Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next item is to take evidence from two panels of witnesses as part of our pre-budget scrutiny for 2025-26. We have been joined by our first panel. Jo Armstrong is the chair of the Accounts Commission, Blyth Deans is audit director at Audit Scotland, Lucy Jones is audit manager at Audit Scotland and Derek Yule is a member of the Accounts Commission. I welcome the witnesses to the meeting and I invite Jo Armstrong to make a brief opening statement.

I am going to shift the subject a little, but I will pick up on what you have just said about the long term. As you know, the financial sustainability of local government is one of the main themes of our pre-budget scrutiny. We are interested to hear how sustainable you think the finances of our councils are. Should we be worried that what has happened to some local authorities in England could also happen in Scotland?

That is great.

I just wanted to clarify something. You have used the word “aquaculture” quite a bit, but I think that you are using it interchangeably with “salmon farms”. We are focusing on salmon farms, but aquaculture covers seaweed and shellfish farming, too.

Rachel Shucksmith, what are your thoughts on getting sufficient guidance on the impact of proposed sites and expansions, and on how they interact with priority marine features and marine protected areas?

My amendment 5 strengthens the requirement on ministers to raise

“public awareness ... of the code of practice.”

Specifically, the Government must identify resources that are needed to effectively communicate information about the new code to the public. That could prompt consideration about the format that information is in and the format in which it reaches different groups, as well as other considerations such as provision in other languages and accessible formats.

At a time of constrained public finances, it is important to include such a requirement in primary legislation to ensure that the new code has an impact. I see that as preventative spend: if we can get people aware and informed, we can stem the tide of all the knock-on effects from what Christine Grahame is trying to do in the bill.

As for amendments 75 and 76, in the name of Finlay Carson, I agree that raising public awareness among school pupils is a great approach, because it is often the young people who are asking for a puppy. On amendment 76, consulting with organisations with an interest in the welfare of dogs on how they can contribute to future steps is important, too.

Is that an issue that you would take into consideration?

You mentioned NatureScot earlier. Do you, as a council and planning authority, think that you have access to sufficient guidance on how proposed sites or expansions might interact with priority marine features and marine protected areas? Do you get enough robust advice from NatureScot? Does NatureScot have a strong enough role in the planning process?

I will bring in Rachel Shucksmith on that issue, too. I know that she is not from a planning authority, but I would love to get her opinion.

The purpose of my amendment is to prompt prospective owners to register a new dog with a vet practice. Regular vet check-ups are a key part of responsible dog ownership, from puppyhood to old age. Vets also provide advice and rapid treatment in an emergency, for example by providing out-of-hours care, and a check-up can identify health issues that arise due to negligence by the breeder. It might be possible to identify other puppies at the practice from the same litter or breed and raise concerns.

From what you are saying, my sense is that it would give us more confidence if the minister could take steps forward on the microchipping work at UK level and bring that back to us before stage 3 so that we are certain that something is going ahead.

Do you know why that change was made? Why did SNH move away from giving local steers?