about those WHO guidelines in relation to nitrous oxide. Have you been asked by the Scottish Government to give advice on that?
We have had preliminary conversations on a working level between teams. We are aware that the Scottish Government is looking to explore a new air quality framework in 2025-26, and we have had discussions at that level about the options and opportunities for changing our air quality guidelines.
If you have more detail on the status of those conversations, specifically in relation to the WHO guidelines, that would be useful.
On greenhouse gases and ammonia, the CAFS strategy says that you have been working with
“the agricultural industry to develop a voluntary code of good agricultural practice for improving air quality in Scotland.”
You are directly involved in that CAFS workstream. I am interested in what progress you have made towards developing that code, who has been involved in that development and whether you think that a voluntary code is the right way forward or whether we should be moving towards using regulation—or a mixture of both.
I am conscious of the time, Mr Ruskell. I will allow Alex Flucker to come straight in to answer that.
We have had conversations with the Scottish Government about that. It is a priority for the Scottish Government as part of its exploration of developing an air quality framework in 2025-26. The Scottish Government consulted on potential options for the breadth of regulations, particularly in relation to ammonia. We fed into those discussions.
We have carried on the conversation since that consultation closed and since the Scottish Government made the public announcement in June 2024 about developing best practice procedures. We continue to engage with the Scottish Government and are ready to support it to deliver those measures in a more concerted way next year.
Okay—so there is active work to develop a new code of practice for agriculture in relation to ammonia?
We will support the Scottish Government when it engages with us about that. I do not know the details about what work is happening. As I understand it, it is a programme for 2025-26 in alignment with the air quality framework.
So, it has not started yet, but it will start.
My final question on air quality picks up on the ESS improvement report from 2022. That report was critical of SEPA’s lack of use of the powers under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995, particularly in relation to taking action when you think that local authorities are not going far enough in relation to air quality management plans and the monitoring of air quality management areas. Can you provide an update on that? Have you used your section 85 powers and, if not, why not?
We welcome the ESS’s work on that issue. We will continue to work positively with the Scottish Government to implement the ESS’s recommendations. Alex Flucker can give the specifics.
We are alive to and aware of the conversations that have taken place on the section 85 powers and of the input to this committee from the ESS and the cabinet secretary.
When we seek to use those powers, the fact that they are reserved powers means that we need to go through a process of consultation decision making with the relevant secretary of state. To date, we have not used those powers, but we have used other enforcement powers. For example, over the course of the past year, we have issued three final warning letters to local authorities whose submissions for their underperformance reports are late or whose air quality improvement plans have not been finalised. Those letters have been responded to well by local authorities. We always work in partnership and collaboration with them, but we absolutely stand ready to use our enforcement powers where necessary.
It would be useful for the committee to see any update that you have in relation to how you have adopted those ESS recommendations in a timely manner, if we have missed it.
We come to a question from Douglas Lumsden, although it will need to be a brief one.
Lisa Tennant, you have been chair of SEPA for just over a year. As we have heard, in that time, the membership of the corporate leadership team has changed quite a lot, and much of the board has changed as well. Was that a result of your coming in, seeing what was not working and making wholesale changes?
Thank you for the question. The board was refreshed just before I joined, so it was not my decision to refresh and choose new board members—that was a decision for the Scottish Government. However, it has been a real plus that we have been able to refresh the board. We have three board members who were members before I joined, and they bring a level of expertise and historical knowledge of the organisation, which is helpful. Given that we are embarking on an ambitious transformation programme, it was absolutely key that we had new, refreshed board members with the new skills and experience that we need to drive that transformation. I am confident that we now have a fully functioning—what I like to call high-performing—board to help deliver that.
One of the first things that I did with the board was to lay out our vision for what a high-performing board is, and to agree that vision collaboratively, along with a suite of measures that will enable us to measure our progress in delivering that high-performing board and the corporate plan that the board has agreed on.
You mentioned three previously existing board members. How many new board members have come in?
Six new board members were appointed by the Scottish Government at the same time as I was appointed as chair.
Was everyone on the board happy with the leadership team changes that we heard about? That came at quite a cost, in terms of exit packages. We see from the annual report that the 23 packages cost more than £2.3 million. Are you content that that was money well spent?
Many of the senior leadership team members were replaced before I was appointed as chair. It is for the CEO to decide on the team that they need in order to deliver on the corporate plan and the vision that the board has agreed on.
There has been really good consultation with the board on staff engagement and staff changes in the leadership team. As chair, I am assured that the changes that have been made are really positive for the direction that we take the organisation in.
Transformation and change are never easy, particularly in an organisation where we have, as Nicole Paterson mentioned, great technical and scientific expertise but perhaps some skills gaps around leadership. I am confident that we have now brought those leadership skills into the senior team, where they are really needed. In fact, we are starting to cascade those skills down through the organisation.
We will make it our mission that those who are in leadership and management positions in the organisation will have the skills, tools and training that they need in order to deliver.
Nicole Paterson, do you feel that the exit packages represent money well spent? Were there no roles in the new organisation for the people who received the packages?
Thank you for the question. There are two important distinctions to make here. In terms of the refresh of the corporate leadership team, two of the individuals received packages. I mentioned earlier that it is for individuals to determine their future in an organisation, and both of those individuals chose not to move forward within the organisation.
The policies of the agency are in line with many of those of the Scottish Government. As you know, we have very few tools to assist people to move on where they are unsuccessful in applying for roles or choose not to go for those roles, so we had to honour the packages and the contractual rights of those individuals.
With regard to the two individuals from the corporate leadership team, some £100,000 was paid, and the rest involved contractual strain payments. It is important to make that differentiation. With regard to the 23 packages that are quite correctly reported in our annual reporting accounts, we all recognise the challenges of change—I have used the word reset—and also the fact that, as we lean into transformation, we need new skill sets. As can be seen from our response to the earlier question about the contact centre, there is much change afoot, and that change is really difficult. There is no organisation that changes, never mind transforms, without facing immense difficulties. We have few tools to help us move through that change. Importantly, our staff have contracts and contractual rights that we need to honour.
As we know, there are various ways in which staff can move on. Some will choose to do so, but, in cases in which people do not or are unsuccessful in moving on, we need to honour those people’s contracts and ensure that we meet those rights. That is the case with those 23 packages.
The alternative to paying that exit package would be for them to continue to be paid and sit and do nothing, I guess.
Yes, and that is not good for an organisation. It is not good for motivation and morale, and it is definitely not good for the taxpayer. We are very conscious of that.
We never enter into any of those decisions lightly. We understand the impact on the public purse, but we have a sense of the need to weigh up both sides. Holding on to staff who either cannot be retrained or whose skills simply are not fit for the future is also very expensive to the public purse, and that consideration has influenced some of my decisions.
We need to be fit for the future. We need to be more efficient and effective. We have taken real leadership on that, not just as an agency but in terms of public sector reform.
I guess that there will be criticism in terms of the fact that you are paying people to leave but you are recruiting people at the same time.
That is because of the shift in the skill sets that we need. We have a staff of some 1,200, so we are talking about relatively small numbers of staff who have moved on and similar numbers of staff who are bringing in new skill sets. However, those new skill sets relate to a refresh that is utterly imperative for our success in how we move forward.
The convener is looking at me, so I guess that my time is up.
I am looking at you, and Sarah Boyack is also staring at me. I will allow her to briefly ask the question that I think that she wanted to ask at the beginning of the session.
We have seen that a lot of money—around £170,000—is being spent on coaching senior members. Should you not have asked people when they applied for those jobs whether they had those skills?
First, thank you for that question, Ms Boyack.
Saying, “Thank you for that question,” must have been part of the training.
It was. [Laughter.]
As the chair has mentioned, we are building an entirely fresh team. Yes, they are all-seasons leaders. Yes, they have confidence. Yes, they have experience. Yes, they have considerable expertise. However, it is important to note that that leadership training is not just for the corporate leadership team. It has now cascaded down through four tiers of the organisation. During this session, the chair and I have spoken about the key skills that were missing from the agency. The training is part of the rewiring that we need to do. It is part of how we take forward the organisation cohesively and deliver better for Scotland.
To be clear, the £176,000 or £178,000 that was spent on leadership training has benefited 98 individuals to date in four tiers of the organisation. We are building a new organisation for the future, and that investment is quite crucial to us.
I take that point. I think that the question was about why we are at the stage where that money needed to be spent, but perhaps that is a question for another day.
Thank you for giving evidence this morning. The committee will look at the climate change plan later in the year, and I am sure that SEPA will have a role in that plan, not only in terms of getting in line with the requirements to enable the organisation to meet the climate change agenda, but in terms of ensuring that other people who have a job in delivering the climate change agenda are doing so within the law.
Lisa, I am glad that you were asked a question before the end. I was winding up to ask one, but you are probably grateful that it was not from me.
We will now move into private session.
12:14 Meeting continued in private until 13:07.
Air ais
Subordinate Legislation