Chamber and committees

I do not think that we would have to use data transmission requests all that often, but it is important that we have the ability to do that. In the pelagic sector, freezer vessels can be out at sea for long periods. Therefore, for compliance purposes, it might be necessary to request the REM data on an ad-hoc basis if it is likely that there will be a delay in our receiving the information. We do not anticipate making regular use of that provision, but there may come a time when it becomes necessary for us to issue such requests.

I think that it is because the nature of the fisheries is different, as I explained in response to the question from Rhoda Grant. I have just touched on the example of a freezer vessel that could be out at sea for quite a long period of time. The nature of the voyages that are undertaken by scallop vessels is quite different, which is why they are being handled differently.

I will start, and then I will bring in Jane MacPherson.

On the richness of the data, as you say, we have had that work under way for some time—on the scallop dredge fleet since 2017—but, in relation to the roll-out, we have set out the timescales for introducing that requirement and gradually bedding it in for the pelagic sector as well. When that is fully operational, we hope to be able to get more of the data.

I will hand over to Jane on the other elements.

No, that is not the case at all. That is a complete misinterpretation of what we have set out—

I am sorry, but I think that what was said has been completely misinterpreted. This is not about a lack of trust in our fishers. I categorically refute any assertion in that regard. Jane has outlined the rationale. It is the scientists who have asked for that data, because it gives us greater evidence and underpinning. We have set out our rationale, and I say again that this is not about a lack of trust in our fishers.

I am meant to be at another meeting but, of course, I am happy to take more questions from the committee.

I am not in a position to provide a detailed response as yet, because—as I am sure that members will appreciate—we only recently received that judgment. We are giving it full consideration, and are working at pace to look at how we can implement a practical and proportionate process to ensure that we can continue to make those authorisation and enforcement decisions in line with the judgment. We will provide more information on that in due course.

We engage regularly with retailers on a host of matters that are relevant across my portfolio, and I am happy to engage in that conversation with them.

We are in an exciting place in Scotland, as world leaders in relation to the roll-out of REM. We are working with other nations, as they are looking to mandate REM, too. That will put us on the front foot when it comes to REM roll-out and all the potential benefits that may result from it, which I have highlighted in response to previous questions from the committee.

We recognise how important that point is. I want to be absolutely clear about this. I am not saying that we are making all the data publicly available: that is absolutely not what I was suggesting. I was saying that there are elements of it that we could make available, but only after it has been aggregated and anonymised, recognising the commercially sensitive data and personal data that would be a part of it.

We have produced a data protection impact assessment, which I would be happy to share with the committee. It addresses many of the points that you have raised. We also have a privacy notice, which will cover all of that in detail, and which we would issue once the SSI is approved.

We know how important the use and storage of data and the privacy around it are. The raw data would not itself be used outside the marine directorate. That is all included in the impact assessment and, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, we have worked with the Scottish Information Commissioner in relation to all of this, and we are ensuring that we are compliant with the general data protection regulation as well as protecting the information.

No, we are not considering that at the moment. The committee has heard different views on whether it is something that should be Government funded. That consideration is about the balance and how we could potentially justify any Government funding for those systems. The roll-out of REM to the vast majority of the scallop dredge fleet was previously funded through the EMFF programme, as it was. We have set out in the BRIA the expected costs and the rationale behind all that, but we are not considering grant funding at the moment.