Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate those thoughts.

At this point I will close and hand back to Mr Golden to wind up.

This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be as succinct as Maurice Golden was.

Amendments 31 and 33 set out a requirement for ministers to

“set out improvement plans for ... Minerals”

that are critical to the green energy transition. The minerals include copper, lithium, nickel and iron, which are vital for renewables and for the battery technologies that we will use in the decades to come.

Members will be aware that mining those materials has serious social and environmental consequences, and that demand for them is going to grow rapidly. Given their importance, it is vital that the Government considers how reuse and recycling of those materials across the energy sector can be developed. We are already seeing focus on the onshore wind sector and on repowering turbines, and there are great supply chain and economic opportunities around that. However, planning and leadership from the Government are needed.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2: I thank the minister for discussing the issue again ahead of stage 3. I recognise that primary legislation might not be the most appropriate place for this complex issue, but I seek assurances from the minister that those critical matters will be addressed in the Scottish Government’s work on energy policy—particularly the energy strategy and the just transition plan.

Development of a circular economy is key to tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Throughout the passage of the bill and in evidence, we have heard about the importance not only of reducing the amount of resources that we consume but of reducing the carbon emissions that are associated with the goods, products and services that we all need and use.

We should always be focused on having an economy in which we not only reduce the amount of materials that we consume but reduce their carbon impacts. I am grateful to the minister for the constructive discussions that we have had on that.

Following those discussions, I lodged amendments 40, 41 and 42, to ensure that the characteristics of a desirable economy that are set out in section 1(3) of the bill include not only reducing consumption of products and materials but reducing their whole-life-cycle carbon emissions. That will help to lay the foundations for the deep transformations in the economy that we need to happen during the next 20 years, as we start to head towards net zero. I urge members, across parties, to support the amendments.

On amendment 43, during discussions with many stakeholders I heard about the importance of education and skills. In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee highlighted the importance of behaviour change. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment to ensure that that will be taken into account when developing a circular economy strategy.

Amendment 43 expands on that to ensure that education and skills are also specifically taken into account by ministers in the development of the strategy. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that, globally, we will have 18 million new jobs in the circular economy by 2040. Our young people need the skills to access those new jobs. There is a precedent for that; in the Irish Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022, there is a strong focus on education. I ask members to support amendment 43.

Another issue that has been raised regularly with me by stakeholders is the importance of action to move up the waste hierarchy—in particular, strengthening of the commitment to reuse schemes such as refill and take-back. Amendment 44 would insert in section 1 a requirement that

“In preparing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the role that reuse, refill and take-back schemes have in contributing to the development of a circular economy.”

I again thank the minister for our discussions on the matter. I am sure that, during our proceedings this afternoon, she will receive many thanks for the positive cross-party discussions that have taken place throughout stages 2 and 3.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to developing a product stewardship plan as part of the draft waste and circular economy route map, which will take those issues fully into account.

I believe that my amendment 44 would ensure that those issues would be actively considered. I note, though, that Maurice Golden has lodged amendment 44A, which is an amendment to my amendment 44, to add detail to how such schemes

“will prioritise products and packaging”.

It is important to ensure that there is flexibility in how all manner of potential reuse, refill and take-back schemes are developed. It is therefore important that the Government has flexibility, so I urge members to support amendment 44 as it stands, without Mr Golden’s amendment to my amendment.

Given that I am opening the debate on this group, I will offer some brief remarks on other amendments in the group. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45 and Bob Doris’s amendment 73 would add important requirements for ministers to

“have regard to ... workplace safety”

and “international impacts” when preparing the strategy. I will be happy to support those.

I will also support Monica Lennon’s amendment 95, which would require that reusable items be prioritised over single-use items in the strategy wherever possible. I know that it will not be possible to do so in every case, but it is important to have that aim. Amendment 95 is supported by many non-governmental organisations, and I hope that the minister will consider supporting it, too.

I will also support Maurice Golden’s amendment 98, which requires ministers to “have regard to” critical sectors that have come up in evidence, “including construction”, when preparing the strategy.

Finally, I have sympathy with the thinking behind Maurice Golden’s amendment 65 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, on ensuring that waste is “managed in Scotland” rather than being shipped overseas, but I will listen to the minister’s arguments before I make up my mind on those.

I move amendment 31.

I understand. Thank you.

Good morning.

Stephen, you said that Audit Scotland is very much a people-based organisation, which has come through in many of the discussions that we have had in the commission. However, I remain concerned about your level of staff turnover. You wrote to us in December to say that working towards a 2 per cent vacancy factor, which is reflected in the budget, would be pretty challenging, but was nonetheless deliverable. However, we are now looking at a 9 per cent vacancy factor and there is reliance on temporary staff. What issues are affecting that figure? Are you confident that achieving a 2 per cent vacancy factor can remain as an assumption for your future budgets?

Thank you for that. It paints a slightly bigger picture, so it is useful to know. It would be good to get more of that information.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Alan. That is useful.

In April this year, you wrote to us about repurposing £287,000 to appoint five additional members of staff at auditor or auditor officer grade to increase your staffing levels in the short term. Can you give us an update on progress in recruiting those staff, given that, as you have said, there are various recruitment challenges, depending on which grade and specialism you are recruiting for?

On the back of that question, I want to drill down into an aspect that staff have reflected on, which is the availability of training to enable them to deliver high-quality audit work.

It is clear that you offer your in-house teams more training days than private firms do. However, when you ask your own staff whether their training level is adequate to deliver such quality, significant numbers of them still feel that it is not. I want to understand what lies behind that. Is it because you have a lot of new staff coming in who feel that they have particularly high training needs? Does it relate to the points that we discussed earlier, about the need for peer-to-peer support?

It is a little concerning, so I would like to understand how you are addressing your staff’s perception that, even though their training provision is good, as regards the high number of days that are available, it does not seem to give significant numbers of them the confidence that they need to deliver the highest quality of audit work.

That partially explains things, but I still do not fully understand the differences with the firms. Do staff in the firms not come up against those issues?

Can you remind me whether the recruitments are to short-term posts in the organisation? Are they temporary or permanent posts?