Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022

Official Report 1158KB pdf

---

Sewage and Scotland’s Waters

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-06148, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, on sewage and Scotland’s waters. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite any members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the view that the natural environment deserves the highest possible protection; further notes the reports in The Ferret that untreated human waste was discharged into Scotland’s waters more than 10,000 times in 2021, including at beauty spots such as the River Almond, which passes through the Edinburgh Western constituency; considers that the true figure is likely to be much higher due to monitoring only being required, it understands, at 3% of sewage release points; understands that Scottish Environmental Protection Agency figures show that 49 of the 87 designated bathing waters around Scotland recorded levels of the faecal bacteria, E. coli, and intestinal enterococci during summer 2022 that represented a danger to the health of swimmers, surfers, paddlers and wildlife; further understands that high concentrations of such bacteria can cause stomach, ear, nose and throat infections, and notes the calls from campaigners for targets to be set to reduce discharges, for enhanced monitoring to be backed up by transparent reporting, and for the acceleration of measures to upgrade sewage systems and tackle overflows.

18:05  

There is not a member in the chamber who does not have, somewhere in their constituency or region, a beautiful expanse of our most vital natural resource. I am, of course, talking about water. Whether it is a river, loch, reservoir or firth, Scotland is graced with some of the most beautiful waters in the entire world. From the River Almond, which joins the Firth of Forth at the popular Cramond beach in my constituency, to the Cromarty Firth, where you can often spot a pod of dolphins—and sometimes an orca—and the world-famous Loch Lomond and Loch Ness, we are incredibly privileged to have those places on our doorstep and we must cherish them.

I am a scuba diver, an open-water swimmer and an enthusiastic if talentless surfer, so the debate carries a personal resonance for me and for many of us who like to spend time in or at Scotland’s waters. However, our waters are also of profound environmental and scientific importance, and they are home to many varieties and species of wildlife. It is more important than ever, therefore, that we take the necessary steps to take care of those environments and to ensure that we follow any regulations in place that are designed to protect them. Sadly, however, we are not doing so.

Every day in Scotland, raw and dilute sewage is being dumped in our rivers. Thanks to investigations by The Ferret, we now know that that happened more than 10,000 times last year—that is 30 times a day—and in 2020, it happened 12,000 times. It is certainly happening more than that; Scottish Water currently has the capacity to monitor just 3 per cent of sewage release points. We need to scale up the monitoring system rapidly so that we can assess the full extent of what is going on.

In addition, more investigations by The Ferret have revealed that, over the summer, 49 of 87 designated bathing waters recorded levels of faecal bacteria that could endanger public health. Places such as the West Sands in St Andrews, Ettrick Bay on the Isle of Bute and Belhaven beach in Dunbar all recorded high levels of bacteria. At Eyemouth in the Borders, levels reached more than 50 times the legal limit. Those are places where many of us and our constituents spend time; I find it alarming that we may be exposed to such high levels of bacteria in so doing.

What I find even more alarming is the lack of action taken by the Government. I raised concerns about that with the First Minister in May, as members may remember. She informed me that she would

“come back to”

me

“with more detail about what the Government is doing”.—[Official Report, 12 May 2022; c 22.]

Last month, I wrote to her, because I had still not received that detail.

This is not the first time that Liberal Democrats have tried to hold the Government to account on this matter. In December last year, my colleague Liam McArthur—yourself, Presiding Officer—asked the Minister for Environment and Land Reform whether the Scottish Government would look to bring in annual reporting on sewage releases and whether there was a plan to eliminate those overflows altogether. The reply was that

“We will not eliminate overflow, because it is a vital part of the system.”—[Official Report, 22 December 2021; c 43.]

I find that hard to believe—that the Scottish National Party-Green Government believes that it is vital to dump raw sewage into our waters—but that is the response that we received. By that logic, the Government seems to be arguing that it is inevitable that excrement, wet wipes and sanitary towels will be in the same waters where children will play, dogs will swim and fish will live.

What astounds me even more is that, as far as I am aware, this is the first debate on sewage that we have ever had in this Parliament. Our bodies of water are being polluted while our Government sits on its hands. Shockingly, that is also happening where we have in place what are supposed to be the tightest environmental regulations—specifically, in Loch Leven, just a few miles from the chamber. For context, Loch Leven is a site of special scientific interest, a special protection area, a Ramsar site and a national nature reserve—that is four layers of environmental protection. All those classifications mean that there are strict environmental protections in place that should keep Loch Leven, and the species that inhabit it, safe and clean. Those regulations are being ignored, with raw sewage being dumped into the loch regularly.

Out of genuine interest, I ask whether the member agrees with the position that was put forward by Ross Finnie, formerly Minister for the Environment and Rural Development for the Lib Dems, who supported the idea that mutualising Scottish Water—which is really like privatising it—is the way forward.

That is a bit off topic. It is certainly an issue for debate at another time, but it says a lot about this Government’s priorities that that is the focus of its response and rebuttal to these points—these realities—when we are desecrating our natural heritage. With raw sewage being dumped into Loch Leven, this Government is allowing the biodiversity that the loch provides and supports to be destroyed, and it is allowing those who use the loch for open-water swimming to be exposed to harmful faecal bacteria.

Even Ian Blackford, at Westminster, sought to tear the United Kingdom Government to shreds for the scale of its sewage releases, but the Scottish Government is certainly not coming up smelling of roses either. When the local Lib Dem councillor Willie Robertson raised his concerns about the impact that raw sewage would have on Loch Leven, he was told by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that SEPA “understand and sympathise with your frustration at this situation, but the removal of these historic sewers will require multimillion pound investment, and as this is public money, it requires to be planned and spending to be justified.”

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, from the minister.

Given the member’s comments on Loch Leven, perhaps I could get his view on the fact that SEPA inspected the location after the incident on 8 September and

“found no evidence of sewage debris or pollution in the”

water course before it entered Loch Leven. How would he respond to SEPA’s finding in that regard?

I am fascinated by that, because it flies in the face of fact. There are many witnesses to that happening. If the Government is telling us that it is not happening at all, I would like to hear that stated for the record, and we will provide evidence to the contrary.

It seems that when our national environment agency is told that something is happening that is damaging an important piece of our natural environment, its response is simply to shrug its shoulders and say, “Oh well—not much we can do about it.” That is simply not good enough. When we look at Loch Leven, the River Almond, Eyemouth beach and the West Sands, all being polluted, I do not know what further evidence the SNP-Green Government needs to demonstrate that that investment is sorely needed. Perhaps the minister can illuminate members on that in her closing remarks.

As I have always said, we in this country are incredibly privileged to have the resources that we do. Let us not squander that privilege by allowing them to be ruined in this way.

18:12  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing the debate to the chamber. I welcome the opportunity to participate, not least as chair of the Nigg waste water treatment works stakeholder group in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. The motion for debate focuses on our beaches and bathing waters around Scotland: special places that should be clean, healthy and unspoiled by humans. We are responsible for making that happen.

The north-east coastline is home to many fantastic beaches and bays that host swimmers, paddle boarders, surfers and a treasure trove of marine life. My constituency hosts the fabulous Greyhope bay, which is consistently recorded as the best place to watch bottlenose dolphins from land in the UK. Only this week, I met representatives of VisitAberdeenshire to discuss how to make the north-east a leading visitor destination. The natural environment was a key part of our discussion. I, for one, am very much invested in the work to keep our precious waters clean, safe and pollution free.

Since I became chair of our local stakeholder group, I have had the opportunity to better understand the scale of our waste water infrastructure in Scotland and the significant challenges that our behaviour and climate change, to name but two factors, are placing on it.

In recent years, Scottish Water and SEPA have worked together to upgrade more than 100 waste water treatment works and around 280 overflow points. I welcome the measures that were announced last December by the Scottish Government that will see the investment of a further £0.5 billion to improve Scotland’s waste water network.

We know that climate change is a significant pressure on our waste water system, with the increasing frequency and intensity of storms being a significant challenge. I welcome the programme of installation of event monitors by Scottish Water and the development of approaches to create intelligent networks that help to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution incidents. Less than half a mile from my home, a new water retention pond holds back water, but floods during heavy rainfall. The pond enables the slow release of water and has brought an added welcome benefit by creating a natural habitat for flora and fauna. Our stakeholder group recently visited the site at Nigg, giving us an invaluable opportunity to understand the process of managing waste water in an increasingly sustainable and smart way, using the heat produced as an energy source and supplying the end product, or “cake”, to the agricultural sector as a form of fertiliser.

I pay tribute to my stakeholder group colleagues from Scottish Water, SEPA and Aberdeen City Council, the ward councillors and, importantly, community members who come together to address a range of issues from odours to reporting processes, freak weather events and public awareness.

I also commend the nature calls campaign, which aims to get us all to think about how our own behaviour is contributing to pollution and how we can prevent it. One issue that the campaign highlights is the use of wet wipes, which contain plastic and pollute our water, costing Scottish Water around £7 million a year to clear and resulting in mountains of wet wipes ending up in landfill. I ask the minister to do all that she can within the legislative constraints that we have in Scotland to support the effort to ban wet wipes containing plastics.

I again thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing forward this important debate and highlighting the opportunities and challenges that we all face as we seek to preserve our precious water for generations to come.

18:17  

I congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton on securing this members’ business debate, not least because it is not before time, as he rightly pointed out.

When I looked into the subject, I found—as Mr Cole-Hamilton did—what appears to be extraordinary complacency on the part of the Scottish Government. Far from acknowledging the issue and steeling herself to do something about it, I found the minister, in a contribution from December 2021, crowing that

“When it comes to Scotland’s water, we have so much to be proud of”—[Official Report, 22 December 2021, c 34.]

and trying to divert attention by making spurious comparisons with other countries. That was an answer that she repeated, practically verbatim, in June 2022, having, I presume, pulled the previous script off the shelf.

When, earlier this month, The Courier reported that Scottish Water had dumped raw sewage into Loch Leven, in what NatureScot termed a “serious pollution incident”, the minister was asked to comment. She declined to do so, perhaps—in the light of her earlier intervention—because her view is that that did not happen. A Scottish Government spokesperson was wheeled out to say simply that investment had been made in the past and that there would be more to come. There was no mention of what would actually change. That is utter complacency.

The various comparisons that have been made by the minister are false equivalences. The Ferret report that Alex Cole-Hamilton cites in the motion refers to the Scottish Government’s water environment policy manager, David Lister, saying that only 10 per cent of overflows in Scotland are monitored, compared with 80 per cent of those in England. I suspect that Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to say in his motion that the true number of discharges is likely to be much higher.

Actually, I do not suspect that—I know it. Just last week, though a freedom of information request, I got figures from Scottish Water covering the period from 2017 to 2021, which show that a total of 563,500 hours of sewage overflow were recorded in Scotland during that period. That is an increase of around 70 per cent in that time. Yes—members heard that right; the SNP has been allowing thousands of hours’ worth of sewage to be pumped into our rivers and lochs for years, and the problem is only getting worse. It should be remembered that that data is from only 10 per cent of the overflows.

The lack of data really worries me. In committee yesterday, I asked NatureScot what impact the overflows were having on its sites, and I was told that it does not have a lot of information on the effects that they have on protected sites and species. In the same session, I twice put the 10 per cent figure to SEPA and asked whether it felt that monitoring is sufficient and whether it should align with England’s 80 per cent to ensure that we can see what is going on, rather than simply denigrating the English and European figures, but no answer was forthcoming. It would be very interesting to hear, in her closing remarks, the minister’s view on the 10 per cent figure.

The freedom of information request also found out that the clean-up costs for sewage spills in Scotland had soared by 500 per cent over roughly the same period. That will be for the clean-up of 49 of the 87 designated bathing waters around Scotland in which SEPA recorded unsafe levels of faecal bacteria as a result of sewage contamination, which Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned in his motion.

I congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton on drawing attention to the problem and giving the minister a chance not to tell us how much investment has been made in the past, which we have heard is not preventing the overflows; not to throw up false equivalences in order to denigrate our UK and European friends and suggest that all is well in Scotland; and not simply to say, as she did in December last year, that

“we are determined and poised to do more”—[Official Report, 22 December 2021, c 35.]

but to acknowledge her Government’s failure and say that that simply is not good enough, and to set out clearly, concisely and comprehensively what her Government will do to address that shameful record.

18:22  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing this important debate. His motion rightly stresses the importance of affording the highest possible protection to our natural environment. However, that is not currently the case for Scotland’s waters. As we have already heard, The Ferret reported that untreated human waste was discharged into Scotland’s waters more than 10,000 times last year. That suggests that current regulation of Scotland’s waters is failing: it is failing to ensure that water is clean, that it poses no risk to public health, and that it is protected as part of our natural environment.

That failure can be seen in the case of the River Almond, in which there were 500 occasions in 2019 in which sewage was released through combined sewer overflows, or CSOs. CSOs release not only sewage and floodwater, but sanitary waste that has been flushed down toilets. Campaigners have previously highlighted the risk that that poses to public health, because the River Almond is regularly used for swimming and fishing by the public. They have called for public warnings to be issued when CSOs are in operation. I hope that the minister will reflect on that point.

It is clear that steps must be taken to improve regulation of Scotland’s waters. By the admission of the Scottish Government’s own water environment policy manager, monitoring of sewage overflows in Scotland is not as comprehensive as that which is undertaken in England. A Scottish Government briefing that was acquired by The Ferret highlighted that just 10 per cent of CSOs were monitored in Scotland, compared with 80 per cent in England. An FOI request by The Ferret also revealed that more than 12,000 sewage overflows were recorded by Scottish Water in 2020. However, given that the scale of monitoring lags behind that in England, I am concerned that the figures are likely to understate the problem. I hope that, in her response, the minister will outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve monitoring of sewage overflows.

Monitoring of overflows must improve, but there is also a need for Scottish Water to upgrade its network to ensure that that happens. SEPA has previously asked Scottish Water to install, by the end 2024, spill monitors on all the sewer overflows that discharge to designated bathing waters. Scottish Water has confirmed that it has installed monitors at just 354 of its 3,600 overflows, with another 1,000 planned installations by the end of 2024. I expect that the minister will cite Covid for the slow progress that is being made, so I am not going to ask her to explain why so little progress has been made, but I would like to know what she is doing to get things back on track.

Improving monitoring and upgrading the network are both necessary steps, but we have to reflect on what we want regulation of Scotland’s waters to achieve. Scottish Labour is clear that Scottish Water should remain in public ownership and that the creeping privatisation of waste water services must be ended.

Regulation of Scotland’s waters must be driven by four core principles: keeping Scotland’s water in public hands, ensuring access to clean water for local communities, protecting public health and protecting Scotland’s natural environment.

18:25  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard already, The Ferret has identified that the untreated human waste flowing into Scotland’s seas and rivers is a huge problem, especially given that more and more people who live in Scotland and who visit Scotland want to get closer to nature and get into the water.

In my region, the Highlands and Islands, we are lucky to have some areas with pristine water, including four bathing-water sites where pollution was “undetectable” or “very low” last year. That is so important to our local economy, as many coastal communities depend on tourists who want to enjoy beautiful clear seas, lochs and rivers, and the wildlife that they support.

However, we also have some of the most polluted areas: Ettrick Bay in the Isle of Bute, which has already been mentioned, and two beaches in Nairn are all in the top 25 most polluted bathing waters.

Even if we get what Alex Cole-Hamilton has called for—reduced discharges, sewage monitoring and reporting, and upgraded sewage systems—that will not solve the problems with Scotland’s waters. It is not just human waste that pollutes our seas, lochs and rivers. Environmental Standards Scotland found that pollution from agricultural activities, including spreading of slurry on fields, affected the highest number of water bodies in Scotland. According to the National Trust for Scotland, just one moderate-sized salmon farm discharges the same amount of sewage as a town twice the size of Oban does.

A recently approved salmon farm off Papa Westray in Orkney has the potential to produce effluent equivalent to the amount that would be produced by 49,500 people. Waste is already released from five other salmon farms nearby; needless to say, locals do not want to swim there.

In Argyll and Bute, locals face a similar problem. My constituent who runs a holiday business there depends on people wanting to swim in the nearby bay. He and wild swimmers, divers and other local water users are concerned that the pesticides and waste from a proposed salmon farm a short distance away will contaminate the bay.

Although SEPA monitors levels of faecal bacteria in bathing waters, it does not issue guidance on safe levels of pesticides, such as hydrogen peroxide, in other water bodies. People who regularly dip in those waters might be at risk, as is indicated in a toxicology report by the independent consultants WCA Environment Ltd.

It is not just recreational users of the water who are affected. Too much effluent from sewage or fish farms anywhere can damage nursery grounds and can be harmful to species including scallops, shellfish, lobsters and crabs—key commercial species on which sustainable creel fishers and divers depend. Waste, wherever it comes from, is undermining livelihoods, as well as undermining the local food supply that our seas naturally produce.

Just as Alex Cole-Hamilton has called for enhanced monitoring and reporting of sewage discharges, we also need much closer monitoring, inspection, reporting and enforcement of aquaculture. SEPA and Marine Scotland must be fully resourced and empowered to carry out those duties in order to preserve the health of our waters for all of us to enjoy.

A report by Just Economics found that fish farm waste that is discharged into the marine environment carries a cost of almost £37 million per year. Untreated human waste will also carry a heavy cost. If we are serious about tackling the climate and nature emergencies, we need to seriously improve how we deal with waste from humans, fish farms and agriculture.

18:29  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing the debate to the chamber; I completely agree with him that Scotland’s natural environment deserves the highest standards of protection.

When I was elected to South Ayrshire Council as a councillor back in 2017, I was extremely alarmed to learn that Ayr beach water quality had been classified as poor for several years and that, if it tested poor for five consecutive years, Ayr beach would lose its designated bathing water status. Ayr beach is unique and the situation was challenging, as the River Doon and the River Ayr both run in at Ayr beach. Agricultural run-off from neighbouring farms was another factor that was affecting the water quality there. Losing bathing water status would be catastrophic for Ayr.

As a ward councillor at the time, I worked with Keep Scotland Beautiful. I thank my colleague Emma Harper, who, back in 2018, arranged a meeting at the Scottish Parliament between me, Scottish Water and SEPA to discuss how we could improve the water quality at Ayr beach. During 2020, Scottish Water invested £10 million to include three increased storm storage tanks in the surrounding area.

In 2021, Ayr beach, after being classified as poor for four years in a row, finally—with collaborative work from South Ayrshire Council, SEPA, Scottish Water, supported by the Scottish Government, and farmers and rural land managers—received classification as good.

However, the work does not stop there. It is indisputable that the discharge of raw sewage into rivers and seas in Scotland is, unfortunately, on the increase. Scottish Water has said that the growing problem of sewage discharge into rivers is caused not by a failure to provide the correct infrastructure but by the increase in heavy rain as a result of climate change. Climate change and flooding is a huge problem.

I highlight an on-going project in Prestwick, where there are historical and complex issues relating to sewer flooding. In 2019, the Prestwick strategic drainage project was set up; it included Scottish Water, elected members, Ayrshire Roads Alliance and local community councils. The aim of the group is to identify strategic short-term, medium-term and long-term measures to be put in place in local areas of concern where flooding occurs regularly. Short-term solutions were put in place, such as speed tables, where the tarmac on the road is raised slightly to alleviate flooding, and medium-term solutions such as new storage pipes and water tanks are planned.

The on-going work has led to improvements in Prestwick. However, there are things that we, in individual households, can do to mitigate surface water flooding when we experience increased rain as a result of climate change. For example, rain butts—big tubs that hold rainwater—can be used in gardens, along with rain garden planters. We can also limit the area that we tarmac—for example, driveways—as that adds to the problem of surface water locally because it cannot be absorbed into the ground. We can all do our bit and be mindful about climate change.

I welcome that the Scottish Government is being proactive in this regard and has implemented its “River Basin Management Plan for Scotland 2021-2027”, which takes comprehensive action on sewage spills, among other water quality issues. The plan includes actions to increase monitoring, provide more public information and reduce sewage litter and spill frequency. I look forward to hearing from the minister on how the plan is going.

I welcome the genuine concerns that members have raised tonight. However, I highlight that Scotland’s bathing water quality is the best that it has been since 2015, when stricter standards came into force. On top of that, 38 per cent of bathing sites are now rated as excellent. In addition, we should not forget that Scotland has the highest number of high-quality rivers in the UK, with 66 per cent in good condition; I look forward to that number increasing further as a result of the improvement plans that SEPA has outlined.

I want to see Scotland as a world leader in water quality, across all possible measures. Yes, we have our problems, and those need to be addressed, but we are improving and are on our way to reaching that goal.

18:34  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing the debate, because the issue of sewage and pollution needs to be tackled more effectively. I also thank The Ferret team for the work that they do in general, and more specifically for what they have done to help to uncover this problem and to draw our attention to the problems that far too many of our communities face.

Alex Cole-Hamilton focused on the problems that have been identified in the River Almond, but there are also problems that constituents have raised with me regarding the River Esk, the Water of Leith and the River Forth.? In relation to the River Esk, one of my constituents gave me examples of the impact that waste and sewage are having on the immediate area and on downstream areas. My constituent identified Dryburn as an area where there was a particular issue and showed me photographs of the negative impact.? My constituent has also identified problems with the Water of Leith that impact on the river all the way down to the shore at Leith, where pollution is then released into the River Forth.

I raised those issues with SEPA in the summer. In the response that it sent me this autumn, it was interesting to see the different classifications for bathing waters in Edinburgh and East Lothian. Although nine of the areas identified were categorised as “Good” or “Excellent”, it was interesting that Portobello’s west and central beaches, Seton Sands and Milsey Bay at North Berwick were identified only as “Sufficient”.? Pollution can arise, and the challenge that we face is that there needs to be more monitoring and more mapping so that we have accurate information for all our rivers and action can be taken to address the problem upstream, as well as where it occurs on our beaches.

For me, one of the most striking impacts of Covid was people’s greater reliance on their local beaches for leisure, swimming and surfing. People were holidaying at home. In addition, there are many more people who do wild swimming all year round. Therefore, we need to know that our beaches and rivers are as safe as they can be. As Mercedes Villalba highlighted, we need accurate, up-to-date information so that people can be confident of their safety.

As the motion says, pouring sewage into the water puts us at risk of harmful bacteria and viruses, such as E coli, gastroenteritis and ear, nose and throat infections. As local members will know, E coli has a disruptive impact, which includes businesses having to close.

The BBC has reported that the number of recorded spills from combined sewer overflows in Scotland’s rivers and seas has increased by 40 per cent over the past five years. There were 12,725 “spill events” in 2020, and at least 120 million cubic meters of waste water was spilled from CSOs between 2016 and 2020. We need to look at those overflows. CSOs are designed to spill during heavy rainfall to prevent sewer flooding in properties, but the data is incomplete. The BBC suggested that the number and volume of spills is likely to be higher, because the list that it received related to only a fraction of the operating CSOs. That is because Scottish Water is only required to monitor less than 3 per cent of CSOs for pollution, and no volume data is provided for more than half the spill events. Therefore, we need more action.

SEPA and Scottish Water have recognised that there has been an increase in the frequency with which some CSOs are discharging sewage. They state that that is due to increases in water flows, which exceed the flows that sewers were originally designed to handle, and to blockages resulting from the flushing of inappropriate items, which other members have mentioned.

In its improving urban waters route map, Scottish Water has stated that it will increase monitoring to cover all CSOs and that that should involve around 1,000 additional monitors. I am keen for that work to be progressed as soon as possible so that practical improvements can be made in our rivers and our natural environment.

?According to the advocacy group Surfers Against Sewage, Scottish Water data shows that the equivalent of 47,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools’ worth of waste has been discharged since 2016. That gives a sense of the scale of the challenge.

When the minister sums up the debate, I am keen to hear her respond to the proposals of Surfers Against Sewage for stronger and bolder targets to end the discharge of untreated sewage; an enhanced testing regime that gives a true picture of our water quality in real time; nature restoration to reduce pressure and minimise impacts on sewage infrastructure; and increased investment from industry in infrastructure to prevent destructive practices.

In their powerful speeches, Audrey Nicoll and Siobhian Brown highlighted the issue of climate change, which means that we will get more rainfall and more intense rain. Therefore, we need to up the standards and up the investment so that, as well as meeting the current challenges and ensuring that people across the country have clean water, we tackle the issue for the future so that our rivers and beaches are not damaged by sewage and pollution.

18:39  

I am very pleased to be taking part in today’s debate, and I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing it. It is a topic that I know he cares about, as do I.

The debate has given me the chance to listen, as I always want to do. In closing, I will respond to what has been said, rebut some of what, in my view, is inaccurate and, most important, offer reassurance to the public—which I know has a strong interest in the issue—that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to the protection of our water environment; that our water environment already meets standards that are high by international comparisons; and that we have achieved that by working with our public water company, Scottish Water, which is regulated by the independent SEPA, such that we consistently have the lowest water bills in the UK. Finally, I want to reassure the public that we are never complacent and that we are always striving for progress. We are doing what we can, with concrete plans that are backed by multi-annual funds.

I said that Scotland enjoys a higher standard than our neighbours. To put figures on that, 66 per cent of Scotland’s water environment is already classed as being in good condition, compared with a European average of around 45 per cent and a figure for England of just 16 per cent. I can understand why Liam Kerr and the other Tories might not want me to repeat those figures, given that it is their party that is presiding over that deficit down south, but I am very proud of the Scottish figures.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have a lot that I want to put on the record this afternoon, but I will take a short intervention.

The minister appears to have entirely missed my point: if we monitor only 10 per cent of the overflows, as against the 80 per cent that are monitored in England, we get a false equivalence. Does she not appreciate that? If she does, will she not increase the monitoring to 80 per cent, as is the case in the jurisdiction that she cited?

Minister, I can give you all the time back.

The figures that I cited are not linked directly to the monitoring of CSOs; they relate to a holistic assessment of the water quality in Scotland. If we break it down to the factors that constitute that overall water quality—which is about the water quality itself, water quantity and fish migration—the figures are higher than 66 per cent. I would be delighted to provide the member with them.

I am proud of the figures, but we are not complacent. Through our third river basin management plan, we have set out our most ambitious plans ever, including the steps that we want to take to get our overall water quality to 81 per cent by 2027. In December, I gave a statement on the plan and how it, together with Scottish Water’s “Improving Urban Waters Route Map”, would drive substantial improvements in future years.

Today’s discussion has focused on the sewer network and swimming in bathing waters, so I will address both of those issues. There are misconceptions around the operation of the sewer network in Scotland. There has been some focus recently on Scottish Water supposedly discharging raw sewage on a regular basis. While I am on that point, I would like to clarify that, in my intervention on Alex Cole-Hamilton about Loch Leven, I was not saying that there had not been an incident; I was talking about the characterisation of the incident and what SEPA had done as part of its licensing and monitoring of the situation.

I am very grateful for the clarification from the minister, but her intervention did change the character of the debate. A person listening to the minister’s intervention during my speech would be forgiven for believing that there had been no event on Loch Leven. However, we know—and we have empirical evidence to show—that there are events not only on Loch Leven but in watercourses the length and breadth of this country. The Government cannot go on pretending that it is not happening. I am concerned about the slightly disingenuous intervention during my remarks. Why did the minister intervene on me in regard to that case?

Minister, again, I can give you all the time back.

If I was disingenuous, that was not my intention. I have just clarified my intention, which was to point out that SEPA has made an active assessment of the situation and that members ought not to refer to the discharge of raw sewage when the system is designed not to allow that to happen. That is the point that I was trying to make.

When I asked the First Minister about the matter a few months ago, Scottish Water contacted me and we had an in-depth meeting about this very issue. Scottish Water admitted that what it describes as “foul sewage”, which is the untreated stuff that comes out of our toilets, is regularly being pumped into the waterways of this country. Does the minister recognise that that is the reality of the situation that we are here to discuss?

The point that I am trying to make is that, when we seek to refer to specific incidents, we should be very clear about the term “raw sewage” and the extent to which SEPA monitors it. If the member wishes to discuss individual situations with me, I am always happy to do so, and SEPA will be content to do that, too.

As some members have explained, the system that we have is designed to overflow so that, when there is intense rainfall, very dilute sewage will spill. The alternative would be to have waste water backing up into customers’ homes, which I think—and I hope that we can all agree—would not be acceptable.

As members should know, the process must be licensed by SEPA, our environment agency, which will ensure that there is no adverse effect on the water environment. Unfortunately, and as members such as Siobhian Brown and Sarah Boyack have reflected, climate change means that we are now experiencing storm conditions more regularly, and intense rainfall events, which are going to become more frequent, are overwhelming urban drainage systems.

We are already taking action in anticipation of that. Scottish Water no longer accepts new surface water connections to the sewer unless there is no alternative, and we are looking to utilise nature-based solutions including blue-green infrastructure, which can turn the management of rain and surface water from a problem into an opportunity. That is preventive action. I understand, however, that members and the public want to know that the infrastructure and the CSOs are being improved.

I will briefly say where we have come from, before looking to where we are going. Since 2010, Scottish Water, working with SEPA, has taken action to upgrade 104 waste water treatment works and 279 storm overflows across the country. That has been backed by £686 million of investment. We now plan to go even further. In the Scottish Water route map, plans are set out to invest a further £500 million during the period from 2021 to 2027. That will include approximately £150 million to improve the remaining 40 waste water treatment works and 26 priority storm overflows over the next six years. That will benefit around 400km of Scotland’s rivers and lochs. The route map also sets out how it will deliver solutions for another 235 storm overflows by 2031. Again, that is backed by £150 million. I mention for the benefit of Mercedes Villalba that the work is on track, and I will be happy to keep members up to date on that.

Monitoring has been mentioned. The route map sets out plans to improve monitoring and public communication regarding more than 1,000 of the highest-priority storm overflows by 2024. Scottish Water is currently working to identify the right locations for monitoring. In December this year, it will publish its first annual update to highlight the progress made.

In the time that I have left, I will briefly mention wild swimming. The figures that are cited in the motion were not produced by SEPA, and, in SEPA’s opinion, they do not reflect how advice on water quality ought to be given. It must be remembered that rivers and other open water locations that are not bathing waters are managed for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife, not people. Indeed, the UK Health Security Agency advises that

“Anyone can become unwell from swimming in any open water”.

As I have said, however, 99 per cent of our designated bathing waters are passing environmental standards, with more of them than ever reaching the “Excellent” level.

I will conclude, as I am conscious of the time. After a decade of investment, backed by nearly £700 million, 66 per cent of Scotland’s water is of good quality. There will always be challenges, with an ageing infrastructure and the challenges of climate change, but we are determined to keep improving. We will continue to deliver investment to ensure that our environmental targets are met. As I said in December 2021, I will continue to work with members across the Parliament to achieve the Government’s ambitions.