Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, convener, for the invitation to attend today’s session. I will take the next couple of minutes to put on record the context for this large and quite complex instrument.

The aim of the instrument is to amend the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018 to bring three existing environmental regulatory regimes—industrial emissions, waste, and water—into the framework provided by the 2018 regulations. That will provide an integrated regime for the four main environmental regimes regulated by SEPA in Scotland. At the same time, the instrument will revoke various secondary pieces of legislation relating to environmental permitting in their entirety, greatly simplifying the statute book.

In 2017, the Scottish Government consulted on a single integrated authorisation framework for environmental regulation. Stakeholders were widely supportive of the basis of the proposal. The regulations then set up the framework and brought radioactive substances activities within its scope. The intention, at that time, was to bring other environmental regulatory regimes within scope in the future. At the start of 2024, the Scottish Government consulted on fulfilling that intention. Again, it had wide support. At the same time as adding those three activities to the framework, the instrument will change or introduce regulation for some sectors that were not covered previously.

Based on the recommendations in the “Review of the storage and spreading of sewage sludge on land in Scotland” in 2016, the instrument also amends the regulation of the sewage sludge to land regime.

The instrument will also bring three new activities within scope: non-waste anaerobic digestion; carbon capture, utilisation and storage; and smaller generators of electricity that are not currently regulated. The introduction of those three new activities will provide a level playing field in those sectors and ensure that environmental risks are appropriately managed.

The instrument also makes limited policy changes to the current regulation of environmental activities to improve the functioning of regulation. At this time, I am not extending that to cover other activities in which I know that the committee has an interest. Work is on-going to better understand emissions of ammonia from livestock farms and battery energy storage systems, the impact of any potential regulation and the best way to regulate those particular sectors.

The overriding purpose of the instrument is to simplify SEPA’s environmental regulatory regime. The changes that I have highlighted will maintain alignment with European Union legislation and ensure compatibility, and will improve the 2018 regulations. By streamlining SEPA’s regulatory regime, the instrument will contribute to the improvement and efficiency of Scotland’s public services.

We are not saying that these activities are highly risky, but we are bringing them into scope so that they are regulated, that there are no issues and that there are guidelines. Obviously, the structure that exists for other sectors applies to them as well.

It is a long-held objective of the Government and SEPA to have an integrated authorisation. We are making the process and the regime simpler for people to follow when they apply for particular permits or notify SEPA of their activities. That will provide greater environmental protection and simplify and streamline SEPA’s regulatory functions.

SEPA will be able to take a more targeted and risk-based approach to regulation, focusing on the operators and activities that present the greatest risk. Having a tightly regulated landscape for all those sectors, so that operators understand the guidelines, frees up SEPA to interrogate some of the riskier activities to prevent environmental harm. I hope that the committee would agree that SEPA is largely there to prevent harm and limit the consequences of accidents, and that it should use its resources for that.

The fact that we are bringing some new activities into scope means that there will be the same environmental protections in relation to any risk that is associated with those new or currently unregulated activities.

On the whole, it is a case of making SEPA more efficient, giving it the space to be more proactive in taking targeted action and simplifying the regulations so that they cover more sectors. The result of all that will be that we will protect the environment.

Yes. As you said, the initial target date for implementation of the sludge to land regulations is 1 November this year. We have set up a governance group with SEPA for exactly the reasons that you have set out: we need to check that the milestones are met and that preparations are made. The governance group includes key SEPA personnel to ensure that SEPA is on track to deliver all the changes by those dates, to implement the regulations effectively and to communicate them effectively to various stakeholders.

The group is meeting monthly, and its first meeting was a few weeks ago, so a meeting has already taken place. If the committee wants to see the group’s terms of reference, we can provide them.

As I understand it, the delivery of digital services will be phased over the next year. The governance group will be looking at that aspect to ensure that the website pages are up to date, that the rules, advice and codes of practice are easily accessible, that the new conditions with which people will need to comply are available and that the new service manages the volume of applications as a result of the instrument. The target date for implementation of the first set of regulations—the sludge to land ones—is 1 November.

I definitely do not have that information in front of me just now, but we can do an assessment of that. SEPA will be aware of the exact number, and we can certainly get it to the committee, but I do not have it in the information that is in front of me. I am looking at my officials, and I do not believe that they have it either.

No, I am afraid not. It was too good to be true.

If that is the feedback from anaerobic digestion companies and operators, I will take it away and put it directly to SEPA myself.

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.