Chamber and committees

I can roll the next point into my final question.

We have heard some feedback on concerns about other boats fishing in the waters, in particular Spanish and Danish boats, and about what they will be required to do, or not. The idea of a level playing field has come up. How do we help ensure that Scottish fishers will not be disadvantaged by the implementation of remote electronic monitoring?

So, I could go out and speak to constituents and reiterate that the regulations are about ensuring that we have a level playing field for our boats fishing in our waters.

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.