���˿���

Thank you for that response. I have a couple of points on what you have raised. One issue that came out strongly in the consultation on my member’s bill was frustration from local authorities that they would report people for prosecution but those people were not then prosecuted. I do not have the figures with me, but we did some research into the number of prosecutions that were taken forward, as opposed to the number of people who were reported to the procurator fiscal. The number of prosecutions was tiny—it was in the low teens, if I remember correctly.

We know that, as with all other areas of public policy, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is under huge pressure. If you are a procurator fiscal looking at your casework, you have all sorts of crimes against individuals to deal with, and tackling fly-tipping crimes is not a priority. A very small proportion of the incidents that were reported to COPFS, therefore, were actually taken forward. That is a great frustration for local authority environmental staff, because they pass the papers through and nothing happens, and people get off scot free.

That is why the fixed-penalty notices are important—they are a practical step that can be taken at local level. I hear what you have to say about the levels. Could we create a new legislative framework—as my bill is looking at doing—whereby there would, in effect, be a sliding scale of fixed-penalty notices that could be issued by local authorities? For very low-level offences, such as dumping a sofa, the penalty might be £500, but where an offence was more serious, the penalty could be increased to a higher level. That would be at the discretion of the local authority.

I am happy to explore that with you separately, minister.

I will try to be as brief as possible, convener.

Minister, you will be aware that I have carried out a consultation on fly-tipping, as part of work on a member’s bill, which is progressing very well. There are four elements to that. I am pleased to see that section 10 of the bill picks up the issue of the householder’s responsibility. We will discuss the level of fines later, so I will not ask about that, which helpfully leaves me with two issues and two questions.

My first question is very straightforward and is about data collection. The picture is quite confused at the moment because a number of bodies are involved in data collection, including local authorities, Zero Waste Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Your fly-tipping strategy recognises the need to improve the consistency and quality of data collection. Would it be helpful to amend the bill at stage 2 to put a specific duty on ministers to collect and publish data, so that we have a central point, rather than having that responsibility spread across different organisations?

Thank you, convener.

I have lodged a motion to annul, but that was largely a device to ensure that the convener would allow me time to ask questions, which I hope has had an appropriate impact.

I am genuinely confused by this. I did a little simple research and found that, for example, Margaret Thatcher’s Government condemned apartheid on a number of occasions. Famously, Margaret Thatcher, when she met Archbishop Desmond Tutu, condemned apartheid. She condemned apartheid in 1984 during a visit to the United Kingdom by P W Botha, the South African leader. The UK Government was also involved in sanctioning South Africa, so I am not entirely sure what that paragraph refers to.

Specifically, how do the constraints around financial transactions limit what you are able to support?

Thanks very much. I am sure that we can return to that issue, convener.

No. So, this is all about Israel, is it not? That is exactly what the whole debate and the legislation are about: they are about Israel, which, for some reason, is being singled out by campaigners when all those other repressive regimes are being ignored. Over the past few weeks, particularly since 7 October, we have seen a dramatic rise in antisemitic activity. I have certainly spoken to members of the Jewish community in Glasgow who say that they have never experienced such a hostile environment as the one that they are experiencing today. They feel unsafe in Scotland. You will have read the submission, I am sure, from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, which shows overwhelming support for the bill and which opposes the action that the Scottish Government is taking. Are you not concerned that, in opposing the bill, the perception will be that you are giving succour to antisemitic sentiments when, you should instead be giving reassurance to the Scottish Jewish community, given that it feels more threatened than it has done at any point in the past 40 years?

Good morning, minister and colleagues. I have a number of short questions, and I hope that we will get short answers.

First, minister, would you accept that international affairs and matters of international trade are reserved to the UK Parliament?

Thank you. In your memorandum, at paragraph 20, you refer to the UK Government: which UK Government are you referring to?

Okay. Thanks. The just transition fund that SNIB handles is predominantly, as I understand it, in financial transactions. I am interested to understand how limiting that is for the support that you are able to offer to projects. For example, in evidence, Moray Council told us:

“there will be less appetite for financial transactions though the Scottish National Investment Bank, the current scheme simply mirrors funding that was already available for such purposes, it also limits public sector organisations involvement in the interventions as there are other sources of funding for such works but loans are not attractive compared to capital grants.”

That reflects some of the evidence that we heard earlier. What are the constraints around financial transactions funding, and how do those impact on the sort of projects that you can support?