Chamber and committees

A number of pieces of work are being done on this particular issue, but an awful lot more work and research still needs to be done. For example, Scotland’s Rural College is developing tools for land managers to reduce ammonia emissions; the work involves a process of communication with land managers so that we can get good practice on this, and I want that to be developed and disseminated among land managers before we consider anything associated with regulation.

The project will also provide us with evidence to demonstrate the benefits of mitigation measures on commercial farms and to support the identification of future regulation that might have to be introduced. The EU is looking at ammonia emissions, too; again, we will keep a watching brief on that with regard to alignment, but by the end of next year, the EU will have assessed whether there is a need for further regulation of the ammonia emissions associated with livestock. Of course, we are not waiting to see what happens in the EU, as important as that is—we are doing work in that area with the agricultural college.

Obviously, we want best practice on reducing ammonia emissions to be followed voluntarily before we consider whether anything might need to be done through regulation. That work is going on at the moment.

SEPA has not requested additional money for that. It is able to do it within its existing budget.

I imagine that they would, in the first instance. If people have the knowledge to enable them to associate the odour with a specific activity on a particular site—for example, if it was on the land, and they contacted SEPA—they will obviously not be turned away by another body. Indeed, if there was excessive odour associated with any of the sites that are operated by Scottish Water, they could contact Scottish Water. In a general sense, however, regarding the environment in someone’s own local authority area, they would contact the council in the first instance.

Of course. We do not want any local authority to be in any doubt about what they have to do if they receive complaints. It would be fairly straightforward to provide guidance to all 32 authorities.

I would hope that there would be flexibility. SEPA is working on how it is going to bring forward the regulations and implement the conditions. SEPA will be watching today’s committee session, so my message to it would be that we do not want to put anyone out of business.

It is about good will. If businesses want to comply with the regulations—retrofit might be required in some areas—but there is a financial cost associated with that, and it is estimated that complying will take them beyond the specified time limit, I would not want a situation in which they were in breach. I would want SEPA to work with them to get them up to the standard that they have to meet under the regulations in a way that is flexible and collaborative. That is my message. I will also take that point away from this session, and it will form part of the discussion at the next meeting of the group that has been set up; I will put that question to it.

Retrofit may be required in some areas, although I am hopeful that it would not be substantial. I would hope that the organisations that are involved in processing non-waste materials have the highest standards. As somebody who used to be involved in the oil and gas industry, I know that where there is leakage of anything, there is always a cost to business. Businesses do not want to leak product and have high emissions—they want to act responsibly, not just for their environmental credentials but for their bottom line. Any leakage of anything is waste and is money down the drain.

Where there is a case in which there may be substantial costs and time associated with bringing something up to the standard that SEPA wants, I would be hopeful that the organisation would—and I will put it to SEPA directly that I want it to—work with the business on that, and be flexible when necessary.

That would be more than sensible.

First, I recognise that, in the way in which it powers its distilleries, the Scottish whisky industry, in particular, is one of our greatest innovators when it comes to bringing down production emissions. It has been one of the first movers in the use of anaerobic digestion technology, and the associated biogas, as well as hydrogen technology. We need to applaud that, and we do not want to put in place anything that will limit or diminish that or lead us not to recognise the industry’s impact on reducing the production emissions arising from the making of whisky, or the innovation associated with it.

That is happening not just because the Scottish whisky industry wants to produce the best whisky available for export to the whole world in terms of its taste, provenance and whatever, but because it also wants to be one of the first movers in the food and drink industry in low-carbon production. That is very important to them, and to me, and it is why I am interested in and will be keeping a close watch on the discussions that SEPA will have with the Scottish whisky industry. It is for exactly the reasons that you have highlighted, Mr Stewart.

From my point of view, it is important, first, that the regulations are in place, that everyone knows what they are and that continuous work is done on the matter. I come back to my earlier point that new contaminants could be identified, and there has to be consistent monitoring of the sort of things that have been used and are appearing in sewage sludge. This is not just a one-time thing; it is a continuous piece of work.

I will come to the safe sludge matrix in a second. The committee is aware that the Scottish Government wants to keep pace with EU regulations, and the approach to this issue is no exception in that regard. At the moment, the EU is considering new legislation on sewage sludge and on the wider circular economy. We are keeping up to date with how that is going and what it could mean for us. As a result of deliberations at the EU level, modifications to the urban waste water treatment and sewage sludge directives might be considered.

From what I hear, the EU is consulting on the matter over the summer, and we will be keeping a close eye on that. It is potentially looking to introduce new legislation by the end of the year, which could have an impact on us. The EU is doing a great deal of work on that.

The matter has been looked at by the Scottish Government, with partners, including, in particular, Scotland’s Rural College. You are right that there are new contaminants as well as existing ones, which we must always be aware of. We have left the EU, but there are regimes in place in the United Kingdom of which we need to be mindful.

I will bring in Phil Leeks on the safe sludge matrix.

Gary is in the weeds of this, so I will hand over to him.