Response 1039951425

Back to Response listing

About You

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
Valpak Limited

Part 2: Policy Overview

1. Do you agree with the benefits set out here?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

2. Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?

Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?§
Yes, we broadly agree with the benefits listed (question 1), however in order to ensure that the business benefits are realised it would also be important that any changes made to the authorisation framework are aligned with other permitting systems. For example for companies which work both in Scotland and other parts of the UK, if the authorisation / permitting systems became too disparate this could lead to increased administration burden and would reduce any intended reduction in administration burden or cost-effectiveness. It is also important to consider how any changes would be integrated where the authorisations apply beyond Scotland. For example currently waste carrier or broker licences issued by SEPA cover the whole of Great Britain. Again, it is therefore important that the authorisation framework would be aligned to ensure that the authorisation could continue to be used across Great Britain. In order to achieve the full benefits for all stakeholders, including SEPA, it is also important that there should be adequate time for effected businesses to understand, plan, apply for and integrate, any new regulations and guidance. We welcome the positive approach from Scottish Government and SEPA to simplify the authorisation framework across the applicable regimes. As noted above, it should be ensured that any changes made are aligned with other permitting system, and if this is not possible, any differences are justified, including by evaluation against the universal outcomes, and minimised, in order to prevent unintended consequences.

Part 3: Key features of the new framework for authorisation holders.

4. Do you agree that the framework should include a set of universal outcomes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

5. If so, are the outcomes proposed the right ones?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
The universal outcomes could be useful to provide consistent overall objectives across the framework. The proposed universal outcomes appear to be sensible, but could be expanded further to integrate supporting innovation or SEPAs regulatory function regarding supporting sustainable economic growth.

7. Do you understand the descriptions of the regulated activities in Annex 2?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

8. Do you agree that these are the right factors for SEPA to consider?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
These appear to be the correct factors

9. Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?
This will allow industry to input technical information to assist the decision-making process.

10. Do you agree that standard rules will deliver the benefits we have set out?

Comments:
Standard rules may provide transparency to industry to see if their activities fall within a specific set of rules, however the consultation states that the down side to this may be that an activity that does not fall within the standard rules and therefore may be required to apply for a bespoke permit, rather than the lower authorisation banding. It is therefore extremely important that the standard rules are set at appropriate levels, and that this includes sufficient input from the regulated sectors, and that they are assessed against the criteria set out in 3.3.14. If these aspects are set at the correct point it would then follow that an activity which did not fall within the parameters had an increased risk in one or more of the assessment criteria and should be assessed further.

11. Do you agree with the procedure for making standard rules?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
We agree that SEPA should consult on any draft standard rules and that regulated businesses have the opportunity to input technical information to assist with the decision-making process. This will assist achieving the benefits for all stakeholders, whilst managing the universal objectives.

12. Do you agree that SEPA and Scottish Ministers should have the ability to make GBRs?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

13. Do you agree that all regulated activities should have an authorised person responsible for overall compliance and that this person should be named in a permit and registration?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not why not?
Although we also agree that this could be more than one person.

15. Do you agree that SEPA should include more than one person as the authorised person where appropriate?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

16. Do you have any views on how SEPA should decide if a person is in “control”?

Comments:
The details provided in section 3.5.6 appear to cover this requirement

17. Question 17 – Do you think the core requirements set out here will deliver the right approach to FPP for the integrated authorisation framework?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Completing an FPP test could assist SEPA to tackle waste crime and could also assist in ensuring the authorised person would maintain compliance with the authorisation. One of the criteria provided is “whether the authorised person(s) is technically competent.” Industry could assist with this criteria by providing indicative measures to demonstrate technical competence, for example the work being completed on applicable training standards by the SWITCH forum.

18. Do you think that the criteria set out above will achieve the stated purpose of the FPP test?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
These appear to be the correct factors, however as stated in section 3.5.26 further guidance will be consulted on and will show more precisely how the FPP test will be applied.

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

24. Do you agree with the proposals for transfer?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Although clarification of the transfer of notification should be provided. For example, if the authorised person of a notification changes, this appears to suggest that the previous authorised person would need to de-notify and the new authorised person make a new notification. If this is correct, it should be made clear what would happen if the previous authorised person could not be located or did not complete the de-notifying process.

25. Do you agree with the proposals for surrender?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

26. Do you agree with the proposed approach to enforcement notices set out above?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
We think the increased flexibility given to the enforcement agency would help them to adapt to different circumstances.

29. Do you agree we should retain suspension notices for use in circumstances where we wish to suspend an activity in order to protect the environment, but the authorised person is not being ‘enforced’ against?

Comments
As with question 27 above, if this is a different type of suspension notice it may therefore require a different title.

30. Do you agree SEPA should have the power to revoke authorisations in these circumstances?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

32. Do you have any views on the proposed policy principles for transitional arrangements?

Comments:
It should be ensured that all efforts are made to inform those who would be affected by the transition to the new authorisation framework to ensure that no unintended consequences occur. For example ensuring that enough time is provided for any new applications to be made, for example when the authorisation is changing level, or that businesses are aware either action is, or is not, required. SEPA may also receive an increased number of enquiries during the transitional period.