³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As I have already outlined, I want to look at what we are able to do in that space. We want to provide as much certainty and clarity to people as we can. I recognise how important that is for future planning for our farmers and crofters, but I cannot commit to something that I am not able to deliver. Based on the comments that I have already outlined in relation to the rural support plan, that is an area that I want to consider.

I would like to continue and to make progress on the other amendments.

I am conscious that we have covered a lot already, but there are still a number of areas to get through.

On amendment 114, although evaluation of programmes is our standard approach—our ex post evaluation of programmes under the EU CAP is currently under way—it is important that we do not restrict the timescale or the method for, or the publication of, evaluations. There will be some things that can be reliably reported on within a planned period, but others will require more by way of longitudinal research.

We need to ensure that our monitoring and evaluation of plans, outcomes and the overall framework are robust. Our rural and environment science and analytical services division—RESAS—is preparing an agricultural reform programme monitoring and evaluation framework. It is important that we are clear about what can be reliably delivered and evidenced within planned periods and what might require a longer timeframe.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 114 presupposes that each plan will directly replicate what was in the previous plan. However, as we know, schemes and support will—we would hope—change over time, so that could turn out to be a meaningless exercise, which would require to be carried out simply because there was a statutory requirement to carry out evaluations. For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 114, so that I can return at stage 3 to provide more detail on what can usefully be included in the bill that can be achieved in this area. If the amendment is moved, I urge members not to support it.

I think that Colin Smyth’s amendment 32 is unnecessary, as it asks for the provision of baseline financial and funding information that is already available every year through the budget process. I am happy to send on the links to the level 4 budgets for the current year to reassure him that that information is already publicly available. That being the case, I hope that he will not move amendment 32.

I have some sympathy with elements of Colin Smyth’s amendment 115, and I understand what he is trying to achieve. As I set out in my introductory remarks on the group, the purpose of the rural support plan is to offer clarity and certainty as to how the powers that are sought in the bill are to be used. I ask members to allow me to return at stage 3 with a more holistic and—crucially—workable wraparound that sets out clearly how ministers will cover the detail of the plan. That will include consideration of the requirements that are listed in amendment 115. On that basis, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 115. If he moves it, I urge members not to support it.

The same applies to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 116. In particular, I would very much like to be able to set out the sources of funding, but, as I have already outlined, until the UK Government engages in discussions on future budgets, it will continue to cause uncertainty.

On amendment 117, I reassure Rachael Hamilton and others that I fully intend to ensure that we have a scheme that effectively supports new and young entrants to farming. However, it would not be appropriate to provide for that in the way that is proposed in what we have agreed should be a framework bill. That aspect will feature in one of the tiers that will be co-developed with key stakeholders, which will, of course, be subject to regulations that Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise. I hope that that reassures Rachael Hamilton and that she will not move amendment 117.

I understand the intent behind Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 118, and I hope that I can reassure her that it is not needed, given the significant amount of engagement and consultation that the Scottish Government already undertakes on a wide range of matters that will form the new framework and tiers. We have a long-standing commitment to co-development with rural partners, and we continue to engage closely with them. The agricultural reform programme is responsible for managing the co-development process from design through to delivery and for ensuring that that process is communicated through the route map. That approach is rooted in the Scottish approach to service design, whereby we actively work with our farmers, crofters and land managers to develop and test our future framework.

The detail of changes, including the detail of new schemes in the different tiers, will be provided for in secondary legislation, using the powers that are proposed the bill. That will involve further consultation through the associated impact assessments, along with parliamentary scrutiny. As I have made clear, our approach is always to co-develop with our industry and wider partners to ensure that legislation and regulation are best fitted to work and deliver to outcomes. I have already committed to reporting on how we do that, with whom and to what effect in the rural support plan. I hope that that reassures Beatrice Wishart that there is no need to create a statutory consultation period of the kind that she has set out and that she will not move amendment 118. If she moves it, I ask members not to support it.

Alasdair Allan’s amendment 119 helpfully identifies an issue that applies right across the bill and across all the groupings. We have a range of existing commitments to consult on proposed changes, which are, I think, inconsistent in their framing, particularly in relation to whom should be consulted with. That is why I propose again that, ahead of stage 3, Government officials will review all the current and proposed additional consultation requirements, to ensure that they are appropriate and proportionate, that we consult where it is necessary or most useful, and that there is consistency in the framing where that is important. Accordingly, I ask Alasdair Allan not to move his amendment 119, to allow that to happen.

I am more than happy to follow up with the committee afterwards. However, in relation to discussing and taking forward the amendments, the approach that the committee is outlining would be quite unorthodox. I want to work with different members and consider their amendments in order to achieve all that I have outlined.

I would want to point out the benefit, as I see it, of having REM. As I have set out, it is about compliance and enforcement, as well as providing all the other information that we can look to glean from it. There are other benefits, too, as I have also set out. The information was volunteered from retailers themselves and from the MSC in response to our consultations. They have told us that directly.

The evidence and the information that we have gathered from that monitoring have been invaluable, and that has almost led us to where we are today. We actually started the roll-out of that monitoring in 2017, based on the calls of the fishing industry itself, which could see the benefits. The industry wanted to see REM mandated for the fleet because it saw the benefits of that as much as anyone else. It has been important that we have taken the learning from that, which has led to the development of the regulations that are in front of the committee today.

We consulted with the industry on the technical specifications and, of course, we shared a draft of those with the committee. Those specifications are, of course, very technical in nature and have been designed to support any future anticipated data requirements that we might have. Given that the technology continues to be developed, we might need to update those specifications in the future, depending on how things go.

We always intend to work with the industry as we update things because of its strong interest and the fact that, ultimately, it would need to implement the requirements. It is therefore in our best interests to ensure that we engage with the industry, and we did consult it on the technical specifications.

It is really helpful to have had our experience with the roll-out since 2017, because we can look at whether there are any particular issues or malfunctions and how often they happen. Like any system, REM needs to be maintained to ensure that it is operating effectively but, of course, malfunctions and technical faults do happen. However, from the roll-out so far, there have been few such incidents or cases. A particular issue was identified with the winch sensors because they are more exposed. There has been on-going work with engineers to find a solution to that, so we are implementing a resolution. In a minute, I will hand over to Ellen Huis, who can perhaps provide a bit more detail on that.

With regard to what we have set out in the regulations, we recognise that technical faults and malfunctions can happen, and we have tried to get the balance right and deal with that in a pragmatic way. We do not want to tie boats up, but we also have to make sure that the objectives of the SSI and what we are trying to achieve with it are met. We recognise the challenges, which is why we drafted the regulations in the way that we did.

I will hand over to Ellen Huis, who will provide a bit more information in relation to some of those particular issues.

We are not planning to issue any compensation. We have to make sure that we are taking a balanced and pragmatic approach, but we also have to make sure that we are not undermining the objectives of the legislation and what we need to achieve from REM. That is why we have set out in the regulations qualifications in relation to a first or second breakdown and other qualifications beyond that, as Ellen Huis has outlined. All of that is important because we need to ensure that we get the balance right. We cannot expect or allow fishing to continue if it undermines the objectives of the SSI.

What I was talking about, particularly in response to the previous question, was the data transition requirements. However, if there was a force majeure incident—if something catastrophic happened that was outwith the master’s control—we have exemption provisions to enable us to deal with that.

I disagree with that. We have set out how the technical specifications were developed. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the constant innovation that is happening in our fisheries, which is important to note. When things such as VMS and e-logs have been developed and introduced, ancillary services have also grown. REM has been rolled out on a voluntary basis since 2017 and it is developing and growing elsewhere in the world. As we and other nations look to introduce those measures, other skills and ancillary services will be built at the same time. In essence, we have been in the same position before with other technologies and, because of what has been rolled out so far, we do not anticipate that there will be too many difficulties with it. I think that we will continue to see growth in the sector in the future.