Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I want to raise the issue of sewage discharge, which has been very high in the public’s mind this year. It does not appear that there is a clear picture on sewage discharge in Scotland. That point was made by Environmental Standards Scotland in its recent sector baseline evidence review, so I have a number of questions about what that picture is in Scotland.

At the moment, only 3 per cent of combined sewer overflows are monitored. Is that enough to get a clear picture?

It might be useful for the committee to get evidence on the work programme on a third of CSOs, including the investment for that and how the work will be scheduled.

I move briefly on to a related issue, which is water quality. Douglas Millican said earlier that Scotland’s water quality is excellent. Despite that, however, Environmental Standards Scotland, as part of its sector review, highlighted the fact that a number of the river basin management plan targets have been missed, and that we still have an issue with barriers to fish and lamprey migration, along with a number of other issues relating to the operation of Scottish Water assets.

How do you prioritise environmental compliance? I give you the example of Loch Venachar. I am aware that SEPA wrote you a letter last month confirming that four of your fish passes, not on the side channel but on the main channel, are not compliant with your permit. You are in effect acting outwith your permit conditions—in other words, you are operating illegally. How seriously do you take environmental compliance?

It is clear that the regulations are about resourcing the applications system in a better way, and I note the move to full cost recovery. The question is: what will they do to performance? According to evidence that the industry has given the committee, it can take seven years for an application to be determined. The whole system is very slow, whether it be applications going to councils, going to the planning division of planning or going through the system of environmental appeals in the Scottish Government. Will these regulations make a significant difference to those timescales for determination? We are in a climate emergency, and we need business certainty. Applications need to be approved or rejected on a reasonable timescale, so will the regulations properly resource the decision-making structure and process?

It is a slightly different question, convener. I will be very quick. I want to ask Johanna Dow about the privatised market for the billing and sale of water to business customers. Do you feel that that is working? Have there been efficiencies? Could you operate just as effectively as a state monopoly?

That is useful context but, to come back to the question, I asked you specifically about the figure of 3 per cent. Is that enough? Do you have a figure for how many combined sewer overflows you should be monitoring in order to capture that environmental impact and to understand it?

You have given me a proportion there—you said that you will move towards introducing monitoring on a third of overflows. What about the two thirds that are not monitored? Are you saying that those are not problematic? How do you know that they are not?

I have no concerns about supporting the Scottish statutory instrument; the question is more about what it is trying to achieve and what the outcome will be. I expect that the outcome will be better timescales for determination, but I would like to know from the Government whether that will actually happen.

I thank the minister for attending the COP in Egypt. Although there was one step forwards, to address loss and damage, there were two steps backwards on fossil fuels. There was a clear failure to commit to any phasing out of oil and gas. Arguably, COP27 has left the goal of 1.5° dead.

Right now, fossil fuel companies are using the energy charter treaty to sue Governments for hundreds of millions of pounds if they introduce policies or laws that limit the use of coal, oil and gas. However, at COP27, Germany joined the call for the collective withdrawal of countries from the treaty. Does the minister agree that the energy charter treaty is now beyond reform, and will ministers raise the issue with the United Kingdom secretary of state?

To ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is of the outcome of the 27th United Nations climate change conference of the parties. (S6T-00978)

I thank the minister for that very clear response. The issuing of more than 100 oil and gas licences by the UK Government is reckless and hampers the just transition at the point when investment urgently needs to switch to renewables. The First Minister has previously said that the Cambo oilfield should not be given the go ahead. Does the minister agree that the Rosebank licence should also not be granted?