Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand. I am very grateful.

Good morning, minister. I am trying to understand the order, by which I mean the Environmental Regulation (Enforcement Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023; you called it “the order”. You are asking the committee to advise Parliament to pass a Scottish statutory instrument that allows penalties to be levied on a scheme that is not yet in place, has been delayed twice, may be further delayed, has changed already and, this week, has been the subject of reports of significant concerns and flaws. If that is all correct, are you therefore comfortable that this is the right way round of doing it? Should the actual scheme not be addressed to get that right before you start bringing in legislation to enforce in the breach?

Yes.

Thank you. The second of my questions is about whether you can help me to understand your projections for the number of businesses that will be caught and potentially fined under this. Do you have any projections for how much money you might raise as a result?

I am staying with what you called “the order”: the Environmental Regulation (Enforcement Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023.

Yes, and what is the figure—the statutory maximum—that the penalty will not exceed, please?

Will you take an intervention?

A couple of things arise for me, minister. On the civil penalty, what happens to the money that is raised in fines? Did I hear you tell the convener that SEPA retains it to fund itself?

I see. What happens to the fines?

I understand. Thank you. The key point, it feels to me—I appreciate that we will go to debate in a minute—is that the fines raised do not come back to the DRS specifically, perhaps to help that scheme or to help producers or whatever.

Who is the arbiter of whether a breach of the order merits a criminal prosecution or requires a civil prosecution? “Prosecution” is the wrong word, but you know what I mean. Will SEPA be the arbiter of that?