Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a difference between vessel monitoring systems—VMS—and REM. I think that all vessels that are over 12m are equipped with VMS. We are looking to roll out VMS across our whole fleet by the end of the parliamentary session. We have undertaken a consultation on that and are still to publish the outcome.

REM is more detailed. It is about winch sensors and camera footage. It is different for different parts of the fleet. It could be set up differently on the pelagic vessels than on the scallop dredge vessels. I am happy to furnish you with the exact information but, essentially, REM provides us with more detail and more information, and it would apply to vessels that are fishing in Scottish waters.

That is what we are planning for. We aim to go to procurement next year to replace the two vessels that I mentioned.

I do not know if my officials have that information to hand, but I will be happy to provide that to the committee after the meeting. All the technologies that we have talked about today can help us to deal with some of the issues that we see but cannot tackle at the moment. As I said, the roll-out of REM will assist us with that.

If it would be helpful, I have the overall figure for how much we received from fixed-penalty notices last year, which was about £140,000. I would be happy to provide a further breakdown of the detail to compare that sum to the number of cases reported to us, but I do not have that information to hand.

Absolutely.

Since the previous session of Parliament, there has been a review of regional inshore fisheries groups and some changes have been made over the past few years. It has really been a case of looking at how those changes have been implemented. We want to make sure that we are working with our stakeholders on this process, but as soon as I am clearer on the timescales, I will provide the committee with that information.

Yes, that is fine. I am happy to provide the committee with further information. I do not have all that detail to hand at the moment. However, I highlight one thing about that programme, which we talked about when we were discussing science and collaboration: it is a really important piece of work that the SFF is able to assist us in. I will have to follow up with more information for the committee.

That is not a good case to use when it comes to how we should respond to all elements of a judicial review. Obviously, such things have to be judged case by case. We do not appeal every judicial review whose outcome we do not agree with if we do not believe that we have the basis for an appeal. All of that is determined case by case.

Again, I do not know what the detail of that budget will be. You are absolutely right that in my letter I said that I would provide more detail, but in order to do that I will need to know what budget I have. We have not had yet the UK spending review, so we do not yet know what any of that will look like or what the quantum will be.

I just want to touch again on my letter. I apologise if you find the position more confusing than it was initially. I do not know whether there are follow-up questions in relation to that through which we could furnish the committee with more information, I will be more than happy to do that.

In relation to the overall impact assessments, where there are any changes, such assessments are conducted as a matter of course. You will be aware of some of the savings that the finance secretary announced at the start of this month. I believe that impact assessments are due to be published in relation to those. Wherever such decisions are taken, the impacts would be set out. Under the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, we also have an obligation to produce an island communities impact assessment in relation to any impact that we perceive there would be.

I think that we are conflating a few different issues. As I have said, the £46 million is what is due to be returned from the overall £61 million in the quantum of ring-fenced funding. Again, that came from unspent funds, and I have outlined where that was. In theory, some of that did not have an impact, because it was money that was not going to be spent anyway.

I understand the more general point that you are trying to make and your reference to the nature restoration fund as an example. If we do not have that fund in place, we cannot fund the extra activities that will help us reduce emissions and enhance nature. Naturally, we are able to do less if we have less funding. One example of that—and, again, this is not where we want to be—is the fact that we have not been able to run a food processing, marketing and co-operation grant round in the past couple of years, because of the nature of the budget situation in which we find ourselves. We know that that will have an impact, because people will not necessarily be able to invest in the way that they would want to. I just do not want us to conflate the unspent funding that is due to be returned with pots of funding in other portfolios that have been utilised for another purpose.