Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Monica Lennon for continuing to press and campaign on this issue. It is clear that we need good reuse schemes operating for lots of types of items in our economy, and nappies are a good example. I would add bikes, too. There are great initiatives involving bike libraries being set up, through which local authorities are working with social enterprises in a similar way. There are loads of opportunities for councils to work with the third sector to drive forward on reuse. However, I think that the most appropriate way to develop reuse schemes is through the waste route map, and that we should not put individual schemes in the bill.

My amendment 44, which we discussed earlier, requires ministers to consider reuse, refill and take-back schemes as part of the strategy. Personally, I will absolutely hold the minister to account—I know that Monica Lennon will, too—to ensure that nappies are considered as part of that, because there is a strong case for that. However, there is a doubt in my mind, because we have to acknowledge that reusable nappy schemes have been on the go for more than 20 years. I was proud to use them for my children, 18 years ago, through a social enterprise in Stirling, and I know that Monica Lennon has used them for her children this year. Given that we had successful schemes almost 20 years ago, we need to understand why the public uptake has not followed on the back of that.

I think that Monica Lennon secured a win by working with the then minister, Lorna Slater, to get a Government-commissioned report by the James Hutton Institute on the public attitude towards reusable nappies. I hope that that will point to a way ahead to make reuse schemes more accessible, cheaper and more successful. However, I do not think that we can draw in all that learning and put a requirement in the bill to have such schemes.

In principle, I support Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. I recognise, as I am sure he does, that the review of Scotland’s incineration capacity, which was commissioned by my colleague Lorna Slater, has been enormously helpful. Prior to that, the Government had no understanding of what level of incineration was needed in Scotland, which effectively resulted in a free-for-all in the planning system, with lots of companies proposing speculative developments and each of them claiming that their capacity was needed to meet Scotland’s needs.

We have that information now, and Lorna Slater, the then minister, set an important precedent, which I know has inspired Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. We need that level of analysis for all waste infrastructure, in the round. What infrastructure do we need in Scotland? Where are the best locations? What capacity do we have at the moment? Where is it located, and in which regions and which sectors? Where can we foster innovation to deliver meaningful change? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be thoroughly investigated, and that is why I support the bulk of Mr Golden’s amendment.

However, I do not want some of the specifics and detail in Mr Golden’s amendment 64 being used as a basis for its being rejected. I lodged amendment 64A because I do not think that it is necessary to have detail about a broader waste strategy in the waste infrastructure plan. That can be dealt with elsewhere, in the route map and in other policy areas.

I urge members to support amendment 64A, so that Parliament can unite behind a meaningful investigation of Scotland’s waste infrastructure that builds on the good work on incineration that this Government has already started.

We will not support Maurice Golden’s amendments in this group, with the exception of amendment 62. At stage 2, we discussed at length the drawbacks of setting fixed targets in the bill. Setting a recycling target for 2026 would give very little time for co-design with local authorities to take place and for them to prepare a detailed plan to meet their targets. We recognise that some local authorities are further ahead on that than others and might be able to meet a target of 2026, but others will not be able to do that. We need to ensure that everybody gets the support that they need to move together.

I am, however, convinced about amendment 62, which will require the Scottish Government to report annually on councils’ progress on meeting their targets. It would be helpful to have that additional information. I listened to the minister’s point that there will be reporting on the strategy alongside that, but a report coming to Parliament would be very useful, as it would bring additional scrutiny. That builds on the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 that requires ministers to report to Parliament if a target is missed, which is similar to a provision in the climate change legislation.

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?

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.