 zitulm. Welcome to the 27th meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for 2020. I am not seeing any feed on the televisions. Can we rectify that before we go any further? Thank you. The first item on the agenda is consideration from the committee whether to take items four and five in private. 4 i 5 mae gydag cyfrifion ffordd iawn ar hyn mae'n ffordd iawn yn fawr. Dwi'n fawr gydagやwnaeth i ff güwfadau yma? Dw i'r Gwladach? Fawr. Fawr, dwi'n fawr, wrth i'r ff güwfadau. Yr wrth gydag iawn ar y gydag iawn y cyfrifion i gydag sy'n cilydd gaeleniaf y mwyfadau Gwladach. Fyrwch â'na unrhyw o'r ll deedu yn hanfodol i'r gwaith iawn. Yr ystod, yr Ysgol gyfo'r byddiedeg i'r是這樣g mor hwn yn ynnrut o conf kullaniad Cafll Williams pethau. I welcome our pan eliminated Joe Greene, the acting chief executive of the Scotland Environmental Protection Agencyiego and John Kerr, the operations manager of protected areas information and data from NatureScotcfryd, both of who are joining us remotely. Robert the chief executive of environmental standard Scotland who joins us in the room. Thank you all for accepting the invitation to attend today. Members will ask questions in turn and it certainly would help members, broadcasting members, if you could direct your question to a specific person on the panel or set out a running order for answering. Just before we go to the first question, I am going to ask the first question and it's going to be to Joe. Joe Seaper struggled at the beginning of last year and during the course of this year with data breaches, which gave immense problems with their computer systems. Before we go any further, could you just bring us up to speed on how Seaper have resolved that and if you feel you are working online and back to your previous form? Yes, good morning and hello to the committee. Yes, we were the subject of a significant and very sophisticated cyber attack Christmas Eve 2020 and it was a very serious attack. We are in recovery from that. I think what's fair to say is we had some fairly quick recovery early on so we immediately were able to reinstate services like our flood warnings, really critical services in Scotland. We had some early recovery and then what we also decided to do is not simply build back all the old systems that we had but build a new and so develop new systems for the future. In the early months, we regularly provided service updates so that people could understand the services that we were able to deliver. Our services are being delivered as we speak. We've got a lot more build back to do in terms of new systems. At the moment, it's a bit inefficient working because we don't have the modern new systems that we need and so we're still in that process. Joe, just to follow up slightly on that with two further questions. One is you obviously lost a significant amount of data, much of which I'm understood cannot be recovered. Is that delaying the your ability as an agency to respond to requests for information in all the spheres you operate on or are you past that? Immediately after the attack, we had little access to data, so spot on, but we've made really good progress on data recovery. It's been hard work recovering all of that in a very detailed effort, but we've made really good progress on data recovery. I think that we're over 85 per cent now in terms of the data that we've recovered. Just on that, are you feeling that you are responding as quickly to request to information from your agency that you were prior to December 2020, or are you still behind? One of the challenges that we had was around accessing our old records in order to be able to respond to things like Freedom of Information requests. That's one of the service areas where it was most challenging. Again, we're making no progress on that backlog. If the committee wants, I can write them and just stop. I know we're the most up-to-date position on that, but we're in a much better position than we were, which was very difficult. I think, Joe, rather than push that, I'm going to go to Mark Ruskell for some questions in a minute, but if I could just say, I think it would be helpful if you could brief the committee in a letter on exactly where you are on that. I'm a farmer and I hear things from farmers and landowners as well that CEPA are still struggling to provide the information that they require, so it would be helpful to have that confirmed or not confirmed in a letter, whichever the answer is. Joe, do you want to come back on that? No, just say, really happy to set that out. I'm not painting a picture where everything is rosy. You know, it was a hugely difficult attack on us, and so that recovery and build is still underway, but we'll write to the committee on the points that you've raised, so thank you. Thank you, Joe. The next questions come from Mark Ruskell. Mark. Thanks. I think it's fair to say that we could be seeing a bonfire of EU environmental law in the months and years ahead due to the retained EU law bill, which is currently working its way through Westminster. Can I ask each of you in your respective roles within your organisations, what work are your organisations doing to consider what the impacts of that bill might be, and also the work in terms of looking at which laws should be saved, which laws could be legitimately replaced, and what the impacts might be? Can I turn to NatureScot to start with, please? John. Yes, hi. To be honest, we're very just getting to grips now with what this revocation of EU law bill actually means. We've only just started looking at it in the last couple of weeks. From our perspective, clearly the habitat regulations are key for protected area work that we do, which has come from Europe. It also has elements of species protection in there, for example European protected species. The other key piece of legislation, which is rarely used in Scotland but is quite key from Europe is the environmental liability regulations, which implement the environmental liability directive, which is the political and participates principle. We, along with SEPA, are key investigators under that piece of legislation. The key one, as I say, is the Habitat for Eggs implementing the birds and habitats directives. As they are written currently in Scotland, as across the rest of the UK, they still implement the obligations of the directives. That has been a great benefit following our exit from the EU. We don't see any need to drop that. We're starting to look at the overall implications. The sunset clause is quite challenging. However, I understand the ability for some key regulations to be restated. The implication that we're concerned about is that that takes up quite a lot of parliamentary time, which is, prospectively, dedicated to other pieces of legislation that would help us to achieve, for example, addressing the nature and climate emergencies. I'm thinking many in terms of the natural environment bill and also the agriculture bill that's coming through in the Scottish Malampers as well. Those are key concerns for us. That gets in the way of us looking forward rather than just having to tidy up something that is prospectively coming from Westminster. So have you set up a special unit to look at this or what are the results? We have, Richard. What are the 517 environmental laws that could potentially be covered by this bill? We haven't been in NHS Scott yet, but we will no doubt be speaking to the Scottish Government as well. We are also involving the deference and natural England in doing a lot of this work. We are involved and I'm involved in various UK interagency groups, also with devolved administrations, so we are keeping tabs with our colleagues out of the border as well on which of these are on this work. I think it's only just started in Deffory as well over the last summer, although apparently they did do quite a lot of the work for the green paper that they released in the spring as well. Okay, thanks. Can I get a view from Joe Greene, please? Joe, you're live. Thank you, yes. It's got currently enough detail to understand the implications of the retain EU law bill per seaper's work. Currently, many of our environmental laws that we operate under have their origins in EU directives, so our statutory purpose is to protect and improve the environment and contribute to social and economic success. We seek to deliver effectively in the laws that are set by the UK and Scottish Governments. That is a general point. We would expect no loosening of environmental standards in terms of whatever it is I'm taking for, because that isn't going to help Scotland tackle climate biodiversity emergencies and the complexity and environmental challenges that we face, so non-regression. We also want to see sufficient flexibility in any approaches that are developed to reflect and respect the Scottish position. As I say, it's difficult at this point, because there's no detail in that bill in terms of what it will look like. Clearly, as that detail becomes available, we'll work with Scottish and UK Governments on that and look at what the implications of that are. Thank you. Are there any areas that you're looking at at the moment within seaper? Any areas of concern? This is really for Government, and we'll work with Scottish Government colleagues on this. In terms of the actual frameworks, it's more around the common frameworks. It's like best available techniques, radioactive substances, emissions trading, so we're quite actively involved in the common frameworks at this stage and a number of areas, but less on that retained EU law bill, because, as I said, there's not much detail for us to get a grasp of at the moment. Okay, that's a lot of uncertainty. Can I get a view from ESS? Mark, thank you. Good morning. I'm going to echo much of what Joe and John have said. Part of ESS's remit is to look at the effectiveness of environmental law, so obviously this proposed legislation is very, very significant. We're actively monitoring the bill's progress at Westminster. We're in regular discussion with our counterparts south of the border, the Office of Environmental Protection in terms of their work, monitoring what's going on, because it obviously affects UK-wide. We're speaking to Scottish Government colleagues about how they're planning to handle that within the devolved context. I would emphasise what John said about the scale and timetable being particularly challenging, both in terms of time that the Government will have to deal with that and also in terms of Parliament's time, in terms of scrutinising any changes to the legislation that will come on, given the current timetable that has been set out. Within ESS, we will be looking at particular pieces of legislation and regulations in the context of our on-going monitoring work. John mentioned the habitats regulations, obviously very, very critical for biodiversity and nature loss, and that's going to be a key priority for us in the near future. Again, to echo what Joe said, there's still a lot of uncertainty about exactly what will be involved in this, but it will be key for us. However, it manifests itself in terms of our work in the future. Have you had any indication of when there may be more certainty? The simple answer to that is no. Okay. Okay. Is that you finished, Mark? Okay, come in. Yep. Yep. Thank you. Sorry, two marks. It's confusing. Thank you, Mark Roberts, for answering it, and thank you, Mark Ruskell, for confirming that that's you finished. So, we'll move on to the next question, which comes from Monica. Thank you, convener, and thank you, panel. I'm really interested to hear those answers. In terms of trying to drill down to get some examples, which I know won't be easy, I'm just wondering how the potential divergence in environmental standards across the UK might impact ability to tackle cross-border environmental issues or undermine the effectiveness of initiatives in Scotland. If you can maybe touch on some examples that could help the committee, maybe start with John in doing and come to you, Mark. We don't have many cross-border cases in terms of our work, in terms of protected areas or protected species work. There are only three cross-border European sites, TICs and SPIs, two of which are marine, the Solway and Berwickshire North and the Thumblin Coast, and the Tweedus, the third one. In terms of our actual day-to-day case work, cross-border work is a very, very small part of it. However, having a regulatory divergence across the border won't help certain decision makers, it won't help competent authorities and any developers. An example might be, for example, the offshore wind developments in Scotland, where a grid connection might be in England. That's an inevitable consequence of having two Administrations involved in a scheme like that. We have a degree of cross-border divergence already for our triple size suite. We've got slightly different legislation on each side of the border. There are other areas of slight divergence. I have already mentioned environmental liability regulations that are different in England as well. They are very subtly different, but there are already instances where the legislation on one side of the border or the processes on one side of the border are slightly different to the other side. As I said, it doesn't really cause us at the moment a huge amount of difficulty. It's a matter of having those sort of communication links with our counterparts on the other side of the border. On divergence, as a practitioner environment agency, we are already familiar with working within two systems, if that makes sense at that UK level. UK regulations like transfer to a shipment of waste and what is primarily involved in environmental matters in Scotland. We're used to working at a practical level at both that UK and Scottish level. As John mentioned, your divergence isn't something new. Scotland chose a strategic environmental assessment to take a broader scope for that in Scotland than elsewhere. Divergence isn't new in that context. It comes down to us working with agencies and other bodies across the UK on a practical basis to make this work as well as we can. A key interest is making sure that we can simply effectively and practically apply environmental law. There is a complexity piece for businesses that are operating across the UK. There is clarity for people who are being regulated around what they need to comply with. That point is about having sufficient time to adapt if there are changes coming through. It is more at that practical level, but divergence isn't something that is brand new to us as a regulator. Thank you, Jo. I can just maybe press you with a supplementary. Do you think that there will be any resourcing implications? You've talked about some of the practicalities. It sounds like more of an operational issue. Would that require additional resource in your view? There are some resource implications for the SEPA arising from EU exits. That relates to the common frameworks. There is a need for us to provide more advice and input to Scottish Government on technical areas to support their policy development in those areas, which reflects their role now in areas such as emissions trading. That is a new need for us to provide that expert advice to Governments in Scotland and the UK. Before that, that would have been done at that European level. There is more pressure on technical expertise in that context. Thank you for that, Mark. Thank you. Yes, as John Jo has said, that regulatory divergence exists, but there is potential for there to be greater regulatory divergence in the future. We will quickly get into hypothetical situations about what might happen. I think that we have said in our letter to the committee that we are very supportive of the establishment of that common framework mechanism as a way of resolving potential difficulties. It remains to be seen how well that is going to operate in practice, but it is very encouraging that those mechanisms are in place. In terms of cross-border activities, John mentioned that there are specific areas in terms of protected areas that operate across borders. We also naturally have two river basins that operate across the Scottish English border in terms of the tweed and the soulway. That is an area where there is potential, where we could conceivably do work with, as I mentioned in my previous answer to Mark Ruskell, work that we could do with our counterparts in the Office of Environmental Protection in England and Northern Ireland. We have a memorandum of understanding with them, but that would be very much dependent on whether we collectively felt that there was a case for doing that. However, that mechanism is there and is available for us. My next question is aimed at CPAT and NatureScots. I will return to John and Joe for that. It is really just to ask in your view or CPAT and NatureScots view in terms of the current system of environmental assessment. Can you advise the committee if you believe that it is fit for purpose at the moment and just to get us a further steer on that? Will you come to Joe first? I think that there is slight delay with blue jeans at the moment, which is affected, which is shown on our WhatsApp as well. Joe, I do not know if you heard that question and whether you picked it up, but you are under the microscope now. I caught the tail end of it. Was this on environmental assessments? Yes. Joe, hi, it is Moni Cillard. Again, it is to ask CPAT's view of environmental assessment as it is currently and whether it remains fit for purpose. I understood the question. On the current system of environmental assessments, basically, yes, but always open for discussions around how that approach can be improved. We are a statutory consultee for environmental impact and strategic environmental assessments. It is important that we protect Scotland's environment and that it requires for all developments plans and decisions that may lead to significant impact on the environment. It is important to recognise that there are also mature processes that are well understood by both developers and regulators. We are always open to approaches that make assessments simpler, but as long as it does not reduce the outcomes that it achieves from that. Any changes should be at least commensurate with environmental standards and protections that are afforded by the current approach to assessments. If it is not clear—I know that it is part 5 of the legislation—it is not clear what the change proposed might be and how the new approach on environmental outcomes report might work, so it is difficult to express a view on the future at this stage. At least the assessments and the current approach are well known and well understood, so any change again just needs to be clear. If you were to make recommendations to Parliament about how it could be improved, do you have any suggestions in that space? In terms of the current approaches, no, it has been one of working within this for a while now. I can check in with colleagues and come back on that point. We are always open to improvements. There is just about uncertainty around what improvements are looking to be driven by the new approach in terms of environmental outcomes reports. Can I put some questions to John in terms of the naturescore perspective? Broadly, I would echo what Joe has just said. The current provisions for EIA, SEA and also habitat regulations and appraisals are well understood, and they are broadly fit for purpose. Joe has always said that we are always open to various improvements, so one of the criticisms that could come from about EIA is just to do with proportionality. There is a tendency quite often for very, very long environmental reports to be produced, which must cost a lot of money for some developers. We as regulators then have to work our way through. There is a lot of time and work involved in that, which is fine for the right development, but maybe not for every single proposal that comes along. Most of the changes that we might suggest are really just in the implementation rather than any sort of legislative fix. The schemes of the British are generally very well understood. I have seen others saying that there is quite a large industry of consultants producing such reports. That is a good thing. It means that generally speaking, the quality that regulators have to look at is generally pretty good. That is helpful. Thank you, John. I think that the convener wants to pass back in the interest of time. We are going to come to the deputy convener next. Fiona, your questions. Thank you and good morning. I first come to John Kerr from NatureScot. I do want to focus on the new system of environmental outcome reports. You have already indicated that we do not have much detail on what will be in section 5 on this area. What would be the positives of an environmental outcome reports system and what would you anticipate being the negatives and how that might affect your role in the process? After I have come to John Kerr, I will ask the same question of Joe Greene. John Kerr, please. Positives. I think that for EIA and SCA, it could be quite positive to have an outcome to be aiming for in terms of the report that is produced. The current system produces quite a detailed analysis of impact, but there is no fixed outcome. There is an outcome within the HRA process because, for an appropriate assessment, it must be carried out in relation to conservation objectives that are set for each protected habitat and species of relevant site. That does have an ultimate outcome of achieving favorable conservation status. For EIA and SCA, there is not such an outcome. The negatives, I do not think that you will be surprised to hear me say that it is the uncertainty. We do not know the detail of what these regulations will finally give us. There are a lot of rather vague provisions that allow the Secretary of State to do all sorts of stuff, which we do not quite know yet how far they will be taken, either this time or into the future. Having said that, some of the existing regimes might be retained. In section 129, it suggests that some of them might be retained. Adding additional assessment against an outcome is an extra assessment into the whole process, so it makes the whole process a bit longer. At the moment, that is as far as we can really take it because we do not know the detail of what changes might happen. The other point to make is that there is quite a lot of provisions in that part only relate to English legislation and English provisions. There would have to be some significant changes made, otherwise it would not really make much sense for a Scottish perspective. There is a little detail about the potential new approach at this stage and what might be expected in these environmental outcome reports. The definition of outcomes is clearly a really important aspect, but there is no detail on that. It is quite tricky to express a view. Again, just any replacement should provide for a most effective evidence-based approach that provides consenting authorities, consulties and effective communities with clear information about the environmental impacts of a proposal. It is coming back to the point that in some key areas of environmental protection Scotland is more ambitious and progressive. We have seen that in the 2045 net zero target, so we just want to see sufficient flexibility in any new approach to reflect and respect Scottish positions. That is both a potential negative and a positive, depending on how that pans out. One of the negatives is just around the uncertainty and the potential complexity. If changes are coming that are sufficiently clear and sufficient notice is given to be able to adapt to it as well. Can I stay with Joe Greene and just ask how that might affect SEPA's role in the process? Obviously, you are guardians of the environment for Scotland. Do you feel that you would have enough control within this new system? What consultation has the UK Government undertaken with you to discuss the plans to implement the new outcome-based system in Scotland? I am not aware of any consultation by the UK Government of the detail of that. Clearly, we have a strong interest, given our formal role in the statutory consultee role in the current environmental assessment approaches. We have a real interest in that. That is just the uncertainty of how that will pan out in terms of new approaches. John Greene can ask you how you think that that might affect your role and what kind of consultation has the UK Government done with NatureScot to discuss the new outcome-based system as it would apply to Scotland? Like Joe Greene, we have not had any consultation from the UK Government at all about that. Interestingly, when I was scrutinising it again this morning, I could not see anything in the proposed legislation that would include statutory consultees being part of the EOR regime. I think that there is something slightly vague about other public bodies being involved, but there is no explicit requirement for a statutory consultee. That might change depending on how regulations are finally formulated. However, we would expect, as we are a statutory consultee under EIA, SEA and HRA processes, to remain as a statutory consultee under whatever new process comes along. However, at the moment, we cannot really see for sure what our role would be. We would hope to be involved in setting environmental outcomes, but that is not explicit in the legislation, either. Of course, it just talks about consulting Scottish ministers and not seeking consent, so that might be an issue that can be in the conscious of time that you might want to take up further. However, I will hand back to the convener at this point. Thank you very much, Fiona. Jackie, you have a question that you would like to ask now, Jackie. Good morning, panel. I was going to ask a question regarding the consultation, but I think that that was covered in Fiona's last questions and the answers given. If I could maybe just ask Joe and John what involvement SEPA and NatureScot have had with the development of the environmental common frameworks and what that entails moving forward. If I can go to Joe first, please. Yes, thank you. This is an area in which we have been more actively involved. We are used to working across the UK, as I mentioned before, both at that Scottish and UK level in terms of that joint working, so we are already under the EU doing that as well. In terms of the common frameworks, we have a number of roles and mechanisms that support that joint up working. Some example would be on radioactive substances where a core member of the radioactive substances policy group is established in September 2018 and provides a forum for the review and development proposals for change with respect to policy, strategies, legislation, regulatory standards and a good practice on radioactive substances. It is a forum that provides national oversight and facilitates the exchange of information exchange abuse on this policy area. That is not a decision making body. We are a practitioner, but we have a number of these roles across a number of the areas. The best available techniques would be another example. Across the common frameworks, there are roles to seepa in terms of different groups and networks that we engage with. Then we operate under those common frameworks. An example of that would be on the UK emissions trading scheme. We have worked in collaboration with the Scottish Government, UK Government, the other devolved administrations and regulatory bodies to plan, consult and implement the UK ETS in Scotland since 2018. We are a member of a number of working groups to facilitate that. Seepa supports the Scottish Government through the change of governance around the UK emissions trading scheme, which was previously a reserved matter. It helps to support that smooth transition for around 100 operators, including aviation operators, which are covered by the scheme in Scotland from the EU ETS into the UK ETS in 2021. That is just an example of what we are doing at a more practical level under the common frameworks as well. Thank you. That sounds like an awful lot to be getting on without, I would say. We haven't been involved at all in any of these, because none of those areas of common frameworks really cover our remit. Seepa has been the lead for all of that. Thank you. I would like to change a topic somewhat to water quality and sewage overflows. Joe Greene, only 10 per cent of sewage overflows are monitored in Scotland as against 80 per cent in England. Can you tell the committee why you believe that there is that disparity and whether you believe that that should be changed? Thank you. On combined sewer outflows, in general, Seepa has made significant progress in improving rivers over the past 20 years and a wide range of pressures through targeted regulation and partnership work. In 2,000 Scottish water courses, a class as higher good under the water framework directive, combined sewer outflows, an integral part of Scotland's sewage system, designed to discharge at times of a rainfall to prevent sewage backing up in flooding houses and seepa regulates discharges to the environment, including discharges from CSOs. However, your climate change is leading to an increased frequency of high-intensity rainfall events. There is a risk that the number of unsatisfactory sewer outflows may progressively increase. It will be neither effective nor, in some cases, feasible for Scottish waters to continue to build bigger pipes and storage tanks for combined sewer flows under the ground. As a result, we are working with local councils and Scottish water. The new approach is to managing rainfall, which uses blue-green infrastructure to absorb rainfall, reduce flood risk and minimise sewer overflow spills. That is the bigger picture around all that. In more detail, about taking a targeted and prioritised approach in Scotland, there is over 3,667 combined sewer outflows in the 50,000 kilometres. Forgive me for interrupting. My question might not have been translated, because I asked very specifically about the 10 per cent of sewage outflows that are monitored, which is markedly less than is being monitored in England. Do you know why there is that disparity? Why is it only 10 per cent of outflows that we are monitoring? Is it your view that we should be monitoring many more? That is important. In December 2021, Scottish Water published a route map for improving urban waters. As part of the route map, Scottish Water is committed to installing approximately 1,000 monitors on the network and treatment work of the CSOs to discharge into the highest priority waters. It is about that approach in terms of prioritisation. That will improve the understanding of how the CSOs are operating and will provide transparent information on their performance. Overall, Scottish Water is currently responsible for 3,667 CSOs of which 34 are being monitored. The improvement is about that prioritised approach to monitoring. However, if only 10 per cent of outflows are monitored, we already know that, since 2017, the amount of outflows has increased by 70 per cent to around 563,000 hours. Does that suggest that the problem of sewage outflows is far worse than the data currently suggests? I think that we already have data on that. There is an outline of a lot of work going planned to improve monitoring up to 1,340 monitoring. Every time, we will have better information as well. John Kerr, sticking with the same topic, it was reported in October in the courier that raw sewage had been pumped into Loch Leven. NatureScot, at the time, called that a serious pollution incident. The report had asked the minister for a response, but she appears to have declined, and a spokesman talked about historic investment and some general on-going investment. Given that incident and the statistics that I just put to Joe Greene, isn't NatureScot's view that this issue is not being taken seriously enough? Is it your view that anything will change? I am not completely familiar with that incident at Loch Leven, although it is a particular area where, historically, there has been quite a lot of pollution affecting quite a vulnerable protected area and also a national nature reserve that we have quite a lot of involvement with. I cannot really answer the specifics of your question, but we can maybe come back to the committee on that if necessary. It is not an area that I am familiar with. I wonder if I might slightly rephrase it then. NatureScot called this a serious pollution incident. Does NatureScot think that we are getting this right in Scotland in terms of sewage overflows? Given that there has been a 70 per cent increase in overflows in the past five years, does NatureScot not have serious concerns about that? We do not see an impact on our protected areas that we are involved in monitoring all that often. Loch Leven is a bit of an exception to that. We do not have a lot of information about the effects that this has on protected species. We have not really got a firm view on the effect of that on our interests. Some might suggest that the lack of information is due to only 10 per cent being monitored, but no doubt the committee will discuss that. Mark Roberts, ESS has set out several priorities and carried out eight baseline evidence reviews. Do those baseline evidence reviews incorporate your priorities of progress on climate change adaptation, including planning for extreme weather events? Or do they incorporate to assess sewage discharge into the aquatic environment? If not, when do you anticipate doing those baselines? You are absolutely right. Those reviews of the evidence across the range of our remit is something that we did and published during the course of the last year. Yes, the impact of sewage on the aquatic environment will be one of our priorities for work in terms of looking at what is going on. We are engaging with Joe's colleagues at SEPA and also with colleagues in Scottish Water to look at what data is available, and that will be one of the priorities that we are taking forward. Obviously, the overlap with the impact of changing climate and changing rainfall regimes will form a part of that, so that is quite a long answer to yes. Final question from me, convener. Is there an issue with basing those reviews on publicly available data only, given, for example, the difference or the lack of sewage overflow data that we examined earlier on? That is something that we want to explore with, for example, Scottish Water in terms of whether there was any additional data that they did have in terms of their longer-term monitoring or greater range of monitoring that they could look at. We will also be speaking to SEPA as well in terms of prioritisation of where in the most vulnerable and sensitive water environments to look at. It is an ongoing piece of work for us in terms of exploring what the full range of available data is. You may have some further questions on a slightly different subject. Before you come to those, if I could just ask a question to Joe Greene on this. Joe, I think that the sewage discharge is quite an interesting one. Did SEPA lose all their records, or do they have any records of every single sewage discharge in a watercourse in Scotland? Because they did collect that data, do you have it? Can you publish it and do you monitor it? That is a very specific question, convener. I will take that away and come back to the committee on that as a committee to do on data more generally as well. There are just some questions on changing weather and extreme weather conditions. I just wanted to know with SEPA and NatureScot how you are monitoring and reacting to the extreme weather conditions, because we seem to get massive downfalls of rain that overloads every single system and watercourse. As we got in this summer periods of drought, my understanding that a lot of the water abstraction notices and restrictions that were placed on were placed on because in some cases water was being transferred from one catchment to another based on 1953 legislation. Perhaps you could just talk to me very briefly and explain to the committee very briefly if you think the abstraction from watercourses is as an operating effective with these extreme weather conditions and whether we should be reviewing them to take into account extreme droughts. Maybe I could start with John on that and then come to Joe. Thank you, convener. Again, that is a quite specific question. I have not been involved in any of that. We don't routinely monitor at that sort of level the impact of extreme weather on, for example, protected habitats and species. We have had a couple of cases where extreme weather has impacted on, for example, freshwater permusles with water levels dropping or salmon trying to enter rivers and the impacts that could have during extreme low water and high temperature. That has led to a couple of cases where we have had to see what emergency works we can tackle. However, as far as water transfer between catchments is concerned, that is not something that we have much experience of. I think that is something that CEPRs will know more about. Joe, just before I come to you, I will make it clear that the reason why I have an interest in this and the knowledge of this is because I know that 40 per cent of the river spay is abstracted and sent down to Fort William, which puts extreme pressure on the water resources of which I benefit. I will make no bones about it, but it provides water for drinking water for the lower parts of the spay catchment. Where we had water levels that were so low this year, that was almost impossible to do. I am wondering if you are on top of the abstractions and whether you think that the old legislation relating to them is right in today's modern age. On water scarcity, climate change has dried since 1940 in the east. We are excited to experience the impacts of climate change. CEPRs manage water scarcity events in line with Scotland's national water scarcity plan, which is based around five levels that are informed by our monitoring network with action within those different levels. In terms of the severe water scarcity that we experience, we are moving into suspending abstractions. There is quite an unprecedented situation over the summer in Scotland, but it is at that severe end that we start to suspend abstractions. As a general point, those conditions will become more frequent and more severe. England is more used to managing that type of weather. The key message on the back of that is the resilience of businesses, the resilience within catchments, the storage of water, the efficient use of water and the ability to do more to join up with catchments to share water. From this summer, there is a lot of learning for a lot of people in terms of how we approach things in the future and that resilience. That is the first time that Scotland has really faced that on that scale. The first time, I think that Job is in 1978 when we had that very dry summer or 76, I can never remember which year it was, but we have had catchment management plans for 12 years, as far as I am aware, and it appears that they are not moving forward. Maybe we can develop that conversation later. I am going to go to the next question, which is from Monica. That was before I was born, convener, but maybe I shouldn't have said that. In my age. Thank you. I want to turn to a different issue now around waste. I want to ask the panel what are the key challenges and priorities for ensuring policy coherence in delivering waste targets and policies in the context of a wider shift to a circular economy and achieving net zero emissions? I might let Joe catch her breath. I do not know if Mark Roberts wants to answer, because I know that in the ESS strategic plan, as proposed, illegal disposal and management of waste and progress against waste and recycling targets and development of circular economy are in there. I might come to you first, Mark. Yes, very briefly. Again, it is one of the priority areas for monitoring and analytical work going forward into the future. We are also conscious that the Scottish Government is planning to introduce a circular economy bill in the near future, which will obviously change the governance arrangements around that. We will be keeping in very close contact with Scottish Government colleagues on that. I think that that is probably all I can say about it at the moment. We have not got any active plans to do any kind of investigatory work around waste, but it is part of one of the areas, as I said in response to Liam Kerr earlier, that we will be taking forward over the course of the next few years. That is helpful. We have had some discussion with the cabinet secretary about the illegal disposal of waste on quite a massive scale in terms of the role of organised crime as well. Is there anything that you would want to say to the committee about that? How much of a concern is that? Absolutely, there is a concern. Certainly, the way that it affects individual communities can be very significant. We will be drawing together a broader picture of what is going on within that area of policy. Of course, we can always respond to individual representations that came from individuals, organisations or communities if they wanted to come to us, and that would trigger us to do some investigatory work. It is good to know. Joe Greene, over to you. Yes, thank you. I am strongly supportive of a circular economy, and I will continue working with Government on that, because we see and manage the fallout of not having a circular economy. It cuts across a range of seepers' interests, as you know. One of which is that serious organised crime around illegal waste and illegal landfilling in Scotland. That has been a significant focus for us, and we will continue to need to be working with partners on that. That is a significant issue within Scotland. More broadly, we operate across a number of levels on that transition around landfilling in Scotland as well, with the Government on the development of the new deposit return scheme to support that circular economy. We work across a number of fronts on that. It is very strongly supportive of a circular economy and preventative approaches that could get a significant issue within Scotland. Sticking with Joe Greene for a second, Joe Greene will be aware that the amount of Scottish household waste landfilled in 2021 increased from the previous year. That was the first time in 10 years that there had not been a decrease in household waste landfilled. Are you able to give some explanation for that? I will come back to the committee on that, because that is okay on that specific point. That would be good. I do not know if NatureScot wants to give a view on that question. No, it does not really cover our core remit. Obviously, we would support the circular economy and any initiatives to prevent illegal dumping of waste. We do sit in some of our interests, but it is not core to our work. Just in a minute, I will bring in Mark Ruskell on a specific subject before I go on to finance with other committee members. I just wanted to be abundantly clear. My register of interest is clear. I farm in Spaside and I have an interest on a fishery on the River Spay, but my questions were more general than specifically about the Spay. There is no dubiety or questions about whether I have been clear. That is where my knowledge is. I will come to Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell, you have a particular question, I think. I think that a very welcome focus from ESS in its early work on air quality about whether we have the right monitoring frameworks in place, the right regulatory frameworks in place for tackling poor air quality. I noticed that one of the recommendations from that report mark was that there needs to be better monitoring, bodies that can monitor and then take very quick enforcement action where air quality limits are being breached. I just wanted to get your reflection on that and also the reflection of yourself, Joe, in terms of whether you see for having an active role in that. Is there an active conversation about how a remit of a body or bodies could be strengthened or changed as a result of that ESS recommendation? Mark Ruskell, can I go to you quickly for us the mentor, Joe? Thank you. The recommendations in our improvement report on air quality are under consideration by the Scottish Government at the moment. They have six months to come back to the Parliament in terms of what they are going to propose to do to respond to them. In terms of the monitoring body, we have not yet had those discussions with the Scottish Government in terms of what their options are and what their thoughts might be. Obviously, and I won't steal Joe's thunder, but obviously CEPR is one option for an organisation with strength and powers who could do that. I think that we need to work through those discussions between CEPR and the Scottish Government over the next few months. Joe, do you have any early thoughts on that? Yes. Obviously, to Mark, we are supporting the recommendations within the ESS report. Obviously, CEPR has had a significant role in terms of data and air quality in supporting local authorities and others on the low-emissions zones. As Mark said, it is something that needs to be explored. Okay, thanks. Thanks Mark. I'm going to come to Natalie and then followed by Fiona. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning panel. I've been waiting patiently. I'll direct my first question to Joe Greene and John Caire. I think the committee would be interested to know how reductions in budgets are impacting CEPR in natureScot at a time when they are required to take on additional regulatory and statutory functions resulting from EU exit and the demands of tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis. If I could go to John Caire first, please, on that. Yes, it's obviously always challenging. We continue to speak to the Scottish Government about our priorities for tackling the natural climate emergencies. That's obviously our core print priorities at the moment. It does mean that the budgetary situation of the coming years does mean that we are looking much more closely at, for example, how we can deliver some of our regulatory work, how we can better utilise staff on cases where we are properly adding value rather than just providing assurance to other competent authorities, for example. We're also trialling, for example, an online process using AI to help and to provide more advice and information about specific cases that hopefully will then take some of the pressure off some of our staff and also provide more clarity and more information to regulators and other developers. The whole purpose, therefore, is to try and better utilise our staff, as I say, and just be just a little bit more efficient. Yes, it is challenging. We've been lucky to secure additional funding for, for example, some of the people in action and for natural restoration funding, which is separate to our co-funding. However, as I said, we continue to speak to the Scottish Government about all of that. Thank you, John. If I could go to Joel next, thank you. Yes, on budgets, we're hugely conscious of the public sector-facing resource straints and also some uncertainty around that at the moment. You'll see there's not alone in that. For us for this year in terms of granting aid, so we're granting aid in charging. It's got two sources of funding for us. In terms of granting aid, it was largely, I guess, what we call a flat cash settlement this year for granting aid, so the kind of same granting aid. Obviously, we then have to absorb increased pressures around your pensions and obviously pay this year as well significantly. There are pressures on granting aid, and for us it's also just about—again, we understand Government's difficult position about that, that certainty for the future, so you can plan around what's the likely level of granting aid is. As ever, it was good to see the focus on the environment and the programme for government that came out and that continued focus on the environment, so that's a good thing. For SIPA, as I mentioned about COSyber, that reform of services building system, so that kind of digital reform is really important for the future in terms of our efficiency of operation, and so that's also key. The second piece of this for us is capital and capital allocation from the Scottish Government as well, and we do have greater certainty over the capital allocation for future years for SIPA, which has been really welcomed. Again, that is partly there to support that reform of services and digital reform as well, and so we're comfortable at the moment with the level of capital allocation that's been committed to SIPA. There's maybe just a third thing, which is that broader point, where we're one public body within a bigger picture here and you look at the scale of the transition and the adaptation that Scotland needs to go through in the coming years. There's that third wider area, which is just about our all-reliant public money, and so what are the different funding mechanisms that you might have for investment in the future, bringing together a bit of public money with private funding potential, but what do those mechanisms look like to shift from the approach to investment in that transition within Scotland? That's something I know that the Government's looking at as well. I'm not sure if you want me to pass back to you and come back in. If you ask your second question and then I'll come to the Deputy Kilviner, I think that you've got another question you want to go on. Fabulous, thank you. I will direct my question to Mark this time. I understand that the ESS budget has increased and ESS has stated that this is to cover operating costs and staff, so I'm just wondering if you can confirm whether ESS has recruited its full complement of staff now and if it anticipates requiring any additional budget aimed for operating at full capacity. So we are still in the process of recruiting up to what we aim to have as our full establishment, and indeed there are interviews going on for posts this week in terms of getting closer to that. Our full establishment was identified as being 24, so we're still working through that. It has been slightly slower process and perhaps we'd have hoped, but we are comfortable with our current level of resourcing. The overwhelming majority of our expenditure is on staff costs, and we are comfortable with where we are at at the moment and given the current level of demand for our work. Of course, given everything that we've discussed this morning about the changing legislative environment, demand-away looked very different in the future, so I reserve that, put that caveat on that statement. Thank you very much. And the final question then will come from the deputy convener Fiona. Thank you. I should point out that I'm a nature champion for Scotland's extraordinary blanket bogs. I have a question for John Kerr on nature of Scotland in particular, and I want to ask about how a cut to nature of Scotland's capital budget might impact its ability to meet peatland restoration targets and other areas of work. Clearly, peatland restoration is key for us to meet both our climate change and our biodiversity crisis targets. John, can you please address that question? Yes, the capital budget that we've got is a small part of our overall grant and aid, and it doesn't spend on issues like peatland restoration. We've got the peatland action fund, which is a separate fund that we administer, and that's the key fund for peatland restoration work. The capital budget that we have is spent on our own capital assets, our IT systems, things like vehicles, and also for capital items on our own estate, our offices, and our quite large extent of national nature reserves and other nature reserves. The change to the capital budget that has been proposed by the Government won't have an impact on our ability to fund peatland restoration work, because that comes from a separate fund. Do you think that ring fencing effectively of peatland restoration will protect this important peatland restoration action fund? It should do, I hope so. It's probably the best way to get us towards that by ring fencing the money, because it is so important. That's the whole ambition of it, yes. Thank you very much, convener. It's just a very brief supplemental, if I may, convener directly to Joe Greene. I thought Natalie Dawn asked a very important question earlier on. I'm just not sure that I heard the answer, because Joe Greene said, for example, that we're comfortable with the capital allocation, but I noted that the capital spending review cuts the SEPA allocation by 53 per cent—that's around £3 million—and the overall budget allocation is a real-terms cut of about 7.3 per cent. Can I put the question that I think that Natalie was getting at to you again? How will a cut like that impact on SEPA's ability to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis, or will it not? I'm not familiar with those figures, and the figures that I have around capital are for next year this year £4.1 million, next year £6.1 million, the year after £6.4 million. Again, that might be a follow-up outside of committee in terms of where the figures came from and just any clarification we can provide, but at this stage we're comfortable with what we know about the capital that's been allocated to us. Joe, thank you for volunteering to provide extra information. I think that there have been one or two officers providing further information to the committee by several of the panellists, so we very much look forward to receiving those in due course, but thank you all for taking part and sharing your expertise with us. The committee will go on to discuss the evidence that you've given us later in the meeting in relation to the common frameworks. We'll be writing to the Scottish Government in the near future and the clerks will ensure that you see this before it goes on. I'd just like to say again, thank you very much. We're all getting quite used to these Zoom meetings, but when the technology doesn't work quite at the speed you're hoping it to, it sometimes lets us down. Thank you very much for working through it, everyone, and I'm going to briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow a change of witnesses. Thank you again, and I suspend the meeting. Welcome back. We're now going to hear from our second panel on environmental standards Scotland's strategic plan. ESS have a statutory duty to lay a plan in the Parliament, and the Parliament then has to consider whether to approve it. The plan was laid before the Parliament on 30 September. The Nertzira Energy Transport Committee has been designated as the lead committee to scrutinise the plan with a view to making a short report to the whole Parliament afterwards. I'd like to welcome back Mark Roberts, the chief executive, alongside Jim Martin, his chair, and Neil Langhorne, the head of strategy and analysis. I am going to start off, if I may, and I guess it's going to come to you, Jim, who is probably supported by Mark, just to ask a gentle opener, I guess. Has it been an easy process setting up ESS and just a very brief update on how that's gone and what the current position is? Jim, do you want to head off on that? We managed to vest on 1 October, which was only nine months after the exit from the EU. In the time since 1 October, what we've been gradually doing is building up the organisation, but at the same time trying to perform as many of our functions as we possibly can. As Mark said in the earlier session, we are still on the course of recruiting a full complement coming up. In fact, we only had our senior management team fully in place four months ago when Mark joined as chief executive. That was the last appointment of that team. In the course of this year, we've also managed to produce a couple of very significant investigations, one on acoustic deterrent devices and the other on air quality. We've been trying very hard to, while building the organisation, still to function as the organisation, but you haven't seen us at our best yet, I don't think. I think that once we're established and once we're moving, then we can move forward. A significant part of what we've had to do, of course, is to prepare the strategic plan. That's been a godsend because it's enabled us to interact with as many organisations and people as we possibly can to get views about how we should go forward. You'll see in the strategic plan that underpinning most of our thinking on vision and mission and values is being transparent, open and trying very hard to listen to people. This year, we've also been able to listen to people about where we should go. I'm very keen to hear the committee's views on where you think the strategic plan is taking us. Mark mentioned earlier that we managed to persuade the Scottish Government to increase our budget, for which we're very grateful. I thought he was very gentle in his response to you earlier on. I think that until we have actually seen our business operating for at least a year from now, once we're a year into our strategic plan, we'll have a better idea of the resource required to make the organisation truly effective. I just wanted to place that on record that we're happy with what has been given, we're pleased with the flexibility that the Scottish Government has given us, but we genuinely will not know for at least another year what the resources will require. I have to say that we've had a terrific co-operation from the bodies under our jurisdiction so far, but we haven't fallen out with them yet about anything so far so good. I'm very pleased that we've managed to build up good relationships with the Organisation for Environmental Protection in England, the IEPA in Wales and the Climate Change Committee. I think that we've made a lot of progress, but there's still a lot to be done. I think that we're just gnarly coming out of the set-up stage and beginning to move into the effective stage. We'll come back to budget later on, I'm sure that other committee members want to do. Just to bring you in, Mark, it's only got better since you've joined or it's getting better, progressively. Have you noticed any themes emerging since you've got your role? I think that, as Jim said, the key theme is that transition from getting established as an organisation to a certain extent almost feeling like a start-up to becoming an albeit young but more established public sector organisation. What has been critical and huge tribute needs to be paid to the transition team who established ESS and started it working, of which Neil Langhorne was a key part, was getting a new organisation set up from scratch in a very short period of time during the course of a pandemic, so that's been really significant. As Jim said, we're now moving out of that phase into a more business-as-usual type role. A key thing is us building our profile and building our stakeholders' understanding of what it is our role because that is new. One of the things that I've been very keen and focused on is establishing our profile and getting our name and our role established within wider communities. That builds on work that's been going on for the past 12 months as well. The key theme that I would identify is that transition to a more established organisation, but that does still remain a work in progress. In terms of the more specific environmental themes, I think that we touched on some of this within the earlier evidence session, but clearly climate change in the broader sense and biodiversity and the interactions between the two are very, very critical. We also discussed, under the previous agenda item, the question of sewage impacts on the aquatic environment. That's something, as I said, in response to a question from Liam Kerr. It's something that is one of our priorities for the future. Obviously, there's a significant amount of public attention on that at the moment, so that, again, is one of our priorities. For me, the themes that are dominant are just the scale of the issues and the complexity of the issues around climate change and biodiversity. I don't know whether Neil you would want to add. Just on that, have you found it easy to get other agencies to turn to you and look to you as part of the solution and your organisation as part of the solution? In general, yesterday it's been very positive. Our engagement with the Lacks of Seaper, with NatureScot, with GNCC and others has been positive. I think they've all been approaching it from the point of view that we're an organisation that can help improve the system, which is, at the end of the day, what everybody's after. As Jim says, we haven't fallen out with anybody yet, but we have had that good co-operation, particularly in terms of the data that we need to carry out our roles. The base on evidence reviews that we prepared were reliant on getting a lot of data from other organisations, and there weren't any issues at all with that. We're looking forward to starting to explore some of those areas with them as we go forward. That all sounds very positive, so it's good news. I'm going to turn to Monica to ask some questions that you've got, Monica. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Given that you will seek to resolve issues through informal agreement wherever possible, can you tell the committee how ESS will ensure transparency in the outcome of remedial action? Can you explain under what circumstances you would withhold information on remedial action? I don't know if Neil wants to answer that first, or is it better to come to you, Mark? Perhaps I'll start off on that, then, pass to Neil. One of our values as a set-out strategic plan is to be transparent and we're absolutely committed to that. If we receive a representation from someone and we are able to secure informal resolution as we did in our work on acoustic deterrent devices earlier in the year where we achieved informal resolution in Marine Scotland, we will publish that and explain what happened on our website and we have done that. All our representations are documented on a website and what is going on with them and there is a brief summary of exactly what happened, what the issue was, what we did about it, as well as a more detailed report underneath that, and that will continue to be the way in which we operate. We are in the process of collecting data and will make that available in terms of the broader range of inquiries. We get a significantly larger number of inquiries across a range of environmental issues, some of which are not appropriate for us to deal with, they relate to individual cases, some of which are not redundant in our remit, but colleagues work quite hard to work with individuals to direct them to who may be the best person to respond to their inquiry, whether it's a local authority complaints process or the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Again, we spend quite a lot of time working with individual members of the public to do that. Neil, is there anything that you would want to add to that? Just, I guess that the issue of transparency in particular around informal resolution was a bit of a theme that came through as part of our consultation on our strategic plan. It was always our intention to be transparent about what the conclusion we came to and what action was being taken, but that feedback helped to reinforce that. As Mark said, the acoustic deterrence device, the case that we've already concluded, is an example of how we'll publish details of what's been agreed and how the issue has been resolved in our opinion. That's the intention going forward that, with all cases where we reach informal resolution, we will publish full details. As Mark said, we're looking at how we also make further details available about the range of issues that are brought to us, whether that's a full representation or whether it's something where we're referring somebody on. Okay, I want to ask Neil in a moment about escalation. In what situation will you resort to using those formal powers? Mark, you described a situation in which you're perhaps getting inquiries that are not really appropriate for ESS. Has there been any analysis of why that is? Are people ending up at your website because they've been wrongly signposted, perhaps by MSPs, or is that a frustration at the other end when they're not getting what they want from other bodies and regulators? I don't think that we've done any formal analysis of it, but I think that what's probably happening is we're new, so people aren't quite clear yet what our remit is. We've been updating our website to try and make that clearer, and providing information on that, including a video where it explains how you can come to us if you do have a representation. I think that people perhaps see environmental standards and think that that's something that they can come to on a specific case. Unfortunately, we're not able to look and investigate specific cases. That's not part of our remit under the act that governs us, but what we can do is gather intelligence from individual cases. If we start to see patterns and multiple cases in the same area, that will then feed into our monitoring and analysis work, which will perhaps lead us to a conclusion that there is something that merits further investigation. We do capture that information as we will not, though, investigate individual cases if they come to us. It's helpful to get that on the record. Back to Neil Lynn about escalation to using those formal powers. Can you give us a bit more explanation? I guess that we'll consider each of them on a case-by-case basis. As set out in the strategic plan, one of our principles is that we'll always try to resolve things informally if it's possible. However, as we're considering the case that's before us, we will consider, I guess, the urgency of needing to action, the nature of the regulatory issue that we think we need to address, and we can always consider whether moving more quickly to one of our more formal powers is appropriate in that case. As was the case with the air quality report, so we concluded there that we needed to move to a formal improvement report. Whereas, with the ADD case, we were able to resolve it informally. On each case, we'll look at whether we're able to get informal resolution, whether we agree that. However, if we feel that we aren't able to do that or there's an urgency or there's a seriousness where we need to move more directly to our formal powers, we'll judge that on a case-by-case basis. I know that colleagues want to pick up on the air quality report. My final question is, I know that one of the statutory criteria for ESS is to state how you will identify and recommend measures to improve the effectiveness of environmental law. I've opened some dialogue with the Scottish Government around the campaign to criminalise ecocide and there's quite a lot happening in dozens if not hundreds of countries' Government and Parliament levels around the world. Is that something that ESS will monitor and perhaps make recommendations on to parliamentarians and government and others? I don't think at the moment that that's something that's within our group of analytical priorities that I mentioned earlier, but it's certainly something that we could potentially look at if that became an issue of priority. If there were more scope to enhance environmental law to build that in, we would certainly assess whether or not where the potential was. However, it's not as yet something that is high on our list of priorities, but it's very interesting to hear about it and we can perhaps discuss that outside the meeting. It's a global campaign that is building momentum quite quickly, so there is a meeting schedule with the Scottish Government, so yes, I'm happy to discuss that on another occasion. Monica Lennon, I think that you had some supplementaries on the first part of that. Yes, thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Just on the air quality report that ESS issued I think towards the end of last month and Neil Langhorne and Jim Martin, you've mentioned it in your earlier comments. Mark Roberts, your investigation there found evidence of, and I'm quoting here, a continued failure in some areas of Scotland to meet legal limits of nitrogen dioxide and weaknesses in current operational and governance arrangements. The report made six recommendations and Neil Langhorne mentioned that there needs to be an improvement plan prepared. My understanding is that that's to be done under the continuity act though, that's the requirement of the continuity act. The question then relating to Monica Lennon's line is what actual power do you have as an organisation to enforce those recommendations and demand from the Government timelines for compliance? So in terms of the improvement report, the way in which the accountability work is that the Government's improvement plan must come back to the Parliament and I guess potentially to this committee for scrutiny to see whether or not it is meeting the requirements of the recommendations. We don't have the powers to enforce those recommendations. That's not within the continuity act. However, what we could do is if there was on-going and further failure to comply with, in this case specifically, nitrogen dioxide limits, we could take further action in the future. I very much hope that it doesn't come to that. Certainly the feedback that we have had from Scottish Government and as you heard in the earlier evidence session from SEPA is that they were very supportive of the recommendations and we really look forward to hearing from them and working with them as to how they intend to implement them. However, that plan, and I must stress this, has to come back to the Parliament for approval in terms of what it's going to do. Very grateful. The improvement plan must come back to Parliament. However, the key findings just read the subjective view, but they were pretty damning. It suggests things like that the Scottish Government isn't using powers that are available to it and the overall governance frameworks are complex. Is there any requirement before the improvement plan is prepared? One can anticipate that taking some time. Is there any requirement on the Scottish Government to respond to your report? The only requirement is through the requirements of producing an improvement plan. We touched on this very briefly, but the strategic plan sets out some detail on this, but I'm just looking for some further clarification on whether you can clarify your triage process and how ESSs will prioritise work and identify which issues should be investigated. I'll go to Neil first, if that's okay. It initially depends on how the issue comes to us. If it's a representation that comes to us, we set out in the strategic plan a set of criteria that we'll consider that against, which are focused around the seriousness of the issue and the potential impact, the risk of that impact and the kind of urgency with which action is needed to be taken. We'll also consider whether there are other bodies who are already taking action or who could take actions, whether it's another scrutiny body or another regulator. Through that kind of triage process, we'll decide whether it's something that we feel that we need to urgently address and to move to investigation. What we're finding in the kind of monster date is that when representations do come to us, there's usually a bit of work involved in getting under the skin of it and understanding exactly the situation before we're able to take that decision. It sometimes takes a little bit of work in what we call the pre-investigation stage to consider a representation and make a decision, but we aim to do that as quickly as possible. For the issues that come through our monitoring and analysis, there are issues that we self-generate that we think are something that we want to look at. The air quality would have been an example of that, where there were clearly issues of compliance. That was something that we took an early decision that we wanted to take action on. That wasn't in response to a specific representation, but there we've set out similar criteria that we'll judge things against to consider the significance, the risk, the likely impact and, again, whether there are other actors who could take action on that, linking back to one of our other principles in the plan, which is about adding value and making sure that we're focusing on where we can have the biggest impact. For both issues, there will be that kind of triage, and it will be judging things against those criteria that we've set out and deciding is it something that we feel we should take forward. Do you feel that there are any issues that you would consider to be outside the scope of investigation by ESS? There may well be, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. We do have a very broad remit, and it has to be about compliance with the law, or it has to be about the effectiveness of the law, and it has to be about environmental law, as defined by the continuity act. That gives us a very broad remit, and it gives us a very broad suite of issues that we can consider. As long as it meets those broad criteria, we anticipate that we'll be able to look into it. I'll just supplement that. As I said, in response to Monica Lennon, however, that would exclude looking at individual decisions by public authorities. An individual, for example, planning decision would not be within our remit to look at. However, we would absolutely gather that information, and if that formed a broader picture, that might give us intelligence to say that there was something more systemic going on. That's helpful. Thank you very much. Thanks, Natalie. Now we move to the deputy convener, Fiona. Ask how you will approach monitoring the Scottish Government's implementation of international obligations and its use of the keeping pace power, and what do you see as the key risks to being able to do that? I'll start off, and then pass to Neil. Historically, the overwhelming majority of environmental legislation has been derived from the EU, and the Scottish Government has committed to keeping pace with the EU, environmental and other legislation wherever it's appropriate for Scotland. The real challenge there is the scale of that. That is a very significant body of legislation that is in this area within the European Union. Both from the Scottish Government's perspective, being able to keep pace with doing that is really quite significant. From an ESS point of view, that's a significant amount of monitoring work for us to do both at the European level and also at the Scottish Government level. We're actively thinking about how we can best do that at the moment, and that's very much a live discussion that we're having. We have established good connections within the European Union and in Brussels. One of our board members, Paul McElivi, works for the European Commission and provides a really invaluable insight into what's going on at the European scale. How we decide whether or not to report on progress and keeping pace is, again, one of the issues that we're still thinking through. I think that Neil might want to say more. We have always envisaged that we would look at within individual pieces of work how that relates to the European context. I think that that's something that we'd certainly want to be able to do, whether it was around biodiversity, as we've talked about, or any of the other environmental issues that are priorities for us. Neil, is there anything that you'd want to add to that? Just to back up that last point, what we've seen is that we're working on two levels in how we carry out our work. For all of the issues that we're considering, whether it's through monitoring or through a specific investigation, we would have keeping pace as a cross-cutting theme. For each issue, we'd always consider is there a keeping pace angle to this, and is there perhaps movements at the European level to change the legislation. However, it's part of our monitoring and analysis role of just trying to keep a handle on what is changing and where there may be changes planned in EU or international law that we need to be aware of. It's context for what we're working on. Can I maybe press you a bit more? You've said it's big, it's difficult, you will look at it on a case-by-case basis when you're investigating something. This is a key responsibility that you have in trying to law, bringing in mind that this committee's responsibility is to scrutinise what you're doing. Can I press you a bit more? How are you going to approach this? How many staff you've got involved in this? What international connections have you made? Particularly in relation to EU institutions, you recognise that you have a board member that has connections, but you really need institution-to-institution connections. I want to press you a bit more on this, because this is absolutely key to what your role is. Can I jump in and say, Mark, could you start off on that and then I maybe bring Jim in in his position to ask how he is going to push it rather than just you, Mark, because I'm sure he'll want to support you, Mark. Okay, thank you. In terms of international connections and institutional connections, we are a member of Scotland Europe, which provides us insight into policy and legislative development going on within Brussels. We have established links with the European Environment Agency, and we're actively developing a policy that will allow us to get international advice on international environmental policy and law, and we're working out at the moment how best we can access that advice so that it comes from outside Scotland and brings an international as well as a European perspective on the matter. We are currently considering, and Jim may wish to say a little bit more about this, about establishing a sub-committee or an advisory panel or some such of our board, which is primarily focused on that keeping pace responsibility that we do have. That's something which I think demonstrates the attention and the focus that we're putting on this. I was perhaps slightly hesitant in saying what that was, as that's something which has not yet been discussed by the board, but I'll perhaps let Jim say a little bit more about that. Our last meeting, the board was very, very clear that, as a board, we needed to show leadership in this area, and so we agreed we'd set up a sub-committee of the board which will deal with keeping pace, but we'll also look at developments in other international areas. We only have one other sub-committee of our board, and that's our Audit and Risk Committee, so that shows the priority that we're giving it. We've also set out that in every area of the strategic plan, the executive team is required to assess whether there's a keeping pace element there. We've also empowered the team to build relationships both with institutions but with the people in the institutions in Europe, because that's how you find out what's going on. We're aware that there's a huge volume of legislation at the European level—never mind everywhere else in the world—that we need to keep track of. We will have a budget that will enable us to have around 24 people in it. Part of Neil's task is to work out how, within his whole monitoring and analysis and horizon scanning areas, he can get the staff in place that will enable us to do that, or whether we need to have external input, which is why, in the sub-committee advisory panel area that we're thinking about, we're looking at getting expertise to sit on that panel, not just to both members but externally, to advisers of developments where we should be getting information. In those European countries, we're not in the European Union and elsewhere—how we can access their information so that Scotland can take the best decisions not just to keep pace with the EU but to become an international leader. I'm more assured by that second set of answers. I'm back to you. Obviously, as an organisation, you've got a range of different approaches to your work. You spoke earlier about working more at the informal resolution end of things, trying to resolve issues, but you also have the ability to mount a judicial review or to attempt to, in some cases. I'm just wondering how you maintain that flexibility within your organisation in terms of staff and budget. An informal resolution would, presumably, require a lot less in terms of staff resources and budget than mounting what could be quite a lengthy judicial review. It's obviously difficult to predict when you might need to use which tools. I'm interested in your general thoughts about budgeting, about how you've come to the request of the Scottish Government that you have and how you maintain that flexibility and teeth as an organisation to be able to take whatever action you need to take as circumstances dictate. Mark was lining himself up. It's a really interesting and challenging question, certainly for me as a chief executive, because I couldn't agree more that when you are to a certain extent a demand-led organisation, being able to be appropriately responsive to that demand is really difficult. The example of a major judicial review would take up a significant amount of our resources, I would imagine. I envisaged that going to that route would be very unusual and very rare, and I certainly hope that it would be very unusual and very rare, but that would be a challenge. I think that what would have to happen is, in the immediate term, we would have to prioritise very quickly. The same would apply at a less extreme example if we had a significant spike in the number of representations that we received from members of the public or from organisations. We would have to go back to the previous part of the conversation and triage those representations a little bit more assertively if we had a significant number of them. If that became a longer-term pattern, that would be the point at which we would be starting to say to the Scottish Government, that this now looks like a trend, we are anticipating it will continue, we are going to need additional resources to do that. We will not be shy in going to the Scottish Government and saying that. There is part of the legislation, as you know, Mr Ruskell, that requires us to say whether or not we have sufficient resources to do the job that we need to in our annual report to the Parliament and we will not hesitate to say if we feel that we need more resources because of the demand that we see. That demand not only could come from external sources, it could also come from the internal work that Neil's team is doing in terms of monitoring environmental data and environmental performance, so that demand may also be self-generated as well, but of course we would justify and explain where that came from. Neil, do you want to add anything to that just before I go back tomorrow? Okay, perfect, sorry, Mark. Jim, sorry, you want to come in, yeah? I'll just get it off much. Yes, judicial review in Scotland is ridiculously expensive and it is something that at some point we need to look at because it is prohibitive to the individual to take a judicial review, yet most of our public bodies have scope for individuals to do that, they cannot afford to do it. In an organisation like ours, we have to be prudent in our budgeting, we have to budget that we may at least get there perhaps once, but if it is two or three times, then I think that government and the committee and others have to understand that to be effective we need to spend that cash, and therefore I would hope that there wouldn't be at any point in the future a barrier to us being able to access cash should that mean that we were going over our budget? I'm pleased that I've got that off my chest, convener, thank you. I'm pleased you have as well. Mark, back to you. Yeah, I'm as well. It's further to at one point. Okay, can I just ask then about accountability and openness to the public? I mean, you've obviously had your consultation on your initial plan and we've heard some of the feedback from that. Can you say a little bit more about how you're going to maintain that openness and accountability going forward? So, as I said earlier, transparency in terms of what we do is essential to how we are going to operate and we will always strive to put as much information as possible, make it available in a variety of different ways to people. In terms of accountability and engagement, we've got a kind of active programme of engagement with a very wide range of stakeholders, both in the NGO community, obviously kind of in the not only the key public bodies such as SEPA and NatureScot who we engage with on a very regular basis, but also kind of the broader suite of public bodies who are relevant. So, for example, Transport Scotland are very, very relevant to the climate change agenda, obviously. So, we want to be engaging with them. We are engaging with local authorities explaining our role in terms of what we do and what we don't do. So, that programme of stakeholder engagement will be rolling on into the future. As I said in response to Ms Hyslop's question, we're engaging at the European and international level as well. So, that will happen in terms of accountability to the Parliament and to this committee. The chair wrote to the convener's predecessor earlier in the year out giving an update on what our work is. And I would hope we'd be able to continue to do that, to provide you with regular updates, potentially six months on what our work is, to make our accountability to the Parliament and to you real. And so, you have regular sight of what our work is. So, if that was satisfactorily to the committee, I would be suggesting that we continue to do that. Yeah, yeah. I think this relationship is very, very important between Parliament and yourselves. And just lastly, can I ask you then about the memorandum of understanding that you have with your counterparts in other parts of the UK, how developed that is at the moment? So, we have recently completed and signed a memorandum of understanding between ourselves, the Office of Environmental Protection who operates in England and Northern Ireland, and in Wales there is an interim arrangement in place with the interim environmental protection assessor for Wales. And that memorandum of understanding sets out how we will collaborate potentially with those organisations in the future. We are in the process of setting up a three-way meeting between those three organisations, which will hopefully take place next month. I have spoken to the interim environmental assessor in Wales and also to my opposite number in the Office of Environmental Protection since I joined and those will be regular meetings. Just for the sake of completeness, we are also in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding with the Committee on Climate Change as well, who we will no doubt be working very, very closely with. And I hope that that is as fruitful a relationship as it has been with our opposite numbers elsewhere in the UK. What do you expect to be on the agenda with your patriot organisations across the UK? I think in terms of the sort of the stages we're all at, we are all new and in one case interim organisations. We have subtly different remits in terms of our responsibilities and our relationships with government. So, I think we'll talk through some of that, those kind of broader governance and accountability issues. We will no doubt talk about the specifics of investigations that are going on. Given the conversation earlier in the meeting, the OEP are currently having a major piece of work on combined sewer overflows in England and Northern Ireland, so we'll be interested to hear about that. We'll share the work that we have going on in terms of climate change in local authorities, which is a live investigation at the moment. We will no doubt also talk about resources. I'm going to come back to the deputy convener, who's got a specific question. Thank you. I'd like to ask about what Environment Scotland would see their relationship with this Scottish Parliamentary Committee being. What would you like it to be and how do you think we can work well together to make sure that the key issues affecting Scotland and its environment and its standards can and should be? What would an ideal relationship with this committee look like for you? I'm not sure he's going to answer that. I think Jim was saying that he wants to go with that Fiona, so we'll start off with Jim and bring Mark in, if necessary. Just to make sure that Mark understands the line on that one. I see a relationship with this committee as being a productive one. I do not see us as being the investigative arm of this committee. I need to say that very clearly. I think that we have been given by Parliament the job of determining what our priorities would be. Clearly, you're very influential voice. We'll listen very carefully to you, but please do not think that you're a body that you can instruct to investigate. I just want to say that out loud. As part of what Mark said about the transparency, I would hope that we can have discussions with the committee on individual reports—for example, the air quality report that Mr Kerr raised earlier—but also on a strategic level. I hope that the committee would not seek to become operational overlords of our organisation. I have found in the past with public organisations and committees that more frequently there is an interaction between ourselves, the body and the committee, the more the committee tends to get drawn into operational areas. I think that for both our sakes we need to avoid that kind of thing. However, I think that this is a place where we can come if we are having difficulties, and I hope that we are a body that you feel that you can come to where you have spotted something that we have missed or that you think is a priority that we should address. Mark, has Jim laid it out sufficiently that you do not need to add to that, or do you want to add something to that? I do not think that there is anything that I can add to that. Fianna, you are happy with that answer? Yes, indeed. I think that that was a very helpful insight from both the committee's perspective but also from the environment in Scotland's perspective. Thank you very much. I am happy and thank you, Jim, for saying that we do not have an investigative arm from this committee that is useful to know. I am thankful for that. Jackie Dunbar is next with your questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning, panel. I will leave it in your hands, convener, about who indicates who is best to answer my question, if you do not mind, because I cannot see the panel today. I would like to know what the panel thinks is a high-performance organisation, what it looks like for the ESS. Do they think that it is achievable based on the current staffing levels and, given the volume of representations that they are currently receiving? I will bring you in, Mark, because you have partially answered that before. Thank you. I think that a high-performing organisation will be one that achieves what we are setting out in our strategic plan to do, which is to ensure that we have a system of environmental law that actively protects and ideally improves the environment. Ultimately, that is the goal that we want to have. If we are able to contribute to that, then that will in part demonstrate that we are a high-performing organisation. It is also really important that we are seen by the public to be responsive to their concerns, and I think that that kind of assessment of a public view of us is quite important. I would also like us to be operating in a way that means that wherever possible, we are working, as Neil described earlier, in an informal resolution way where there are problems. If we need to use our powers, then we will do, as I think we have already demonstrated with our air quality report. On the whole, we would very much like to work with and engage with public sector authorities to try to improve the system of environmental governance. However, I absolutely want to stress that we will not hesitate to use our powers where we see it as necessary. Those three strands, for me, would demonstrate that we are a high-performing organisation. It would be remiss of me as the Accountable Officer not to say that we will obviously be operating as much work as possible and as high-quality work as possible within the budget that we have, but recognising that we are still trying to work out what that long-term demand for resources will be. We are one year and three months into our existence, and I suspect that the world might look quite different in four to five years. Thank you. I think that the world can look different just in a matter of weeks just now with the way things go. If I can go on to ask you about measuring your performance, what work have you undertaken to establish the baselines to measure the impacts that you have on improving environmental quality and public health? I am happy for whoever to answer that. I know that it is smart. I am looking at it. Is it maybe Neil? I will spot off and then pass to Neil. Again, this is work that is in its infancy and the baseline evidence reviews that we undertook during the course of the last year were the first stage in doing that. It is something that we will continue to work on over the next year, especially within the priority areas that we have identified in the strategic plan. However, it remains a work in progress, and it will be critical for us to work with the various public authorities that we oversee and scrutinise to understand what data about environmental performance they have. Scotland is quite fortunate in having very good and well-publicly accessible environmental information, but there is no doubt more that we can access and work with Neil. Within the strategic plan, we have set out a framework for trying to measure our performance and measuring both our inputs and outputs and how that affects long-term environmental outcomes. As Mark has mentioned, we have the baseline evidence reviews to draw on as a snapshot in time of the state of the environment at the moment in Scotland. However, the framework that we set out in Visages is a long-term outcome indicator. We have to do a bit more work to work out exactly how we will do that. It is not an easy thing to measure and it is not a direct relationship as to how our work directly leads to outcomes. However, we have tried to set out a framework for how we understand that to happen. That gives us a basis in terms of a baseline for our performance as an organisation. All of the indicators that we have set out in the annex to a strategic plan, we have started to gather data on all of those. We have a baseline for all of those and we will be able to report on those annually through our annual report. I think that is all of the questions that we have from the committee. I am just looking around to make sure that I have not missed anyone out. That is perfect. I would like to thank you all for taking part today, especially Mark, in both panels. Jim and Neil for coming along to these panels. We will be producing a short report to Parliament and then the Parliament will be considering a motion on whether to preview strategic plan. That concludes our public meeting and we are now going to move into private session. Thank you.