Seòmar agus comataidhean

That may or may not be a wee bit different from the 60,000 instances of fly-tipping, but I would like a bit more information about the scale of what you are talking about.

My question is inspired by Mark Ruskell’s line of questioning. It is slightly different, but it is about getting SEPA’s reflections on a recurring situation in my constituency, on which SEPA has been proactive, I must say. Late last year, SEPA, Police Scotland and the fire service and I had a meeting about Promat, which is a former industrial site in the Springburn part of my constituency. It is a huge derelict site, it is incredibly difficult to secure its perimeter, and there is a dangerous building. I am convinced that criminal elements are fly-tipping there—I am talking about not occasional fly-tipping, but industrial-scale fly-tipping, if you like. Goodness knows what is in there. Tonnes of stuff appears there from time to time.

In the summer months, young people breach the perimeter, go in and have fun. Mr Ruskell talked about fires, and fires tend to happen there, too. The fire service does not know what is in there and SEPA has deep concerns. However, it is a constant war of attrition and I am sure that there will be additional issues when the summer months come again.

I genuinely think that Police Scotland, SEPA, the local authority and the fire service are all doing what they can with their existing powers. Regarding the responsibilities of the site owners, I make no judgment about the work that they are or are not doing because that is not the reason for my question. I suspect that Promat is not the only site in Scotland where such things keep happening. Does SEPA have a view about how all public agencies can work more effectively to tackle such hazards? I do not expect you to comment on the Promat site in my constituency, but is there a more general gap in legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and if so, what is it, and how could we plug it?

I apologise for cutting in and really do not mean to be discourteous, but I am not talking about a man with a van dumping a few mattresses; I am talking about organised, high-volume, industrial quantities of waste.

I will be ever so brief. In speaking in support of the affirmative instrument, I must commend Kevin Stewart and Douglas Lumsden for pushing for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to be part of the flat fares pilot. Their cases are almost as compelling as that for the north Glasgow and Maryhill Road corridor, where, with the fare capping that will be essential for my constituents, we could have excellent integration between buses and the rail network in that area, and we could work out the relationship between both. Notwithstanding that, though, I completely support the affirmative instrument that we are debating.

I do not want to get bogged down in the mechanisms, but any detail that Gary McIntyre can give on them would be helpful. I am conscious that, although the reimbursement is based on the single fare, most people will use a day ticket or tap on and tap off over the course of a week or a month, so the impact on the individual traveller might not seem that great. However, if the single ticket fare is inflated, the reimbursement kick-in could be significant. I am not saying that there is an issue; I am looking for reassurance that there is not one. Gary, would you like to comment?

The 5 per cent figure is helpful. I have learned from this exchange that there is not an assumption but that it is predicted that fares could go up by as much as 5 per cent and that that modelling work is taken into account for the statutory instrument for which you seek approval today. What would happen if fares went up beyond 5 per cent? How would that impact on the model? I apologise for going into this level of detail, but I am keen to know that.

SEPA is sometimes criticised. so I am trying to pay you a compliment by saying that there is clearly partnership working going on here. However, the nudge that I am looking for is for you to say whether you think that there could be more on the statute book to assist SEPA and other public agencies—I am not talking about the Promat site; I am talking more generally—to tackle the issue. The committee would be interested to hear about that. If there is nothing, that is okay and I will not ask any more questions. Is there anything specific that you would like to draw to our attention?

Thank you.

Mairi, I thank you for reflecting on some of the aspects of the report that I am going to draw to your attention. My question relates to drug education. The report talks about ensuring that education is embedded in the mainstream curriculum from primary 5 onwards and that it is co-produced with strong engagement, including with parents, on what age-appropriate education looks like. All those points are really well made. There is also stuff in there about ensuring that there is proper

“financial support ... for external organisations”

to deliver some of that, and about the need for wider community outreach to be part of education.

I am trying to summarise for the committee, as quickly as I can, some of the recommendations that you and your fellow panel members have made. Do you have any reflections on why those specific things are important? I am conscious that we have heard that you did not want the process to be a “tick-box exercise”. The Scottish Government’s response says that Education Scotland is already looking at some of this stuff and there are reviews on-going, and that the whole family wellbeing fund will deal with some of it.

Do you think that the production of the recommendations is where your participation in the story should end? Alternatively, should there be on-going engagement so that panel members can say, “Well actually, we want to know how our views are being reflected in that Education Scotland review, and in the reprofiling of the whole family support fund”?

Perhaps you can reflect not only on the importance of your recommendations but on how you can follow those through to delivery, so that the process is not simply a tick-box exercise.

Convener, I hope that, on the matter of fairer funding, you will not mind me mentioning that you are convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, on which I also sit, and that some of the movement in Government is based on recommendations from that committee. I think that we should acknowledge that committee’s work in that regard.