Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I do. I will bring in Jane MacPherson in a moment. I have already outlined the rationale as to why we have introduced the regulations, and the rationale is also quite clearly set out in the BRIA that we have published. We set out why we want to introduce REM and the other benefits that can come from it.

We do not have that information at the moment.

Yes. Sorry; I will bring Jane in on that point.

I am afraid that I am not able to provide a timescale for that at present.

You raise a really important point, and I know that it has been raised in consultation and discussions that we have had with different stakeholders. Ensuring that we have a level playing field is critical, and that is what I believe we have achieved through the draft regulations. Scottish vessels and foreign vessels fishing in Scottish waters will all have to adhere to the regulations, as we have set out. I believe that we have a level playing field now.

Thank you very much, convener. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee about the introduction of legislation that mandates the use of remote electronic monitoring on board scallop dredge and pelagic vessels.

I welcome the committee’s interest in this important issue and note the detailed evidence session that was held last week in which members heard from stakeholders about the draft legislation. The views that were aired in that session are representative of the varied and contrasting opinions from across the stakeholder spectrum, and they were reflected in the responses to our own public consultation on REM.

Scotland’s fishing industry has always been at the forefront of innovation and technology. Time and again, we have seen the industry’s creativity and resilience in securing Scottish seafood’s place among the best in the world. Our fishing industry must be celebrated and supported, but it must also be appropriately regulated.

A well-regulated fishing industry benefits us all. It ensures that fishing takes place in a sustainable way. Our goal through the regulations is to ensure that the right tools are in place so that we protect our fish stocks and our seas in order that Scottish seafood can be enjoyed for generations to come.

As we set out in the documentation supporting the draft regulations, the benefits to be gleaned from REM are clear and widespread. REM will deter non-compliance with fisheries legislation and ensure compliance with key legal requirements, such as the landing obligation and area restrictions; it will enhance our understanding and knowledge of fisheries and stocks, and support a robust scientific evidence base; and it will deliver confidence and accountability in the activities of fishing vessels at sea, which will enhance the reputation of the fishing industry.

Many of those benefits are difficult to quantify in monetary terms, but they respond to clear calls from consumers and retailers who want greater trust in fishing activities. For example, in 2021, 41 members of the seafood supply chain, including Sainsbury’s, Marks and Spencer and Tesco, responded jointly to the consultation on the United Kingdom joint fisheries statement calling for clear commitments to fully implement remote electronic monitoring in domestic fisheries.

Based on calls from the fishing industry, we have already deployed REM to the Scottish scallop dredge fleet on a voluntary basis. The scallop industry has recognised the reputational benefits that can flow from REM, as it gives it and us the ability to demonstrate compliance with key legislation that is intended to protect vulnerable areas of our marine environment.

The REM regulations have been developed in a proportionate way to ensure that we get the data that we need from REM while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and delivering the level playing field in Scottish waters that we know is so important. Appropriate protections and safeguards are in place to protect data and will be outlined as part of a published privacy notice and in accordance with data protection regulations. Detailed guidance will be given to fishers to support them to understand the regulations and to comply with them.

The committee is already aware that the technical specifications for the REM systems sit separately to the regulations, which provide the Scottish ministers with the power to specify and amend the technical specifications from time to time. We do not anticipate using that power regularly or lightly—we know how important certainty is for business and want to ensure that we do not generate unnecessary costs. However, it is crucial that that power is there, given that this is new technology that will evolve over time. Any changes will be made in consultation with stakeholders and will take place only when operationally necessary.

It is my belief that REM is a game changer in the world of fisheries management. Scotland really is leading the way and others will follow, as we can already see with the planned roll-out in both England and the European Union—and in the Isle of Man, which the committee heard from during last week’s evidence session. As a responsible fisheries manager, we will work with our partners to share our learning and ensure that the REM roll-out goes smoothly. I urge the committee to support the regulations and recommend their approval.

I am happy to take any questions from the committee.

Yes. We consulted on the vessel monitoring system towards the end of last year; we are still to issue the responses to that consultation.

For clarity, it is important to specify that we are talking about two different things. The VMS is in the Bute house agreement—again, that is what we consulted on last year—but the regulations that are in front of us concern REM, which is different to the VMS. I would not want those two to get confused. We are still to issue our response to the consultation on the VMS, but we still intend to do that before the end of the parliamentary session.

In relation to the timescales for the roll-out of REM, particularly for the pelagic industry—I know that it raised that concern in its evidence session—we still believe that there is ample time for the industry to comply with the expectations that we have set out. Initially, we had consulted on a 12-month roll-out. We received a variety of opinions on that timescale in the responses to the consultation—some felt that it should be 36 months; some felt that it should be shorter. We feel that, with what we have set out here, we have landed in the right place and are still providing ample opportunity for industry to comply with the regulations.

I have seen the evidence, and I think it is the comments from Ian Gatt, in particular, that you have mentioned. He said that REM has not featured in conversations that he has had. I cannot speak to that, and I do not know who he has had discussions with, but I am telling you about the feedback that we have had directly from retailers and supermarkets, which see the benefit of REM and want it to be rolled out.

It is the response to the consultation that they gave us. I have not spoken directly to the supermarkets about it, but that is the information that they fed back to us.