Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can only imagine how frustrating it is to have a waste crime committed on your land, convener.

I will answer, but I will also hand over to Ailsa Heine, because there are some legal points to make in connection with this particular question.

Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not place an immediate legal liability on the occupier of land, but it does provide a means of serving a notice to compel the occupier to remove waste from the land in some circumstances, which must be what has occurred in the situations to which Murdo Fraser referred. Although that power could be used in any circumstances, it is likely to be used by SEPA or by local authorities only when there is substantial evidence that the landowner bears some responsibility for the deposited waste. SEPA and local authorities also have powers to remove waste from land, so they can do it themselves.

Although we recognise that private landowners are often the victims of fly-tipping and we recognise the need for further action to support those victims, the proposal contained in Murdo Fraser’s proposed member’s bill would significantly affect SEPA’s ability to tackle serious waste crime, and removal of the provision in section 59(1) of the 1990 act would allow occupiers of land who bear some responsibility for fly-tipping waste to escape liability for unlawful behaviour, which would leave the public purse to bear the removal and clean-up costs.

The specific requirement is that SEPA and local authorities must have substantial evidence that the landowner bears some responsibility for the deposited waste. The question is not so much around the legislation; it is perhaps around how it is being implemented. I cannot comment on any particular individual circumstances, but I absolutely recognise the point that victims of waste crimes have a grievance, and I am interested to hear about what other measures we could take to support them in that.

That is my understanding—that the fines would stay at £200.

A recent example comes from the regulations for the deposit return scheme, which allowed retail businesses of certain sizes to apply for exemptions and which exempted producers that produced fewer than 5,000 items of a particular product line. It is absolutely possible to draft regulations so that they target the businesses that have the most environmental impact, and that is the intention.

No—that would not negate the whole point. The regulations need to be proportionate; we are looking at large businesses whose activities can have a significant impact on the carbon footprint. The bill is absolutely not intended to target small and medium-sized enterprises or to disadvantage small businesses in any way. We are looking specifically at the impact of large businesses.

The question, as I understood it, was about the timescale for national targets.

I absolutely agree that the bill can be used in that way. The member will note that, in section 1, which is on the circular economy strategy, many of the provisions specifically refer to “consumption of materials”. That is not limited to the impact of the consumption of materials on Scotland, so one could absolutely use those provisions to look at global footprint. Earlier this week, I had a meeting about a report that is to be published on Scotland’s global footprint and how we will look at that. Work is being done on that in parallel with the work on the bill.

I do not know whether any of the officials would like to come in on that.

I correct myself. I am trying to remember what I did. If the record says that I met Amazon, then I did. I would have to go back and see the minutes of the meeting. That was last year. The convener will know that I have many meetings. If that is on the record, we can find out what the minutes of that meeting say.

The only comment that I think pertains to me came from the deputy convener. What he has asked for is not a problem at all.

Absolutely. Just to reiterate, section 8, on the disposal of unsold consumer goods, does not apply to food and perishable goods.

The strategy and the high-level targets absolutely do incorporate food waste, but the specific provision in the bill that the member is alluding to is the one that refers to the reporting of waste and surplus.

Section 17 of the bill would require businesses to report on their waste and surplus. The intention is to use those provisions sector-by-sector, with food waste being the first one that we are considering, because that is such a high priority—as the member rightly pointed out. I would like construction to be the second sector that we look at, for exactly the reasons that the deputy convener mentioned.

The requirement is for businesses to publicly report on the waste and surplus of food; again, that is looking at large businesses. Several large businesses already do reporting of that kind voluntarily, including Tesco, Hovis, IKEA and Unilever, so there are already good models of what that looks like in the voluntary space. About 300 UK businesses already do voluntary reporting and about 60 of those operate in Scotland. It is about taking that good practice and spreading it across industry so that all large food-related industry businesses have to do such reporting.