Chamber and committees

So it is totally dependent on rainfall—there is no control over it. You cannot predict when there is going to be a flow from the combined sewer overflows, because it is all dependent on rainfall.

I am sorry to interrupt you. I am aware of the local geography and everything else; I think that the issues are with the main flow. The general point is around compliance. If SEPA writes you a letter like that, what do you do? Do you say, “Well, there’s actually still a problem here, but we have to put it into the investment programme over time,” or do you jump and take action on the—

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?

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?

I have one final question. You have referenced Dr Whitten’s excellent report for the committee. In it, she has highlighted the potential for passive divergence, particularly with tertiary law—that is, the implementation of European Union law. Have you made a commitment to that tertiary law?

I am sure that we will come back to that when we receive the Government’s response to that piece of work.

Obviously, the bigger question is the retained EU law bill and how that stakeholder engagement can realistically happen, given the immense scope and nature of the work that will potentially have to take place over the next 12 months. Do you have further thoughts on how you can engage stakeholders in thematic areas as we potentially approach that black cliff edge? Obviously, in Europe, that process is happening the whole time, because there is on-going stakeholder engagement. At this point, how do you reach out to groups and stakeholders on the totality of that EU law?

I have a couple of follow-up questions. In relation to the public consultation on the annual report, I presume that, if people have concerns about the decision that was made on EVs—or anything else that is in the detail of the report—they can make submissions to that consultation. Is that right? Are you looking for active engagement on the Government’s decisions through the consultation, or does it have a different focus? What happens to the responses that come in? Do they get passed to the relevant cabinet secretary? What is the process for stakeholders?

That was very useful. Any further detail that you have on the just transition work will be of particular interest to this committee. I agree with your point that workers need to be at the heart of the conversation on such a transition.

My final question is about the road equivalent tariff, and I will go back to Gordon Martin to ask it. In your submission, Gordon, you stopped short of saying that RET should be scrapped, but you made quite a good case for that to happen. Some people in island communities might agree with you on that, given RET’s impact on demand and so on. Is that your position? If it is, should the Government consider something different from RET that could do the same thing but in a slightly different way and without the unintended consequences? I am interested in fleshing out whether you have a fixed view on RET.