EIR/202600516156 Review of 202600513552 · FOI/EIR · clarification
Litter accumulation on the Motorways and Special Roads: EIR Review
Information requested
Original request 202600513552
Thank you for your letter of 5 March 2026. I appreciate the operational information provided. However, aspects of your response raise questions about how the approach described aligns in practice with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2018 (CoPLAR).
1. Intervention threshold and compliance with CoPLAR response expectations
Your letter explains that weekly inspections are undertaken and that areas reaching Grade E on Motorways and Special Roads are raised as Category 1 defects and programmed for clearance.
However, CoPLAR requires land to be restored to Grade A within specified timescales once it falls below Grade B. The description in your response appears to indicate that formal intervention is triggered only at Grade E. It is therefore unclear how compliance with the response expectations for Grades B, C and D is ensured in practice.
Could you please clarify:
whether any proactive or cyclic clearance is undertaken before Grade E is reached, and what mechanism ensures that areas assessed at Grades B, C or D are restored within the relevant CoPLAR response periods.
2. Activity levels on the M8 west of the Kingston Bridge
You note that in 2025 Amey undertook 26 days of litter collection on the M8 west of the Kingston Bridge, collecting 222 bags and uplifting 138 large objects.
To assist understanding of how this relates to corridor condition, could you please:
confirm the exact geographical extent covered by “M8 west of Kingston Bridge”; and explain how this level of activity corresponds to the inspection grades recorded for that corridor during the same period.
3. Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 Request
To better understand the condition and management of this route, I am formally requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002:
Copies of the monthly litter information reports provided by Amey for the M8 Glasgow–Erskine corridor (approximately Junctions 19–30) for calendar years 2024 and 2025. Any inspection grading records for the same stretch, including instances where litter was assessed at Grades B, C or D. The defect records raised for litter on this corridor over the same period. The dates and locations of the 26 collection days referenced in your letter.
If any of this information is held in summary form, I would be content to receive it in that format.
4. Prevention policy and governance
You note that there is no ring-fenced prevention budget and that prevention activities are funded through broader operational budgets. Your earlier correspondence also stated that Transport Scotland spends less than 10% of the relevant budget on preventative measures.
Could you please advise:
when this prevention-spend position was first adopted, who is responsible for approving it, how frequently it is formally reviewed (and when it was last reviewed), and what metrics or evidence are used to determine whether the allocation should be increased.
I would appreciate your response to the above points and the requested information within the statutory FOI timescale.
Response
I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). In requesting a review, you said:
1. Intervention threshold and compliance with CoPLAR response expectations
Your letter explains that weekly inspections are undertaken and that areas reaching Grade E on Motorways and Special Roads are raised as Category 1 defects and programmed for clearance.
However, CoPLAR requires land to be restored to Grade A within specified timescales once it falls below Grade B. The description in your response appears to indicate that formal intervention is triggered only at Grade E. It is therefore unclear how compliance with the response expectations for Grades B, C and D is ensured in practice.
Could you please clarify:
whether any proactive or cyclic clearance is undertaken before Grade E is reached, and what mechanism ensures that areas assessed at Grades B, C or D are restored within the relevant CoPLAR response periods.
2. Activity levels on the M8 west of the Kingston Bridge
You note that in 2025 Amey undertook 26 days of litter collection on the M8 west of the Kingston Bridge, collecting 222 bags and uplifting 138 large objects.
To assist understanding of how this relates to corridor condition, could you please:
confirm the exact geographical extent covered by “M8 west of Kingston Bridge”; and explain how this level of activity corresponds to the inspection grades recorded for that corridor during the same period.
3. Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 Request
To better understand the condition and management of this route, I am formally requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002:
Copies of the monthly litter information reports provided by Amey for the M8 Glasgow–Erskine corridor (approximately Junctions 19–30) for calendar years 2024 and 2025. Any inspection grading records for the same stretch, including instances where litter was assessed at Grades B, C or D. The defect records raised for litter on this corridor over the same period. The dates and locations of the 26 collection days referenced in your letter.
If any of this information is held in summary form, I would be content to receive it in that format.
4. Prevention policy and governance
You note that there is no ring-fenced prevention budget and that prevention activities are funded through broader operational budgets. Your earlier correspondence also stated that Transport Scotland spends less than 10% of the relevant budget on preventative measures.
Could you please advise:
when this prevention-spend position was first adopted, who is responsible for approving it, how frequently it is formally reviewed (and when it was last reviewed), and what metrics or evidence are used to determine whether the allocation should be increased.
Your request
You have requested a review of our response to three parts of your initial request (above), namely Sections 1, 2 and 4. Furthermore, Part 2 of your request for a review seeks clarification on aspects of the information provided in the original response. Finally, in Part 3 of your review request, you ask that we:
a) Address any unanswered questions from Part 1 (Sections 1, 2 and 4); b) Address points raised in Part 2 of your review request; and c) Reissue the original response in a form that answers the original request fully
I have concluded that the original response should be confirmed, with modifications, which are provided below addressing each part of your request in turn.
Part 1
Section 1 asked the following two questions.
a) whether any proactive or cyclic clearance is undertaken before Grade E is reached, and
b) what mechanism ensures that areas assessed at Grades B, C or D are restored within the relevant CoPLAR response periods
You have indicated that you did not feel that the original response provided a substantive answer to either of your questions. I agree and will provide more information here to explain practices at the time.
a) During the period in question (2024-2025), litter was collected in response to reports of litter accumulation from either road inspectors or from the public, or from PAG but the litter Grades (as set out in CoPLAR) were not recorded. The previous response provided information recording when litter collection was done in 2024 and 2025, as you requested.
b) Because the litter Grades (as set out in CoPLAR) were not routinely recorded over the time period in question, there is no information available that can be used to demonstrate that any areas assessed at Grades B, C or D were restored to Grade A within relevant response periods. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Section 2 asked the following two questions
a) confirm the exact geographical extent covered by “M8 west of Kingston Bridge”; and
b) explain how this level of activity corresponds to the inspection grades recorded for that corridor during the same period.
You did not ask us to review 2a, but in reviewing the response holistically, I concur that the original response did answer this question. The response did not fully address 2b and I will do so now.
The degree of litter collection does not correspond explicitly or directly to the inspection grades because litter collection was linked to reports of litter accumulation, but the grade was not recorded. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Section 3 asked for four pieces of information:
a) Copies of the monthly litter information reports provided by Amey for the M8 Glasgow–Erskine corridor (approximately Junctions 19–30) for calendar years 2024 and 2025.
b) Any inspection grading records for the same stretch, including instances where litter was assessed at Grades B, C or D.
c) The defect records raised for litter on this corridor over the same period.
d) The dates and locations of the 26 collection days referenced in your letter.
You did not specifically ask for Section 3 to be reviewed but undertaking a holistic review of the whole response I have ascertained that information was provided addressing 3a, 3c and 3d. The response also confirmed that were “no inspection grading records” in response to 3b. I have concluded that was correct but that the response failed to record the relevant exception and so I take the opportunity to address that omission now. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Section 4 noted that we had previously advised that Transport Scotland spent less than 10% of the relevant budget on preventative measures and asked four follow up questions:
a) when this prevention-spend position was first adopted,
b) who is responsible for approving it,
c) how frequently it is formally reviewed (and when it was last reviewed), and
d) what metrics or evidence are used to determine whether the allocation should be increased.
Your review request acknowledged that the response noted that there was no ring-fenced budget for litter, but you felt that it did not address the four specific questions. I agree and will do so now.
Litter activities are conducted by the Term Maintenance contractor as part of their “Core Operations”. These include several other duties such as grass cutting, clearing gullies and cleaning road signs etc. The costs for all these activities are combined into monthly lump sum payments and cannot be disaggregated for individual activities. This is why the original response referred to the absence of a specific “ring-fenced” budget. Whilst Transport Scotland does have a committed allocation for dealing with litter, it is wrapped up within other contractual duties and Transport Scotland has not adopted any formal policy on preventative spend with respect to litter.
Because there has been no formal adoption of a prevention spend policy, it means that there is no information available to answer the four questions that you posed. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Part 2
In addition to reviewing our original response, you also asked for clarification on aspects of the information provided.
In section 2.1 you asked:
I would ask the reviewer to set out what records or other evidence Transport Scotland relies on to monitor and demonstrate compliance with the CoPLAR response expectations for Grades B, C and D, and whether any consideration is being given to introducing such grading as part of the "ongoing work" referenced in the response.
As mentioned above, the formalised grades were not routinely recorded, in the management of litter on Special Roads. Instead, contractual compliance regarding litter was monitored via monthly reports that record where/when litter was collected and the relevant volume. Information from those records has already been provided to you. In addition, there are processes that facilitate specific defects to be recorded if significant litter occurs anywhere. These are sometimes referred to as Category 1 defects. Those records were provided in the original response and there is further discussion in 2.2 below.
The “Ongoing work” referred to in the previous correspondence does indeed include consideration of how the inspection grading system could be utilised to greater effect. These matters are currently being explored within the context of the existing contractual arrangements and changes could mean that different information should be available in the future. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
In Section 2.2 you asked:
Given the volume of collection activity recorded in Annex A, I would ask the reviewer to confirm whether any further defect records exist and have not been disclosed, or whether the explanation is that litter identified during inspections is generally not recorded as a CAT1 defect in practice.
I have conducted an additional query of the database and identified one other relevant defect. D24-SW-25108 was recorded on the 29th September 2024 during a cyclic maintenance exercise on a bridge over the M8. It was a Category 2 defect (which is less urgent than Category 1) and noted that “the embankment at the LHS of span 1 is maintained though there is a lot of litter in the area”. That defect remains “Open” and was not reported in the original response because it is a “Structures” defect and the original search looked only for carriageway-related defects. I can confirm that all other appropriate records have been disclosed.
I have also looked into the details of D-25-SW-13684 on the M8 and it was in fact a Category 1 graffiti defect. This required urgent attention and litter picking was conducted in the surrounding area at the same time.
Transport Scotland is midway through the development of a new bespoke database system, which is used to record asset related information and to assist with the management of the term maintenance contract. The system did not previously record specific litter defect types but rather, a more generic defect type can be raised, which references litter in the description, and those records have already been provided to you.
Inspectors are able to record a Category 1 defect for litter if they observe it during their weekly inspections and this would be expected to align with Grade E condition. In practice, however, inspectors were also expected to report litter accumulations informally before they reach Category 1/Grade E stage, and this fed into the planned litter collection activities referred to previously. Litter collection activities themselves are, in theory, another opportunity to record litter defects, but in practice, that tended not to happen because the litter was being cleared during the exercise. This is why so few defects were recorded during that period and instead, the actual work done was recorded, as referred to in 2.2 above, and that information has already been provided to you.
Development of the database system continues and as part of the “ongoing work” referred to in 2.1 above, changes are being explored that will make greater use of the grading system in CoPLAR, with the details being formally recorded in the system. This should mean that different information will be available in the future, making it easier to record and demonstrate compliance.
In Section 2.3 you refer to the apparent differences in the level of activity in the records provided for 2024 compared to 2025 and you asked the that the review confirm whether this reflects a genuine change in activity levels, a change in recording, or a change in operational approach during 2025.
The records provided in the response are those available and they represent the activities undertaken. There could be several contributing factors to these changes. You have listed some possible reasons behind any such differences and there could be others, but those reasons are not recorded and cannot therefore be provided. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have.
This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about littering on Scotland’s roads, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
In conducting my review, I have concluded that the original response provided all the information that was available in response to your request, apart from one additional recorded defect, and that nothing further is held that would fall within scope of your request. I have further concluded that the original response could have been clearer in explaining certain aspects and I have sought to rectify that in this response by providing additional clarification. Furthermore, I have concluded that the original response omitted to confirm clearly when exceptions to the Environmental Information Regulations were being invoked (when information requested was not being provided) and I have sought to clarify that. The combined information from the original response and this response therefore addresses all of your requests. I therefore conclude that there would be no added value in re-issuing the original response in a different form as requested by 3c.
More broadly, I note the concerns raised in your correspondence with respect to litter and wish to reassure you that Transport Scotland takes seriously our duties under the Environmental Protection Act. To that end, I would be happy to facilitate a short meeting by video conference with my colleagues in order to address, directly, any further questions that you might have. The response above focuses on the practices in place during 2024 and 2025 and this meeting would provide an opportunity to update you on recent changes and to explain future protocols.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Contact Please quote the FOI reference Central Correspondence Unit Email: contactus@gov.scot Phone: 0300 244 4000 The Scottish Government St Andrew's House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Detected exemption language
Part 1 Section 1 asked the following two questions. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. Section 2 asked the following two questions a) confirm the exact geographical extent covered by “M8 west of Kingston Bridge”; and b) explain how this level of activity corresponds to the inspection grades recorded for that corridor during the same period. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. Section 3 asked for four pieces of information: a) Copies of the monthly litter information reports provided by Amey for the M8 Glasgow–Erskine corridor (approximately Junctions 19–30) for calendar years 2024 and 2025.
Attachments
No attachments found.