Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay, I think that we are done. That was a tremendous session, and at the end we started to highlight some more things that we could touch on, such as the role of the private rented sector and aspects of retrofitting.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning. It has been really helpful to have this conversation to identify some of the areas where the Scottish Government could smooth the way and remove the blocks—I think that the word blocks was used. We very much appreciate that you have joined us and given us evidence.

As we agreed at the start of the meeting, we will take the next item in private.

I do, and I might also stray there. Elspeth, it is interesting to hear your concerns about the marine directorate and its capacity to robustly monitor the data. I would be interested in hearing your—and, possibly, Helen McLachlan’s—thoughts around the idea of the data that is generated from REM systems being shared. For example, Peru, in 2018, became the second country in the world to share all of its VMS data.

This is a very interesting conversation. I remind myself that the SSI and REM sit under the United Kingdom Fisheries Act 2020, which calls on us to work with an ecosystems-based approach, and under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. In both cases, we are trying to ensure the long-term success of our fisheries. REM helps us to understand the full picture of the state of our fisheries and how to act appropriately, as and when is needed, in case we find ourselves on the edge of a fisheries collapse.

We have been talking about the data, and I come back to data now. Both the fishing industry and non-governmental organisations have pointed out that REM data could be useful for marine spatial planning and to mitigate the spatial squeeze. I remember the tremendous evening event that the SFF held in the garden lobby a while ago, which raised that issue. I would like to get your views on how REM data could be useful in those ways for marine spatial planning and mitigating against that spatial squeeze. We know that there will be an expansion of renewables, but there are also conservation objectives. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that, Elspeth—and then perhaps yours, Helen.

I will go back to what I was going to ask. In a way, Elspeth began to answer it, but I would like to go a bit further into use of data. Concern has been raised by stakeholders that the marine directorate may not have the capacity to use all the data. I am interested in understanding that.

I hear what you say about the need for confidentiality, data protection and that kind of thing, but there are examples globally of data sharing. Peru, in 2018, became the second country in the world to share all of its VMS tracking data on the Global Fishing Watch platform, so that anyone can view it. Twelve countries already have data-sharing agreements that allow transparency without breaching commercial confidentiality. There are various ways in which we could do that—for example, by lagging the data sharing by some months and not including individual identifying information. I know that a time lag might not work for an offshore wind company that is trying to get a permission or whatever, but it could work in other situations.

I am interested in hearing what you think about how we could share data so that we could move much more rapidly to understanding what is going on in our seas and get a much better picture.

Agenda item 2 is an evidence-taking session on the Accounts Commission report, “Local government in Scotland: Financial bulletin 2022/23”. We are joined by Jo Armstrong, who is the chair of the Accounts Commission, and Andrew Burns, who is the deputy chair; and, from Audit Scotland, by Carol Calder, audit director; Blyth Deans, senior manager; and Lucy Jones, audit manager. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting, and I particularly welcome Jo Armstrong to her first committee meeting as chair of the commission.

It sounds as though there is quite a lot of interaction, consultation, dialogue and back and forth.

As you will be aware, the Local Government Information Unit found that

“Confidence in the sustainability of council finances in Scotland is critically low”.

I am interested in understanding what the commission’s views are on the sustainability of local government finances. Are those views any different from the concerns that the commission has expressed over the past few years?

I will move on to questions from Miles Briggs.

Earlier this year, in March, when we looked at loan funds and capital finance accounting, we heard that regulations that were introduced in 2016 allow councils to extend loan fund repayments into the future, which adds pressure on future budgets. Given that most local authorities have used those flexibilities, is the commission concerned that future taxpayers could end up paying for assets that no longer exist?

I want to return to the subject of earmarked contingency funds. Blyth talked about how that happens at the local level—it is nuanced—but I am curious about the idea of earmarking such funds. Surely, they would be unearmarked. Could you say a bit more about that?