Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you are talking about communicating to employers and employees, I would be interested to know whether you are monitoring or tracking people who might not be engaging. Will that be followed up with those people?

Okay. That was an easy answer.

As you said, they are equivalent to other pieces of legislation, but the fine of up to £50,000 would be one of a range of penalties for non-compliance.

Good morning, and thanks for being here. I have a couple of quick questions about the technical specifications of remote electronic monitoring systems. Some stakeholders responded to the committee’s call for evidence by saying that there is a lack of clarity around the technical specifications. I am interested in hearing whether witnesses are clear about what equipment is required and whether there is enough information about the tech specifications for remote electronic monitoring systems.

I am not sure whether the other members want to come in on that. You said that the SSI says that ministers can change technical specifications. Would that be because the technology might evolve to be improved—for example with improved cameras? We are learning from Canada, New Zealand and the United States, which all have REM technology already. The SSI would allow technological specifications to be changed, basically.

Looking at the Scottish Government’s website and the information in front of me, I note that the instrument specifies that offences for breach of the regulations in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 have penalties that are set out. Part of it talks about a fine of up to, but not exceeding, £50,000. Other things are listed regarding the court, which can impose additional fines, but not fines exceeding the value of the fish caught in contravention of the act. The Scottish Government’s website talks about Marine Scotland compliance, which is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of marine and fishing laws. It also talks about how the result can be a fine of up to £50,000. I would be interested in whether you think that the maximum penalty is appropriate and proportionate.

That question was very similar to the one that I was going to ask. The data being collected will be driven by algorithms, designs and, indeed, artificial intelligence as that moves forward, so I assume that this will be not just a matter of human beings sitting and looking at what comes in from television cameras. I note that putting cameras on boats longer than 10m, which catch more than 90 per cent of the fish in the UK, would cost between £4.8 million and £6.75 million a year, which is less than 1 per cent of the value of seafood caught by the vessels. Basically, then, putting cameras on vessels is a way of managing some of the costs of capturing and interrogating the data, whether by artificial intelligence or by humans. Is it reasonable to say that?

I think that it is from there.

I want to return to the issue of the targeting of minimum unit pricing. I know that some people have said that it is a flagship policy and a silver bullet—you referred to that view earlier—but I am keen to clarify how we support the most vulnerable people in society. The north-east of England branch of the Association of Directors of Public Health sent us a letter, in which it said:

“we need similarly proactive and enlightened public health policies to reduce alcohol harm and protect the most vulnerable in our communities.”

So, the public health experts in the north-east of England support the action that has been taken in Scotland, because their region has similar levels of alcohol harm to that which we see in Scotland. Can you say more about how minimum unit pricing is designed to target a specific group and is not just a silver bullet for everybody?

I have written notes based on what we have received in evidence, and I reiterate the intention behind the minimum unit pricing policy. I will restate some of the content of the correspondence that the committee received from the Association of Directors of Public Health north-east on 20 March. ADPH north-east said:

“As partners based in the North East of England—the region which suffers from the worst alcohol harms in England”,

the public health directors there

“have watched the positive impact of MUP in Scotland with huge interest and admiration. At a time when alcohol deaths in England and especially here in the North East are at an all-time high,”

ADPH north-east is asking for

“similarly proactive and enlightened public health policies to reduce alcohol harm and protect the most vulnerable in our communities.”

The directors of public health in the north-east of England

“are hugely supportive of Scottish Ministers’ proposal to continue and uprate MUP and agree with the level of at least 65 pence per unit.”

According to ADPH north-east,

“The evidence is clear that the policy has achieved its aim of reducing alcohol-related harm by both reducing population consumption and by targeting the consumption of people drinking at higher levels. It has also contributed to reducing alcohol-related health inequalities.”

It also says that

“The evidence from Scotland is clear—MUP works by targeting the cheapest, most harmful alcohol and we hope that the Scottish Government will see fit to continue and uprate MUP, as part of its enlightened evidence-based approach to public health.”

In addition, we received a letter that has been signed by more than 80 medical faith organisations and charities, calling for cross-party support to continue MUP. As I flicked through the letter, I noted their comment that the policy has meant that

“an estimated 156 families each year ... have been spared the loss of a loved one. Alcohol can have a serious impact at every stage of life, with the impact in pregnancy having a lifelong effect on the child. Hospital admissions are down by an estimated 4.1%, reducing the pressure on our NHS.”

I will read the final sentence from that letter, which I will tweak a wee bit to highlight that I agree with it. It says that

“Now that it has been seen to work,”

those organisations—and I—support

“the continuation of this policy ... to uprate MUP to save more lives.”