Chamber and committees

Does anyone else want to come in on that?

Thank you for that reassurance. In conversation with coastal communities, I have been told that they feel that they would not be recognised. It is good to hear that you are concerned about them and want to ensure that they have a voice.

I have some more questions for Robbie Kernahan.

Robbie, you started to go through the types of things that you will ask people to demonstrate when they apply for a licence. In the discussions that I have had with people on the bill, I have heard that we have a situation where people are killing foxes to protect land year after year without any long-term improvement and with no reduction in the local fox population and no increase in lamb retention rates. Last week, we heard from OneKind and the League Against Cruel Sports that they oppose licensing schemes because they fear that such schemes will create new loopholes that will allow the continuation of hunting with dogs for sport.

If a licensing scheme is to be retained, I would be interested to hear what you think about it being aligned with the international principles for ethical wildlife control. Groups and organisations such as those that I have just mentioned have called for that. In order to obtain a licence, applicants would have to demonstrate that they were complying with those principles. What are your thoughts about that?

You have just touched on the fact that the aquaculture industry has a target to double production by 2030 through expansion of open-net salmon farming. However, I have been talking to concerned environmental non-governmental organisations and communities who stress that there is no evidence, from Scotland or anywhere else, that open-net farming is or can be environmentally sustainable. On the contrary, we know that effluent from open-cage farms is discharged and dumped untreated into the sea; toxic chemicals that are used to kill sea lice are also discharged into our marine environment; and tens f thousands of wild wrasse are taken from the wild to clean the sea lice off the salmon and are then killed. That is to say nothing of the emissions from importing salmon feed from across the world or the impact on wild salmon populations here due to sea lice, fish escapees and disease.

Do you recognise the fact that the industry’s environmental impacts are not sustainable? I use the word in an environmental rather than the economic sense. Have you seen any evidence to suggest that open-net farms could reduce pollution, sea lice and fish escapees to close to zero?

It is great when you get specific like that. Thanks very much. I will turn to the environmental benefit exceptions. Michael Clancy has touched on the specifics of the species list, but some witnesses, notably RSPB Scotland and Scottish Badgers, have in written evidence questioned the need for the exception and licences in connection to environmental benefit, and the League Against Cruel Sports highlighted the concern, which is shared by many, that that exception will be exploited and used as a smokescreen for traditional hunting with dogs. If we retain that exception and licensing scheme, do you believe that those sections would benefit from clearer definitions of terms such as

“significant or long-term environmental benefit”

and from guidance on how to determine whether each case meets those criteria?

Professor Griggs, I am joining the meeting virtually and am very sorry that I cannot be with you in person today. I was interested to hear your perspective on community. I thank you for doing all that work.

I have been speaking to coastal communities as well—I speak to people who earn their living by catching crabs and lobsters. The coast is where people in those communities swim, where their children play and where tourists, who also bring money into the local economy, come to enjoy diving and water sports. It is interesting that you were talking about who the community is. Some people do not want fish farms even if they would receive payment, because many of them would see that as being bought off.

You have recommended a single consenting document, but that seems not to include a mechanism for communities to reject the imposition of a new or expanded industrial fish farm in their local waters. I would like to hear your thoughts on the principle that coastal communities should have a say in where fish farms are located.

Thank you for that response. I will move on to questions about the exceptions in sections 3 and 5 to 7 of the bill. Last week, Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated:

“The purpose of the majority of the bill is to close the loopholes in the act”.

He related that, under the 2002 act,

“every badger baiter has said that they were after foxes, and every hare courser has said that they were after rabbits”.

He also stated that many terms

“have to be defined better”

and that

“the licensing provisions have to be specified and fleshed out if NatureScot is to have a reasonable chance of doing a good licensing job.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 11.]

Do the witnesses agree with those statements? Will the bill close loopholes and remove ambiguities despite its many exceptions and its licensing scheme?

Thank you for flagging up the species list; that sounds like an onerous task. I turn to Robbie Kernahan. I do not know whether I need to recap my question, but it picked up on Chief Superintendent Flynn’s statements that many terms

“have to be defined better”

and that

“the licensing provisions have to be specified and fleshed out if NatureScot is to have a reasonable chance of doing a good licensing job.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 11.]

Could you talk about the clarity in those exceptions?

This is the final question that I need to get answered, convener. Professor Griggs, I want to understand the concern in community groups and non-governmental organisations about the proposed central science evidence base being run and managed by the industry and the Scottish Government. How would you reassure concerned stakeholders that your recommendations will ensure the independence of the science that is used for decision making on aquaculture expansion and regulation?

Item 2 is for the committee to take evidence from the Accounts Commission on its recently published “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2022” and “Local government in Scotland: Financial overview 2020/21”. Our witnesses today are: Dr Bill Moyes, chair of the Accounts Commission; Antony Clark, director of performance audit and best value and interim controller of audit at Audit Scotland; Carol Calder, interim audit director at Audit Scotland; Blyth Deans, interim senior manager at Audit Scotland; and Lucy Jones, senior auditor also at Audit Scotland. I welcome witnesses to our meeting.

It would be helpful if members could direct their questions to a specific witness where possible, although I will be happy to bring others in who wish to contribute. I suggest that members direct their initial questions to Dr Bill Moyes and then he can direct them to the correct witness because he will have a greater understanding of who might have the answers that we need.

I open the session to questions from members. I will start by asking how councils use the reports that the Accounts Commission creates. As those reports are broad in focus and contain a significant amount of analysis from across local authorities, I am keen to hear more about how they influence local authority financial service and workforce planning. I am also interested in how the Accounts Commission tracks the impact of its reports and improves their usefulness to local authorities. I address that question to Bill Moyes. Good morning, Bill.