Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes.

I might need to ask my officials for a definitive answer, but the oversight group has been set up so that we actively monitor the situation. As I said, the group will meet every month, and we will get reports on staff training and our ability to meet the deadlines. I would hope that, if things were not going to plan, we would find that out early and be able to provide assistance or guidance, even if resources were required. I would hope that that would happen well ahead of a situation in which we had to think about stop-go.

Phil Leeks might want to add something.

I have in front of me some definitions and the schedules that they relate to. Waste feedstock permit level activity is set out in proposed new schedule 20 to the 2018 regulations, as inserted by schedule 11 to the amendment regulations, while permit level activity for non-waste feedstock is set out in proposed new schedule 26 to the 2018 regulations, as inserted by schedule 17 to the amendment regulations. SEPA determines the environmental limits. I hope that that is helpful.

I am trying to give you as much information as possible, but I think that SEPA is, as Phil Leeks has said, the determining body as to whether something is waste or non-waste. That is the discussion that it is having at the moment with the Scotch Whisky Association.

Not really. The reduction of ammonia emissions has been incorporated into existing codes of practice; for example, there is the “Prevention of Environmental Pollution From Agricultural Activity”. Instead of having a completely different document and code of practice, we have brought ammonia emissions into an existing code of practice. That work has been done.