���˿���

I think that Anna Ritchie Allan was trying to come in; I might have cut her off inadvertently.

Is that question for a specific witness?

Are you suggesting that the figure in the bill is a starting point but that, depending on what SEIAC looks at, it might have to flex up its membership to get particular expertise?

Yes. I thank Mr Ruskell for letting me come in at this point. I have a specific constituency question for Mr McCulloch, as he might have anticipated. I was pleased that the Scottish Government provided £21 million of RIF funding to allow Glasgow City Council to carry out a much needed overhaul of its recycling facilities—it has probably been waiting a decade for that investment. I hope that that will bring about a transformation, but I am obviously keen to know when the Blochairn recycling facility, which is a significant blight for many of my constituents, will finally close and more appropriate facilities will be used. It would be helpful to know that. Is that £21 million investment sufficient to allow Glasgow City Council to be on track to dramatically improve the current recycling rates? What percentage do you think that you will get to over the next few years, once the new facilities and the new kerbside collections are in place?

We can roll them together due to time constraints, convener.

My question is on whether the data on fly-tipping is robust. In my experience, there is almost hidden fly-tipping. Local authorities across the country have bulk uplift charges, which can be prohibitive at times, so local residents often put their household waste—such as old baths, cookers and televisions—beside communal bin areas, but those are not covered by the local authority’s uplift policy. That is eventually deemed to be fly-tipping and is collected at a cost to the council. Is that captured in the data? Scottish Government stats refer to 60,000 annual incidents. Is that an underestimate? Do we have a clear definition of what fly-tipping is?

I know that there are time constraints, convener, but it is important to ask that.

I think that Rhona Gunn did address it. In many urban areas, there is a prevalence of people putting household goods for disposal at bin locations, when those goods are not covered by local authority uplift. I understand that the waste sits there for some time and is then classified as fly-tipping, and is uplifted at a cost to the local authority anyway.

We need to standardise data collection across the country to see the extent of the problem and, as Rhona Gunn said, find more efficient ways of tackling that issue. I think that Rhona agreed that it is an issue, but that we do not have robust data collection.

This session has been helpful. The picture that is emerging shows that, although structures are in place in the Health and Safety Executive, as Lucy Kenyon mentioned, they may not be sufficient for the ambitions that Professor Macdonald has regarding the data that we should be collecting, for example. There are systems in place, but there appears to be a weakness regarding the jobs that they should be doing. The question is whether the bill is the way to plug that gap, or whether there are other ways to do so. That is something that we have to wrestle with as a committee.

What the bill is silent about—for some, it is the elephant in the room—is whether the new SEIAC will, at some point, make recommendations on who should get industrial injuries benefits when the criteria for that are looked at again by the Scottish Government, or whether another body should do that.

My question is about the different approach that SEIAC might take in relation to those kinds of things compared with IIAC, which is, of course, looking at the same evidence and has the same experts deciding whether there is “reasonable certainty”, which is a very general expression. I suppose that that is a long way of asking whether you think that SEIAC would necessarily take a different approach to IIAC when making decisions. I am not talking about data collection, Professor Macdonald—we are admitting that there is a gap in that—I am being more general. If SEIAC and IIAC are looking at the same data, would you expect them to come to different conclusions as to whether there was reasonable certainty?

I think that Professor Macdonald had Anton Muscatelli texting to prompt him to put that on the record. That was helpful for completeness.

Good morning to both witnesses. The function of the Scottish employment injuries advisory council, as proposed, is to

“investigate and review emerging employment hazards that result in disease or injury”.

That might duplicate activities of other organisations. Professor Macdonald helpfully mentioned the Health and Safety Executive, and it is imperative that it give evidence to the committee, given its crucial role. This should surely be its bread and butter, and, imperfect as occupational health might be in Scotland and across the UK, the data that you get should be used to inform the work of the HSE. Irrespective of whether it is the IIAC or the SEIAC—we love acronyms in this place—whatever the advisory board or council is, the information that occupational health gets from workplaces is vital, and it has to drive action.

I am conscious that employment law is reserved and that the HSE has a direct remit here. Is there the possibility of duplication when the SEIAC is in place? Can you say anything about your role and how we should use the vital data that you want to be collected to drive the change that you want to see? Perhaps we should take Lucy Kenyon first.

That is very helpful.

Sorry, convener. I will be brief.

It is my understanding—I am sorry if I have got this wrong—that the DWP has said that experts who sit on IIAC cannot also sit on any Scottish advisory board. I think that that might be the situation. Do you have any views on that? I would compare that with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium—the bodies that deal with UK health approval and Scottish health approval—which have something called multiple technology appraisals, through which they do things jointly from time to time.

There appears to be a barrier there. Do you have any thoughts in relation to that barrier? Please be brief, or the convener really will give me a hard time.