Chamber and committees

I will give a summary and then hand over to John Speirs. Putting the border controls in place is all part of the progress of Brexit. There have been controls for high-risk goods, and now the controls for medium-risk goods are being put in place at the borders.

I ask John to give us some detail about how the businesses find out.

I absolutely share that concern. That is exactly the transition that the border target operating model represents. When we were a full member of the EU, we were able to trade goods without border checks. Trading with the EU has been relatively low risk in the interim period since Brexit because our regulations and requirements were in line. We will inevitably diverge over time, however much we would like to stay in alignment, so we must have border controls now that we are outside the EU. That is why the border controls are being brought in. Trade has been relatively low risk, but the risk could increase over time.

We are taking a risk-based approach. High-risk goods are already being checked, by both documentary means and physical inspections. That is being done at the place of destination, not at the border. Those high-risk goods are already being tracked and managed, and we are now bringing medium-risk goods into the regime, albeit with various exemptions that I would be happy to go into. Essentially, there is a phased roll-out of border controls.

John Speirs may wish to add more detail.

I will hand over to John Speirs for a bit more detail on that.

The border target operating model and the Windsor framework are two different things, but I will hand over to John Speirs to get into the weeds of it.

I absolutely agree that the bill can be used in that way. The member will note that, in section 1, which is on the circular economy strategy, many of the provisions specifically refer to “consumption of materials”. That is not limited to the impact of the consumption of materials on Scotland, so one could absolutely use those provisions to look at global footprint. Earlier this week, I had a meeting about a report that is to be published on Scotland’s global footprint and how we will look at that. Work is being done on that in parallel with the work on the bill.

I do not know whether any of the officials would like to come in on that.

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.

That is my understanding—that the fines would stay at £200.