Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Thank you.

On your point about people struggling to pay the fines, when we did some research, the committee found that, increasingly, organised crime is involved in collecting industrial waste in particular and dumping it. As you fairly said earlier, it is a crime that is very hard to detect, and the chances of being caught are, therefore, very low. If you are caught, the penalties are so low that they are not a risk. The idea of increasing the fines is more to catch those people rather than the householder who gets rid of a mattress in the wrong place.

Thank you, convener. Good morning—it is still morning—to the panel. As you probably know, I ran a consultation on a member’s bill on fly-tipping, in which I looked at a number of specific measures. I attracted broad support for taking that bill forward, and it is currently going through the drafting process. However, there are opportunities to use the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill as a vehicle to introduce some of the changes that I proposed, which is welcome.

The Scottish Government produced a national litter and fly-tipping strategy that was published in June, which is helpful. Before I talk about some of the detail of that, I will pick up the point that Michael Cook and James Mackenzie made about barriers. One thing that came out strongly from the consultation that I ran is that, when we asked people about barriers, they said that if legal routes to recycling were more easily available, that would help to tackle the problem. Recently, local councils have reduced access to recycling centres. For example, a number of recycling centres in the area that I represent have reduced their opening hours due to budgetary issues. Some have introduced a booking system—people cannot just turn up but have to book—or queueing system. Some are closed at weekends. To what extent does that contribute to the problem? How can we tackle that?

I will ask about more specific items. In my consultation, I proposed four changes, one of which was an enhanced duty of care with regard to waste generators. I am pleased to see that that is now covered by section 10 of the bill.

However, there were other measures that I consulted on, which are mentioned in the national litter and fly-tipping strategy but do not appear in the bill. There are three measures. The first is improved data collection. Although it is mentioned in the strategy, there is nothing in the bill about that. The second is the point that the convener referred to, which is the question of liability on the part of the innocent landowner, which seems to be an inherent unfairness.

The third is the question of penalties. At present, the maximum fixed penalty is £200. All the evidence is that that is nowhere near the level that it needs to be in order to be a deterrent. In fact, we heard evidence from council environmental health staff that they catch people in the act of fly-tipping, who say, “Just give us the £200 fine, because it’s cheaper for us to pay that than it would be to legally dispose of this stuff.”

Therefore, could the bill be amended at stage 2 or 3 to address the measures that I have referred to? Would you welcome that?

Yes, I am sure that it could. One of the confusions is that, at the moment, too many different bodies are involved in collecting data. There is a role for local authorities, a role for SEPA and a role for Zero Waste Scotland. My intention was to look at how we might create a duty for the Scottish ministers to properly collect, publish and report on data so that there would be a single collection point. The issue is covered on page 8 of the fly-tipping strategy, but it does not appear in the bill. That is why I thought that it could usefully be put in the bill. I am interested in looking at amendments to the bill that would bring that in.

No, I think that I am done, unless the panel members want to come back on anything.

Before I bring in the others, Alasdair, I want to follow up on something that came up in this morning’s session. We heard that having the funding restricted to capital funding was a barrier to many groups and that it would be better if it were also—[Inaudible.]—revenue funding. Do you agree with that?

Has the SNIB given you guidance on that last point?

I want to follow up with those of you who have a local authority perspective. Earlier, Alison Stuart said that the SNIB funding is for the “big boys and girls”. I think that that was the phrase that was used. Perhaps that is the intention, but we might need clarity from the SNIB in that regard. What engagement have your local authorities had with the SNIB on how you point people in its direction and access funding?

I apologise; obviously, I am having microphone problems.

Stuart Bews, could you answer my initial question, please?