Chamber and committees

Yes, absolutely—that is what the evidence tells us. The approach to implementation in Wales, which is an excellent model, is that fines are an absolute last resort. If a council has not met its targets, there is a conversation about why that is. Of the ones that did not meet their targets, only one had a fine applied to it, and even that might have been waived.

I will bring in Janet McVea.

I have not had a meeting with Amazon.

The most relevant provision in the bill in that regard relates not so much to the strategy, which absolutely could encompass those things, but to practical implementation. So much of the practical implementation will be done by our local authorities, so it is most likely that it will take effect and take shape under the provision for development of the code of practice.

I am, indeed, open minded about how we can improve any aspect of the bill—certainly, in terms of ensuring that the strategy has the effect that we want it to have. Of course, our commitment to human rights globally is strong, as you know. I look forward to discussing those potential amendments with you further.

I will give you my thoughts, then invite officials to come in. There are two points to make on that. In relation to the bill, there is an opportunity in respect of national and local authority targets, if local authorities want to address that as part of the co-design process. That could be looked at, but what would procurement with such targets look like? We would have to work out the exact details to make sure that it was feasible.

The other element, which I have discussed with Zero Waste Scotland, is entirely separate from the bill, but is part of the larger picture. We are moving into a space where we need to understand and be able to measure the circularity of a company. For example, in the fair work space, we know that companies are accredited as fair work companies and as living wage companies. Under such a procurement procedure, you would be able to say whether a company meets the requirement.

However, we do not have a circularity accreditation. One does not exist here yet and, as far as I am aware, none exists globally. All countries are working on that.

It would be interesting to look at the idea. I have discussed the matter with Zero Waste Scotland. Around the world, various metrics are being developed and, as I said, I have asked Zero Waste Scotland to take that on board. Such a metric would be brilliant. My long-term vision is to have a circularity metric, so that we could say that companies must have a certain amount of circularity, just as we can say that they must be fair work employers, but I do not know what that would look like yet.

No—I do not think that stakeholders need to be nervous. Since he gave evidence to the committee, I have had a meeting with Ewan MacDonald-Russell of the Scottish Retail Consortium to clarify exactly that point. He was concerned that the definition might include food and other perishable goods, so I wanted to reassure him that that is not the case. The description of “consumer goods” is intended to be used in relation to durable goods, not perishable goods. I have agreed to write to Mr MacDonald-Russell to clarify that point.

The intention is to cover goods that are currently being disposed of that have a significant impact. The model that we are examining is the one that applies in France, where rules have been imposed for electronics, textiles, hygiene products and cosmetics. That is the model that we will consider, although we will do a full consultation before we implement it.

The bill is absolutely not intended to target small and medium-sized businesses. It is—

I can only imagine how frustrating it is to have a waste crime committed on your land, convener.

I will answer, but I will also hand over to Ailsa Heine, because there are some legal points to make in connection with this particular question.

Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not place an immediate legal liability on the occupier of land, but it does provide a means of serving a notice to compel the occupier to remove waste from the land in some circumstances, which must be what has occurred in the situations to which Murdo Fraser referred. Although that power could be used in any circumstances, it is likely to be used by SEPA or by local authorities only when there is substantial evidence that the landowner bears some responsibility for the deposited waste. SEPA and local authorities also have powers to remove waste from land, so they can do it themselves.

Although we recognise that private landowners are often the victims of fly-tipping and we recognise the need for further action to support those victims, the proposal contained in Murdo Fraser’s proposed member’s bill would significantly affect SEPA’s ability to tackle serious waste crime, and removal of the provision in section 59(1) of the 1990 act would allow occupiers of land who bear some responsibility for fly-tipping waste to escape liability for unlawful behaviour, which would leave the public purse to bear the removal and clean-up costs.

The specific requirement is that SEPA and local authorities must have substantial evidence that the landowner bears some responsibility for the deposited waste. The question is not so much around the legislation; it is perhaps around how it is being implemented. I cannot comment on any particular individual circumstances, but I absolutely recognise the point that victims of waste crimes have a grievance, and I am interested to hear about what other measures we could take to support them in that.