���˿���

My second question is one that I know the convener will be interested in, because it is about liability, and is a question that has been raised with me for many years, particularly by NFU Scotland. It is very aggrieved, because the current law says that an innocent landowner who has waste dumped on their land is responsible for the cost of clearing that up. That is an offence to the polluter-pays principle that is made clear in the fly-tipping strategy that underpins the Scottish Government’s approach. What we have at the moment is not the polluter-pays principle but the innocent victim of fly-tipping being held responsible for the cost of cleaning that up. I have numerous case studies from the NFUS, Scottish Land & Estates and others of cases in which innocent landowners have been held liable by SEPA for clean-up costs. We must get that sorted, because it is not fair.

Thank you, minister.

I actually welcome the increase—my concern is that it might not go far enough. Perhaps I can give a small anecdote to illustrate that. When I was doing research on fly-tipping, I spoke to a local authority environment officer in Edinburgh who said that he and a colleague had caught in the act an individual with a white van who was dumping mattresses by the roadside. He challenged that person and said that they would get a fixed-penalty notice. When that individual was told that the fixed-penalty notice would be £200, they said, “Well, just give it to me, because that’s less than it would cost to dispose of these legally.”

Clearly, there is a need to increase the charges, because they are not at a level where they are acting as a deterrent. We also know that, increasingly, people involved in illegal fly-tipping come from an organised crime background. Therefore, penalties need to be at a level where they are a deterrent. I think that £500 is helpful, but I urge the Scottish Government to consider whether it should go further and increase the level.

Another point that I want to raise came out of the session that the committee had two or three weeks ago with COSLA and local government representatives. It is about whether fixed penalties could help create an additional revenue stream for local councils and whether the money could be ring fenced in council budgets to support better enforcement. We have heard that local government has real issues with being able to devote resources to the issue. We can have as many fixed penalties as we want but, if we do not have people on the ground who can enforce them and issue notices, that will have little impact.

We also know that, due to budget pressures, councils across the country are having to reduce access to recycling centres. Based on the feedback that I got from my members’ bill consultation, that is the issue that most people raised as a contributory factor to fly-tipping. That a person cannot dispose of the goods legally is never an excuse for fly-tipping, but clearly, the more barriers that are put in the way of legal disposal, the more likely we are to drive up the number of cases. Do you have any view on the extent to which revenues from fixed-penalty notices might be helpful in supporting enforcement action by local councils?

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.

The just transition partnership told us that it was concerned about lack of transparency around the funding of projects. It raised concerns that there were no mechanisms for accountability to the representative bodies of the people of the area: the local authorities. Do you accept that that is a valid criticism?

I have just one more question for Fergus Mutch. I do not know whether you saw the breaking news this morning. It looks as though the oil refinery at Grangemouth is likely to close by spring 2025. That would be a huge blow to Scotland’s industrial base. It currently accounts for 4 per cent of national gross domestic product and 8 per cent of our manufacturing base. Clearly, that will have a knock-on impact on the north-east economy. I appreciate that the news has just broken, but do you have any reflections on the impact that it will have on the businesses of your members and on the wider just transition debate?

My declaration relates to item 4 on the agenda. As a member of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel, I visited Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories in 2018. The cost of that was met by the embassy of Israel in the United Kingdom.

I have some questions on the just transition fund. I will initially go to Mr Munro from the Scottish National Investment Bank. When the Scottish Government set up SNIB, a £2 billion fund was proposed to be paid over a number of years, and the just transition fund is £500 million. To be clear, is the £500 million additional to the £2 billion?

I am concerned, minister, that you are founding your arguments on a statement in your legislative consent memorandum that is not sustainable, but let us move on to the substance of the issue, if we can.

There are many repressive regimes in the world. There are many countries in the middle east, for example, that have terrible track records when it comes to the rights of women, the LGBT community and religious minorities and that repress free speech. Countries such as Iran are particular examples of that, and countries such as China have deplorable human rights records. Are you aware of any campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction many of those countries?

Which one?

Right. I am just trying to get some precision on the dates that you are referring to.