Chamber and committees

As a statutory consultee to the planning process, and Scotland’s environmental regulator, SEPA considers the environmental operation and management of waste facilities. That is a duty that is independent of the Scottish Government.

Through SEPA permits, waste incineration facilities must apply best available techniques, which were recently reviewed, to limit emissions. The new limits are now in force at all operational facilities. SEPA requires incinerator operators to publish emissions results and undertake their own monitoring to verify them, and it addresses non-compliance, in accordance with its enforcement policy.

It is fair to say that I would be reluctant to intervene in a conversation that SEPA is already having about an operating licence. Suffice to say, I would expect communities to be involved in all those conversations.

The member alludes to the fact that no new planning permissions have been granted since the publication of the review on the matter. That continues to be the Scottish Government’s policy nationally.

As I have mentioned, support exists through a number of channels, but supporting and building community resilience is key to all of that. As a Government, we recognise that communities are best able to address their own priorities. It is worth saying, too, that, at national level, the Scottish Government, through agencies such as the civil contingencies division, facilitates that conversation and that work in the voluntary sector resilience partnership.

I can confirm that I have already done that and will seek to do so again.

We will continue to work with partners to continue to grow the community energy sector, clean energy and supply chain opportunities. We look forward to further engagement to support those important priorities, which are vital for Scotland’s economic growth and net zero ambitions.

I urge the Parliament to back the motion granting legislative consent to all clauses within the UK bill, including clause 7A.

I thank the Parliament for giving us further opportunity to debate the Great British Energy Bill and the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that was lodged in Parliament on Monday. I seek that the Parliament gives consent to the UK bill and to the UK Government’s new clause on sustainable development.

During the UK Government bill’s report stage in the House of Lords, four amendments were made to the bill as recently as 11 February, one of which required the supplementary LCM from this Parliament. That amendment introduced clause 7A, which requires Great British Energy to keep

“under review”

its impact

“on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”.

That clause will likely touch on areas in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, such as the environment and planning.

I note that a further amendment to the bill was tabled as recently as Monday. It would require the UK Secretary of State to “appoint an independent person”—

Will the member take an intervention?

As I mentioned, the decisions by Scottish Water had to come to ministers for approval. On the point that the member has made about Scottish Water and the industrial action that workers have been balloted on, I urge both parties to resume negotiations to find an agreement on that.

On his wider point, I will not comment on the details of the bonuses, but it is worth saying that, despite the suggestion that performance-related bonuses are irrelevant in this situation, Scottish Water’s performance in relation to pollution, overflows and so on has improved. For instance, there was improvement in the overall number of sewage overflows that were graded as unsatisfactory in Scottish Water’s annual return. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is an independent body, has assessed 86.5 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment as having a high or good classification, which represents an improvement since 2014. In addition, Scottish Water continues to represent good value for those who pay for it, particularly when it is compared with comparable water bodies in other parts of the UK.

The Scottish Government seeks to ensure that executive pay is kept under control, and I can comment on the situation in the wider public sector in that regard. As I said, public sector pay policy includes a presumption against non-consolidated bonuses, and we have sought to ensure, for example, that controls on wages and bonuses are put in place when new chief executives come into post.

I do not dispute Richard Leonard’s central point about the scale of the bonuses, but I return to the point that I made in my original answer, which is that, contrary to the inference in the question, the bonuses were provided publicly and within the rules.

As I mentioned, Scottish Water has a good story to tell about its wider performance, but I recognise Beatrice Wishart’s point about the need for continuing investment. There is continuing investment—in fact, £1 billion has been invested in the water network around the country, and we will seek to provide more investment. Scottish Water is taking action and is committing up to £500 million to improve water quality, to increase monitoring of the highest-priority waters and, as I mentioned, to deal with spills and overflows.

As I mentioned, the decisions by Scottish Water had to come to ministers for approval. On the point that the member has made about Scottish Water and the industrial action that workers have been balloted on, I urge both parties to resume negotiations to find an agreement on that.

On his wider point, I will not comment on the details of the bonuses, but it is worth saying that, despite the suggestion that performance-related bonuses are irrelevant in this situation, Scottish Water’s performance in relation to pollution, overflows and so on has improved. For instance, there was improvement in the overall number of sewage overflows that were graded as unsatisfactory in Scottish Water’s annual return. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, an independent body, has assessed 86.5 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment as having a high or good classification, which represents an improvement since 2014. Scottish Water continues to represent good value for those who pay for it, particularly when it is compared with comparable water bodies in other parts of the UK.