The motion relates to the draft Sea Fisheries (Remote Electronic Monitoring and Regulation of Scallop Fishing) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. My colleagues on the Conservative benches agree in principle to the introduction of REM and the general policy objectives, but although the majority of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agreed to recommend to the Parliament that the SSI be approved, my colleagues and I are concerned about the detail—or, indeed, the lack of detail—in the instrument.

The fishing industry stakeholders who responded to the committee’s call for views expressed concerns that REM would be used predominantly as a tool for compliance and enforcement. The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association questioned why

“another layer of complex and expensive control and enforcement is required for this sector”

and stated:

“this is not an industry with a short-term perspective, the long-term objective is to maintain a prosperous and sustainable industry well into the future. In order to achieve that, we need healthy fish stocks and a robust control and enforcement regime, which is already in place.”

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation argued that the Scottish Government has not set out clearly or identified the exact problem that REM is being introduced to solve. It said:

“REM is not a silver bullet solution to anything. If the fisheries management policies that are in place are not practical and are difficult or impossible to comply with, then REM is simply setting up fishermen to fail.”

Fear remains about there being a level playing field when Scottish vessels fish outwith Scottish waters, which would still require them to use REM, whereas other vessels currently do not.

Professor James Harrison, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust, Open Seas and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation questioned why the technical specifications would be provided in separate documents rather than being included in the SSI, highlighting concerns about the lack of scope for parliamentary scrutiny. In its written evidence, the SFF stated:

“Government is giving itself the powers to introduce the technical specifications with no scrutiny, and also the powers to change the technical requirements ‘from time to time’ with no evident legal obligation to consult those who will be impacted, and who will be required to spend more money—another blank cheque—to meet any amended or new requirements.”

In committee, Rachael Hamilton stated:

“I am very concerned about the SSI, the clarity of the technical specifications and the BRIA. The financial considerations that have been presented in the BRIA do not give fishermen confidence. The requirements will cost the sector a lot more than is anticipated and the resource for Marine Scotland and the compliance officers will be significant. I am also not sure about the policy direction with regard to the science and data collection. It seems to me that the process is purely about compliance with a smokescreen around science and data collection to support fishing and the marine area.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 1 May 2024; c 27.]

We believe that the marine directorate’s current resources are insufficient to achieve the objectives of REM, other than to be a blunt enforcement tool.

Given those concerns, along with others relating to REM malfunction and potential fines related to data processing, we will not support the instrument, which, sadly, is yet another example of the Scottish National Party Government’s failure to understand Scotland’s fishing industry, as clearly shown by the continual stream of flawed legislation.