Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am learning as we go along, but I want to highlight one key thing—only one. I understand that this is an interim measure and that the aim is to keep policies as they are—blah-di-blah-di-blah—but I note that, as the convener has pointed out, the DPLR Committee has said:

“under regulation 2(4) the instrument keeps the rate of payments under the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme at the current rate (which is the rate ... in 2018)”.

According to the report, the instrument will keep payments at that rate for the next 12 years. That is the first thing.

Secondly, as I say, I am new to this game, but the word “interim” does not usually mean that it will take six years to get something sorted out. I understand that farming is a long-term thing, but we are talking about an interim measure lasting for six years. I want clarity on what is being said.

The DPLR Committee report also talks about

“the current rate (which is the rate that applied in 2018) until 2030.”

In other words, there is a line in the sand at 2030. Are you saying, minister, that this interim measure could finish in 2027, or is 2030 the deadline? Is that the date that will be kept?

Therefore, there are actually three points that I want to make: one about the level of payments; one about the fact that, although we are talking about a date that is six years away, this is still called an interim measure; and one about the fact that 2030 seems to be the actual date—it does not say “up to 2030” or “no later than 2030”; it is 2030.

I know that.

For 12 years.

I do not understand this. If somebody says to me—

So

“at the current rate ... until 2030”

should probably say “at the current rate”—whatever that rate is—“not beyond 2030” or something like that, because you are saying that the rate could be changed earlier. The report made me think that the rate would stay the same until 2030, but it could be changed earlier. Is that correct?

Yes. I have both in front of me. Is the exact wording in the regulations “until 2030”?

Yes. That is what I am reading.

I understand that this is an interim measure and that the regulations are about providing certainty for the time being until we get to where we want to be, now that we are not in the European Union.

However, I have looked at the regulations, and regulation 2 includes a list. It states:

“‘Scheme 2025 payment’ means the sum to which the applicant is entitled in respect of the period from 1st January 2025 to 31st December 2025”.

I will skip the others, but it then states:

“‘Scheme 2029 payment’ means the sum to which the applicant is entitled in respect of the period from 1st January 2029 to 31st December 2029”.

It then says the same for the scheme 2030 payment. Therefore, in relation to management of the payments, the system is rigid and fixed in the regulations. People will get the payment at the 2018 rate from 1 January 2030 to 31 December 2030. The system is fixed; it is not flexible.

I am looking at the regulations to try to understand things. They are important, because they are the basis on which payments will be made for specific periods of time. The regulations cannot be amended—if they go through, that is that. As I understand it, other regulations would need to be made. Am I right? I do not know. I am asking.

I should have thought of drones. We fight wars with those now—horrendously—but that is obviously one technology.

We have heard that, even if people are caught, the fines do not deteriorate—[Interruption.] I cannot see as I do not have my glasses on; I mean that the fines do not deter illegal activity. Do you have a comment on that? It must cost you more money each time.

Good morning. I am new to this topic, so I will put to you a little narrative and then my questions.

My understanding is that the largest proportional share of the marine directorate budget goes to compliance and enforcement—some 37 per cent from 2009-10 to 2022-23. That is what our briefing says. Part of that enforcement is done by—let me just get my glasses here—three marine protection vessels and two aircraft, but remote electronic monitoring is also used. To further set out the stall, we are told that 150 non-UK vessels are fishing pelagic species in Scottish waters throughout the year. I do not have the figure for the UK vessels, and I would like to know that.

My questions flow from those points, although I might have other bits to add. Can you tell me what that budget is? Are there separate budgets for compliance and enforcement, or are they one and the same?

How old are the marine protection vessels and aircraft, and how much do they cost? I appreciate that it is a huge area, but those seem to be inadequate and quite expensive, so I would like to know that figure.

On ensuring compliance, it seems to me that the non-UK vessels get off lightly, because it is easier to deal with the UK vessels, as they will be registered and licensed. How does it work when people are breaking the rules? From what is in my notes, it appears that damage is still being done to the fish stock and the sea bed. In terms of dissuading people, compliance will save you having to go to enforcement, which I would think is more costly. How do we deal with the non-UK vessels?

With regard to the ageing vessels—although I do not yet know their age—what is a better way of doing what they do? I do not understand how remote electronic monitoring works, so maybe you can tell me, with regard to non-UK vessels in particular.

The level of fines, at the end of the day, does not appear to be hitting the mark. Someone can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine.

That is my list of questions.