Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

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?

What research is the Government doing to identify the gaps? It goes back to the point that Douglas Lumsden made about the 47 per cent cut to the network support grant. Do we not need a more joined-up approach?

It is a geographic issue, and it is also about people on low incomes and the combination of people who should be benefiting. We need to think about what that will look like. Have you got feedback from bus companies about more cuts that will be made to services, or do we just have to wait and see what happens?

Okay. I was hoping that you would tell us that, by next year, you would have done research, looking at the areas where more investment is needed and thinking about partnership approaches so that we could see the services delivered.

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?

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?

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 for enabling me to come back and give feedback. It is quite some time since the petition was discussed, but we still have an accountability problem, which our constituents are experiencing daily.

I am disappointed that we have not seen progress on the voluntary code and that we are still reliant on the current legislative framework. Constituents continue to get in touch with me with new cases—I am not just hearing from constituents who have already reported their problems.

The current framework is not user friendly. The First-tier Tribunal is slow and can be daunting, and people have to make a huge amount of investment in order to use it. There is concern that some firms have been found to have failed in their duty on multiple occasions, and yet, in the process, no questions are asked about their being factors. The challenge of relying on the sheriff court means that legal representation is required, which is expensive and is on top of the bills that people are already paying. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of independent scrutiny and accountability, and no control over rising costs. At the end of the day, the factors can do what they want.

There is no incentive to seek best value. One issue that has been raised is that factors might be linked to developers who have developed a project. That is another accountability gap. Although consumer rights are referred to in the legislation, they are not implemented, and that is a major issue that still needs to be addressed.

The last time that I spoke to the committee, I gave examples of costs. Since then, representatives have made the point to me that quarterly fees in Edinburgh have gone from £300 to £800. That is a huge increase.

For a lot of our constituents, it is really a now issue. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister for Housing offered us a round-table meeting. We have seen the Competition and Markets Authority report, but we have not yet had action. I am very concerned that we have not seen any actual progress since the committee last took evidence on the petition.