Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am hopeful that it will make a difference. The SRUC has a very good reputation in the work that it does with land managers to bring forward innovative practices that are good for the environment.

Again, you have touched on something that is quite niche, for which I do not have a specific answer. I need to find out more about that, but SEPA would be able to advise on whether it is something that it wants me to look at. It is something that I will need to take away, convener.

The oversight group reports to me. Given that, I imagine that decisions would be taken as a result of advice coming to me about any issues that might arise. I am confident that that will not happen, though, because governance arrangements have been put in place. The group has met ahead of the regulations coming into force. Its members know that scrutiny and oversight will be regular and that actions will be associated with every meeting that takes place. A report will come to me about progress on that, too.

Although, of course, SEPA will be able to give greater detail on the operational aspects of what it is doing.

A great deal of work has been done on odour in general in the past decade, particularly as a result of a couple of reports that came to ministers more than 10 years ago. The committee will be aware that a lot of the odour is associated with waste water treatment. Scottish Water has been undertaking a comprehensive process to improve the waste treatment centres, and it is using new technologies that reduce odour and have better environmental outcomes.

I highly recommend visiting one of Scottish Water’s new treatment centres, of which there are a few. They use a bacterial digestion process, so the waste water coming in is the only point in the process where you will smell anything. I have been to quite a few of those centres, as you can imagine, in my capacity as cabinet secretary. Very quickly, the bacterial digestion systems eliminate odour, so there have been a lot fewer complaints from anyone in the vicinity.

With regard to how the regulations relate to odour, if a member of the public detects any odour, they would initially, as always, contact their local authority. If the odour results from an activity of which SEPA has oversight, the local authority would get in touch with SEPA. By the process of reporting to the local authority, and the local authority then contacting SEPA, if there was excessive odour associated with any activity that was in breach of any of the regulations, SEPA would be monitoring that.

The activities that are authorised under these regulations include sewage treatment, which is regulated by SEPA, with the Scottish Government providing guidance on it. The definition of “pollution” in the regulations includes

“the ... introduction ... of substances ... into air, water or land which may ... cause offence to any human sense”.

That includes odour.

We hope that, as a result of bringing all those aspects into one instrument, any new activities that may have odour associated with them are now brought within the scope of the regulations and should not cause excessive offence to the senses, as the regulations set out.

As I said, however, that is happening not just as a result of the regulations. Targeted work has been done on processes around sewage in particular to reduce odour, largely as a result of investment by Scottish Water in its waste treatment works, but also resulting from the rapid acceleration in technology associated with the treatment of sewage.

I am just having a little confab with my officials around that.

If councils are looking for specific guidance on the matter, we could produce that in order to make it clear.

I hope that my message would be that SEPA should be working directly with that particular company and ensuring that it assists it in every way to come up to the required standards.

I do not agree that this is retrospective regulation. Regulations come into place when issues come up that need to be looked at. Consider vaping, for example. That is an innovation that has happened, but the UK and Scotland are now looking at rules associated with the harms that it causes.

So, this is not changing the goalposts; it is regulating and making sure that we have the tightest environmental and health controls on everything that is possible. It is not regulation for its own sake.

Again, that is operational stuff for SEPA, convener. [Interruption.] Oh, I do have that information.

I have a couple of things to say in response to that. I will deal first with the questions around the on-going discussions between the whisky industry and SEPA.

Effectively, in order to create a level playing field, we are bringing AD plants that use non-waste feedstocks into the scope of existing regulations on those that use waste feedstocks. Operators who use waste feedstocks are used to the existing regulations. SEPA is in discussion with non-waste AD operators—it is communicating and engaging with them. As I said, that communication is important. Due to the simplification of the regime and the digital interface for applications, there will be heightened communication with the sectors that will be covered by the regulations.

Regardless of whether feedstocks are classified as waste or non-waste, there is always a risk in the operation of an AD plant that contaminants could get into the environment, which is why the regulations are being tightened to level the playing field. The Government has not reclassified AD feedstocks; it has used the definitions from the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 and waste management licensing.

You are right that there have been stakeholder concerns. There is anxiety about having to do something new, and anything that stakeholders have not had to deal with before will present an administrative challenge that they would rather not have to manage. SEPA will phase in the changes in recognition of the fact that some operators have not had to comply with the regulations before—obviously, that is an operational aspect that SEPA can discuss—and there will also be flexibility about the appropriate level of authorisation. For example, a waste AD plant in which the activity threshold is more than 100 tonnes would have to apply the best available techniques standard. Everything will be proportionate to the size of the plant. SEPA is mindful of the concerns and is engaging specifically with the whisky industry, because a lot of anaerobic digestion is associated with its stock.

Under the regulations, non-waste and waste feedstocks that are used in anaerobic digestion will have the same rules, so there will be no risk of contamination—or the risk of contamination will be monitored, identified and regulated.