 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 2.48, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, on a sea of opportunity. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would ask those members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Stuart Stevenson to open the debate. Mr Stevenson, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be able to bring the Scottish Fisherman's Federation a Sea of Opportunity campaign here to Parliament, and I would like to recognise Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the SFF and the Public Gallery, and Mike Park of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. Since the outset of the EU common fisheries policy, which has been opposed by our fishermen and my political colleagues in the SNP and by others in other political parties, indeed my first speech here in Parliament in 2001 was on the subject of the CFP. In theory, the CFP is a policy that protects the long-term interests of those who fish, those who eat fish, local economies depended on fish and the environment upon which our fish depend. In practice, however, its effects have been very different. Firstly, when the UK signed up for the CFP, it signed away rights to fish in our own waters. Today, the majority of fish caught there are by fishing vessels from other jurisdictions, and the majority of our fish are landed elsewhere. Secondly, although those who eat fish can generally buy the fish they want, the majority of it is imported. That is a very strange situation when our waters are the most productive in Europe. Thirdly, the economic benefit to our communities has been much less than it should have been. In England, major fishing ports are all but gone, and the fishing rights that remain are largely in foreign hands. While Scotland has fared somewhat less badly, it has been Norway and in the Faroes that we have seen much of the onshore growth in recent years. Finally, the chaotic fishing councils that I have attended a couple of myself each year have not involved fishermen to any meaningful degree. Those are the people with real knowledge. They are not involved in an endemic decision making process, which has often left everyone scratching their heads to justify the outcomes. The SFFC of opportunity lays out the opportunities that are catching sector that are now available as we look to leave the common fisheries policy. For a processing sector, there are both opportunities and risks. Last week's report of increased losses at Shetland catch, largely due to the closure of the Russian market, showed the dangers of any restriction of access to markets, albeit even if the worst-case scenario should leave us able to sell into the EU. However, for our catchers, our gaining control of our own waters should be a win-win-win, an opportunity to do things very differently. We have to protect the investments of our fishermen that they have already made in quota under the existing system. However, when new quota becomes available, we must look at how to manage that in a way that shares the benefit between the catchers and the communities who, by their proximity to their element waters, have a proper interest in it. That will require hard-thinking and collaborative working. I do not have the answers. We have all yet to find what might work. On the day that we leave the CFP, we need a new management regime in place. It may be reasonable to make changes over time, as disruption, at one point, is in no-one's interests. We need to have agreements in place with other states, but this time we need to make sure that we make the decisions and keep control on how fishing is undertaken in our waters. A key part of that is to ensure that the management regime protects stocks for future generations of fishermen and for fishing-dependent communities. I am frequently told of the difficulties that sons of fishermen have in becoming established in the business, with increased control with the opportunity to control access to quota differently and differentially without which no new skipper can reasonably fish. Fishermen are independent individuals, often refusing to share their catching data even with members of their own family. They compete with each other, as well as with the elements, with management regimes, the hunted fish and, until now, the CFP. It is a very substantial achievement on the Scottish Fishermen Federation Park to have reached an agreed position that reflects the opportunities and risks presented by our leaving the CFP. It is working with our Government and with the UK Government in a more effective way than for many years, when ensuring that we, as parliamentarians, are informed. However, delivery of the prospective control of our waters in a way that suits our interests is not a given. In the 1970s, our rights were traded away to achieve the wider agreement to enter the then EEC. We knew nothing of that deal until it was done—that was too late. That danger exists this time as well, not because of malice on the part of the UK but because of expediency, the need to reach a deal, the comparatively small economic contribution of fishing compared to, say, Nissan in Sunderland, which seems positioned for special treatment. The UK faces a significant resource bottleneck that means allocating civil service expertise to getting the best outcome for fishing may not be top of their priorities. My motion asks that political parties consider—I am not seeking a commitment to support yet—whether the UK and Scotland in particular in fishing interests may not be best served by a Scottish minister leading for the UK in the forthcoming negotiations. Today's speech by the UK Prime Minister delineated potential difficulties for Spanish fishermen through loss of market access to the UK, while saying nothing whatsoever about the position of Scottish and English fishermen. That illustrates a worrying disengagement from the real-life issues that affect our fishing industry—an astonishing insight into how little our industry is on her radar. We need to avoid our prospective rights being traded away, as they were 40 years ago. Hence, having our minister at the table is our insurance. It is not a free ticket because they will have to negotiate for the whole agreed UK position, not solely for Scottish interests. I once again congratulate the SFF, I wish them well and trust that we here can all support their efforts. Locally in Bamshire and Buckingham Coast, the heart of our fishing industry with Scotland, I recognise that all candidates this year's election voted remain in the referendum in June. However, now we expect, as fishermen, that all of us will be working for the best possible result from our leaving the CFP. Fishing has been central in the history of many Scottish communities. Fishing has to be central to those communities' futures as well. Stuart Stevenson's motion is an important one, particularly to our shared patch along the Buckingham Coast. He has rightly spoken of the incredible contribution that fishing towns such as Fraserborough and Peterhead make to our rural economy. There is much in his motion that I agree with, and his speech is a real testament to the impact and importance of the fishing industry in the north-east. I spoke in this chamber last month in the end-of-year negotiations debate about the incredible work that our fishermen have done to keep fishing sustainable. That is why I fully agree with the SFF's call for full control of the 200-mile economic exclusion zone in order to boost our fishing industry across not just Scotland but across all UK waters. We know that 60 per cent of fish caught in our waters are landed by foreign vessels, and we know that our fishermen are keen to get out there and get more of that catch for the benefit of our fishermen and their communities. I am confused by the SNP position. Mr Stevenson will be fully aware that it is the SNP policy of remaining in the EU and the disastrous CFP that prevents Scotland's fishing industry from enjoying the benefits of EEZ control. Do we do that? You can, and I will give you some time back. Just to provide clarity about the SNP's position, can I direct him to Hansard in July 1982, and the words of our then-leader Donald Stewart on the CFP, which will indicate a very different position relative to the CFP that the member suggests? I also direct him to the work of Alan McCartney in the European Parliament before his death in the late 1990s, which shows too that the SNP throughout the history of the CFP has been something that we have rigorously, vigorously and consistently opposed. I totally reject that intervention. We are talking about now—we are not speaking about the 1980s in the way back then. Right now, the position is absolutely clear. Right now, the position of the SNP Government is to remain part of the EU and to remain part of the CFP, and there is nothing that he can say that changes that. As Sinek might argue, that this debate is a desperate attempt from the SNP to win back some credibility. In their leader's obsession in talking up a second independence referendum and remaining in the EU, it is precisely what fishermen did not vote for and do not want. It is highly surprising that SNP support from fishing communities is disappearing like snar of a dike. On Friday, I spoke to Bertie Armstrong of the SFF and he was crystal clear to me. The UK, as a member state, must negotiate our exit from the EU. It is obvious to me that Stuart Stevenson does not understand the SFF's position in the last part of his motion. I recently led a delegation who met Andrea Ledgson and George Eustis, and I am confident that they fully understand the unique opportunities that we have here in Scotland. George Eustis, our UK fishing and farming minister, has a wealth of experience to draw on for contributing to the whole country's negotiating stance. I assure my constituents and fishing communities across Scotland that both ministers stressed that fishing would be protected and that they recognised the huge prize that could be won. As Theresa May set out today, now is the time for the whole country to unite behind getting the best deal possible from Brexit and making it work for everyone. To that end, I encourage Scottish Government ministers, as I have in the past, to fully engage with UK counterparts to stop trying to increase division and hostility between Westminster and Holyrood and to engage positively for once. The Prime Minister has made her position plan by explaining that all the devolved nations will be able to provide input for the Brexit process. It is vital for our fishing industry that this SNP Government engages with that process to make a success of Brexit. On a final note, in the SNP's Scotland's Place in Europe, which was published less than a month ago, it specifically says, and I quote, As a Government, we remain committed to EU membership as an independent nation and are proud to say so. I would be shocked if many of our fishermen would agree with that sentiment. Thank you very much, Mr Chapman. I call Mary Todd to be followed by Ross Thompson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Stuart Stevenson for bringing this important issue to Parliament today. I also want to thank the Scottish Fishmen's Federation for its promotion of the Sea of Opportunity campaign. I think that they are right to say that those Scotland and its fishing industry face an uncertain future. We should seek out opportunities when they arise, and that will include the opportunity to seek out better arrangements for the Scottish fishing industry. There is clear potential for an improved arrangement for our fishing industry and our fishing communities. Regardless of what else the future may hold politically, we will be negotiating our relationship with the EU in some shape or form. That means that we have the opportunity to negotiate a new arrangement for the fishing industry to replace the common fisheries policy, which is clearly not a fair arrangement for the Scottish fishing industry and Scotland's fishing communities. I am hopeful that our fishing industry can be better off when those negotiations are over, but that outcome is by no means guaranteed. Just because there is an opportunity, that does not mean that it will necessarily be seized upon. I want to remind the members on the bench that, back in the 1970s, when the common fisheries policy was being negotiated, the UK Government's negotiators were willing to barter away the interests of Scotland's fishing industry. We must remember that our fishing industry then was described as expendable during those negotiations. Let me do as she asked and bring you right back up to today. It is often said that the past is the best predictor for the future. Today we have had a very strong hint of what the future might hold for our fishing communities. It is notable that Theresa May chose to mention the interests of Spanish fishermen in her keynote speech. Many in my community will share my fear that this is an indication of their readiness to yet again trade away our interests. The reality is that the UK fishing industry is, for the most part, a Scottish industry. We have a bountiful sea. I have mentioned before that Shetland in my region lands more fish than England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. The prospect of the matter, which is of such importance to the Scottish economy and to Scottish communities, is being handled by the UK Government with such a consistent track record of letting Scotland on our industries down, fills me with dread. If negotiations are mishandled, our fishing industry could be worse off than it is at present, retaining large parts of the common fisheries policy that is missing out on aspects of the EU membership that have clearly benefited the industry. I am pleased that the Scottish fishing industry is united in its insistence that fishery regulations incorporate a commitment to sustainable harvesting. Many of us with appropriate conservation measures established for all fishing activity. Many of our stocks are now certified under the gold standard of the Marine Stewardship Council and we do not seek any departure from the established quota setting process, which is based on scientific advice. Working together to protect the marine environment and manage fish stocks will deliver Scotland's ambition of a productive and healthy marine environment that supports thriving coastal communities and a profitable fishing industry. Another benefit that we have had from the EU is the free movement of people, which is undoubtedly vital for many of the fish processing businesses, particularly in the island communities where there is very low unemployment and there are not people to take those jobs if we cannot attract EU immigrants. Almost all of the shellfish, which is landed in the west highlands where I come from, goes direct to European markets. To me, it is absolutely vital that negotiations, which primarily affect Scotland's fishing industry, should be handled by a minister who is a representative of Scotland and who is crucially accountable to the people of Scotland. I would also like to welcome Bertie Armstrong and Mike Park, who are my guests this evening in the public gallery. I am pleased that, in bringing that motion forward, Stuart Stevenson has finally acknowledged that Brexit allows us to regain control over fishing in the offshore economic zone and presents an unparalleled opportunity to reinvigorate coastal communities in the north-east and across the UK. It is a refreshing change of pace from the negativity and short-sightedness that we have come to expect from SNP members in this chamber on this issue. Deputy Presiding Officer, the decline in the fishing industry has been steady but clear since the EU's common fishery policy and its quotas came into existence. Landings of fish in the UK have more than half since 1970s, from 948,000 tonnes to 451,000 in 2014. The CFP has been disruptive to the fishing industry, particularly in the north-east and gravely unfair to hard-working fishermen. Therefore, it will be of no surprise to members that I am fully supportive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's Sea of Opportunity campaign to assert control over our 200-mile exclusive economic zone under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and to establish a fairer and more appropriate share of catching opportunities for fishermen in the UK. I would like to make some progress, please. Indeed, the House of Commons Committee on Exit in the EU heard evidence that the UK fishing industry may double its catch when we take back control of our waters. Brexit can herald the renaissance of our fishing industry for generations to come. However, the Scottish National Party Government seems to be entirely out of step with the fishing industry. It continues to wax lyrical on the necessity of the single market to the industry, and yet Bertie Armstrong himself has said, and I quote, that we do not need a single market, especially since Brexit presents great opportunities in terms of gaining access to new markets such as India, one therefore has to question whether the SNP knows what is better for the industry than the fishermen themselves. Mr Allan. I thank the member for giving way. He mentions the views of a fisherman. I do not claim to speak for all fishermen, but a number of fishermen in my constituency, is he aware, have come to me to say that, while they took a very different view from me on Brexit, they are appalled by the prospect of not being in the single market. How does he react to that, and has he spoken to any fishermen about that? Mr Thomson. I think that I just quoted the chief executive of the Fisherman's Federation that said that we do not need the single market, and that there are opportunities for all fishermen to explore the new and growing markets in other parts of the world to sell their fantastic projects to, and that is what this Parliament should be endorsing. In dressing the last part of Mr Stevenson's motion, it is simply wrong to raise, I believe, this question at the wrong time. Article 50 is not even invoked yet. To start deciding which ministers should be representing us is almost like arguing over what bedroom you want to have in the house before you have even gone and bought it. The interests of Scottish fishermen should always be regarded as a priority, but that is not the equivalent to having a Scottish Government minister lead the negotiations, given that the heft of the exclusive economic zones actually involve other parts of the UK. The SNP should stop trying to score political points to the detriment of this most crucial Scottish industry. Deputy Presiding Officer, Mr Stevenson in his speech failed to acknowledge regional candidates, and the fishing industry unequivocally voted for Brexit. Furthermore, research from the University of East Anglia shows that around 54 per cent of Mr Stevenson's constituency of Banff and Bucking also voted for Brexit. Perhaps now is the perfect time for Stuart Stevenson to unshackle himself from the divisive and hostile SNP rhetoric and to start standing up for the people who elected him in his constituency in this Parliament. Mr Stevenson, I know that it is difficult. Could you contain yourself a wee bit? I call Rhoda Grant. We are followed by Tavish Scott. I congratulate Stuart Stevenson on securing this debate that pays tribute to the work of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation on behalf of its members promoting sustainable fisheries in Scotland. Although I did not agree with the Scottish Fisherman's Federation with regard to leaving the EU and, indeed, those of us who did not want Brexit still harbour regret and are real and abiding worry as to where that leaves us, what we do agree on is that we must all secure the best deal for the UK and thereby Scotland that we possibly can. Although we disagree on the notion that a Scottish Government minister should lead negotiations on behalf of the UK, we agree that Scottish ministers must be involved. If you believe in democracy, you cannot believe that Scottish ministers should lead negotiations on behalf of the whole of the UK. If they did, it would create a democratic deficit for other fishers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. How can their interests be represented by someone who was not elected by them and therefore is not democratically answerable to them? Can I make some progress? We would not stand for that, so why should we expect other fishers in the other parts of the UK to do that? Everyone needs to have their voice heard, and the UK Government being elected, whether we like it or not, by the whole of the UK, has a direct democratic link to the whole of the UK. It is therefore incumbent on them to represent the interests of the whole of the UK as a nation state. To get the best outcome from those negotiations, we must also involve devolved Governments. The Fisherman's Federation said that we intend to secure the best deal possible for Scottish fishers, irrespective of constitutional developments, and believe that the two Governments working together would produce the best possible outcome for fishers on both sides of the border. I absolutely agree that our Governments should be working together on that. So, when Jack McConnell represented the UK at European Council on behalf of all the countries and Governments of the UK, was that an illegitimate thing to do off of that matter when many of the current ministerial team have done similarly? There is nothing novel about this whatsoever. I think that what I am saying is that there is no way to disagree with that. I believe that Scottish ministers should be involved. What I do not believe is that they should be democratically representing other parts of the UK. It is for the UK to lead, and for the Scottish Government ministers to be there supporting that. Indeed, making an input for that is relevant. It has to be led by UK ministers because that is the democratic constitution of our country and we must abide by it. I see the SNP Government using the threat of independence as part of their referendum Brexit negotiating position. I dislike that. It is a bit like a spoiled child saying, I will take my ball away if you do not play by my rules. That is not a job for spoiled children, but for mature adults working together for the good of all our nation. I welcome that another referendum has been rolled out this year, but we need to move that threat for a generation. It is really important that that happens. There are, of course, opportunities for Brexit for the UK. We will have increased control of the 200-mile limit, and we hope that the powers to manage that will remain devolved. It also gives us the opportunity to better manage the asset for the good of our coastal communities, bearing in mind that fishing traditions differ a lot between our different communities. We must ensure that they all have access to good quality fisheries going forward, and indeed for future generations. That does not just mean where we fish, but how we fish. Our fishers have been at the forefront of developing sustainable fishing methods. However, we need to acknowledge that that has often been a response to European fisheries restrictions, and we should continue that good work even if the stick has been removed. The carrot is a sustainable, efficient fishery for ourselves and future generations. It is also in the fisheries interests to maintain stocks for commercial purposes. What the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and, indeed, Scots want is both their Governments working together to maximise the benefits and diminish the challenges of Brexit. It is incumbent on all of us to work together to achieve that. Thank you very much. I call Tavish Scott, hauled by Finlay Carson, the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Scott. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome to the Stuart Stevenson Bertie Armstrong axis recreated for the purposes of this afternoon's debate. If anyone was in any doubt about the feeling of this industry, about what has happened in the past, they should have been in Scalloway on Friday, because it was the day of the Scalloway Fire Festival, and this year's Geysig Arlen Scalloway, Hacken Magnuson, is actually Victor Loneson in his day job, a skipper of the Radiant Star. It is not so much Victor who gave me what for on the ills of the common fisheries policy, but his father Bert, who fished for many, many years out of Hamnevaux in Shetland, has a legion of stories to say about the iniquities of a policy that hasn't worked. That's why, as colleagues across the chamber have reflected, the fishing industry pretty well to a man voted to leave the European Union. A lot of Scots voted to leave the European Union, but the fishing industry did. We can trade figures around and we could ban different areas of around, but I have no doubt in Shetland, too, that most of the industry wanted out of our policy that has not worked. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the common fisheries policy is three most dangerous words in the English language. It's not common. It's never been about fish and it's certainly never been a policy either. I hope that there is a sense of realism about the future, not just within our industries, but also about the politics of what's about to happen. The Prime Minister today cited French farmers, German exporters and Spanish fishermen. By definition, ladies, the reality is that this industry is now a bargaining chip in what will happen over the next number of years. The Tories have to have forum in this. I'm not old enough to remember, but it did happen in the 1970s. We are right back into that same place again. I cannot conceive how anyone can be confident about that at all. If the Government of the day in London can cut a deal with Nissan for which we have no knowledge and no detail, heaven only help us when it gets to the point where it's Spanish access to the North Sea as opposed to the city of London and the right to trade people, and it is people because that's how bankers have to operate to trade people around Europe. We need to be very clear about that indeed. Whatever negotiating position is established, and we now have no idea what it is, because Theresa May carried on the running commentary, but gave some indications on those things, but not on others. Whatever negotiating position it is, it is vital that we know before we start at the end of March when article 50 is triggered where fishing stands and give way to Alistair Allan. I thank the member for giving way and agreeing with the sentiments that he has. Given what he has said and what I agree with about the negotiating situation that we are in just now, does he feel that one of the biggest risks that the fishing industry faces is the sheer overwhelming priority that the UK Government appears to be giving, ending the freedom of movement of people above all industrial and indeed fishing considerations? Mr Scott. There is absolutely no doubt that the fishing industry needs people. There are men and they are on the whole, all men, on many a shuttle boat who come from not just the European Union, not just Eastern Europe, but from other parts of the world as well. So whatever this immigration policy looks like—again, we have no detail, as Ken Clark was being cited earlier on in an earlier debate just said on the news just now—we have no detail on that. If it is a blanket and harsh immigration policy, that will damage the fishing industry as it will damage many industrial sectors across the UK. Two final points, Presiding Officer. Just to pick up Mr Stevenson's earlier remarks about the different aspects of the sectors, he is right about the catching sector, although I think that there is a difference between the pelagic and the whitefish, because the whitefish industry needs access to a market. They need access to European markets, and I hope that even Bertie Armstrong would concede that the single European market that our whitefish industry uses, not just from Llerwick but from Peterhead and from the west coast as well, is and will be essential. Finally, on pelagic, I suspect that the future of the pelagic industry is now more tied up with the pronouncements of the president-elect of the United States and his relationship with Putin, and that affects Russia and Crimea as anything that is going to happen with Brexit in the next two years. I have a feeling that Mr Armstrong should have been in this debate and has been quoted so often. Can I call Finlay Carson, please? Finlay Carson, I would like to welcome the debate here this evening and how important it is, and also welcome our fishing representatives to the chamber. Like my colleagues on this side of the chamber, there is much in Mr Stevenson's motion that I support. As has already been mentioned, the fishing industry is the economic bedrock of many of our coastal communities, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. However, the fishing sector is also an important one in my constituency of Galloway and Western Fries. Cacubria is home to one of the most important fishing ports in the country and, indeed, is the biggest port for scallop landings with over 3,800 tonnes landed annually. The company West Coast Sea Products employs over 150 people locally, making it one of the biggest employers in my area. In addition, the company exports over 90 per cent of its product to Europe, particularly France. I have no doubt that, following the Brexit negotiations, the company will still be able to export its products and benefit from some of the opportunities that will flow from being outside the European Union. As the Fisherman's Federation spells out, 61 per cent of what will become the UK's EEZ is Scottish and contains some of the most productive, valuable and diverse fisheries to be found anywhere. That puts Scotland in a unique and enviable position, making it even more important that we get the best deal from the forthcoming negotiations. However, in order to get the best deal, as I have said before in this chamber, Scotland needs the Scottish Government to get round the table with the UK Government, put its shoulders into the wheel and accept that the UK is the member state, not Scotland, and constructively contribute to the team-UK negotiation approach. Working hard together is a team to get the best deal, and that is exactly what the Scottish fishing industry is doing in the form of its excellent sea of opportunity campaign. The Scottish Fisherman's Federation has set out its wish list, which includes the power to establish a more effective and reactive fisheries management system, the freedom to explore new markets for seafood and rapidly expanding economies outside the EU, and the fairer and more appropriate share of the catching opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry within our waters. As he pointed out at present, Scotland's vessels account for a minority of the total tonnage and value taken from what would become the UK's EEZ. Scotland's fishermen are optimistic about their future post-Brexit, and we in those benches are equally optimistic for the industry. Many of those who work in this industry were the most ardent supporters of Brexit and they made their case so eloquently in debates up and down the country in the run-up to last summer's referendum, and in a lot of ways it is not difficult to understand given the red tape and the rough time they have had to endure. Only the UK Government can negotiate with the EU, and it is the UK as a member state that must do the best job. We have a duty to support less important Scottish industry as those negotiations proceed, and I urge the Scottish Government to do exactly that. The cabinet secretary's seven minutes are there abouts, please. My congratulations to Stuart Stevenson for bringing this issue to the Scottish Parliament in a debate, which I think I can best describe as or characterise as spirited and intermittently informative. I have had the great pleasure of working closely with Bertie and Mike and their colleagues in the Scottish Fish and Federation, and I have done my best to work very closely to understand the series of diverse and complex issues. I want to start off in this new year by stating that I am determined to work with all parties and all members to advance the interests of Scotland's fishing industry and Scotland's fishermen. In doing so, I think that we did albeit that the CFP in the remarks that Mr Stevenson made, I would entirely endorse as being cumbersome and duly burdensome in the Scottish fishing industry and intensely disliked by fishermen themselves for what it has done to them over the years. I would nonetheless say that there are more facts that I think we need to bring into the debate. In this year's negotiations, and I was pleased to lead the Scottish delegation in this year, together with our able officials, we achieved 33 of our objectives, one was partially achieved and three were not achieved. We achieved an extra £47 million of opportunity for the fishing industry. We secured full eligible quota top-ups to support the facing stops into the discard ban. We also made significant political gains with the EU for a new flexibility arrangement in relation to where Scottish vessels are able to fish for haddock, reducing the risk of choke, an extremely serious problem that has not perhaps been mentioned enough in this debate, and reducing operating costs. We also made the significant political gain that was really hard-won and based upon a workman-like relationship that I have with George Eustace to agree that the UK Government to top-slice UK Arctic cod quota purchased, incidentally, with Scottish Blue Whiting at EU Norway to create a UK pool of swap currency to bring in additional North Sea quota where there are risks of choke under the landing obligation. I will not read out all the rest of the fruits of that negotiation, but it is reasonable to point out that we fought hard for Scotland's fishing industry. In doing so, my modus operandi is to work as constructively as possible with everybody else, including George Eustace. That is exactly what I did, and I hope that it is the right approach. It is certainly the one that I will continue with. However, we do share the view of the SFF that the CFP has had its day, and that is why, in the paper that we debated earlier this afternoon, Scotland's place in Europe, it is really the only detailed plan that has been put forward. I know that it has been criticised and that is to be expected, but it is a detailed plan, so credit was given to him by some Conservative speakers to Mike Russell for bringing it forward. It does, of course, postulate that we will come out of the CFP in the proposal, the differentiated Brexit proposal that we put forward. I can tell you that I played a part in getting that into the deal. I will be absolutely sure about that. We want to get out of the CFP. We think that that is the best option for Scotland, precisely because we can then ensure that key decisions affecting Scotland's marine assets are made here, not elsewhere. I hope that all the chamber will agree with that that we can put in place more proportionate fisheries management measures, based on science, but not arbitrarily imposing a landing obligation, which might well result in vessels having to be tied up in January, February or March, unable to fish for the rest of the year, a situation that I have compared with the proposal where it to come forward, that Marks and Spencers would have to close its doors to retail customers in the spring, plainly absurd. I think that there is a lot of common ground between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government, and I am determined to pursue that. At the same time, however, let us just look at some of the facts. Scotland, in 2015, exported £438 million of fish and seafood to the European community. Without access to the single market, there are very serious questions to be asked about that. We must bear in mind, as Maureen Watt exhorted me to do, that, along with other members, she represents fish processors, who have a distinct legitimate set of interests and commercial concerns. We must look at those in detail, and we must do that in conjunction with our colleagues in Westminster. I will ensure that that process is engaged. We have contributed £77 million of European funding to more than 1,200 projects. I was pleased to relaunch the injection of a substantial sum into improving the facilities at Peterhead harbour, which I visited early one morning to see the fish market in operation. We need to work out, in a differentiated Brexit, a policy that provides at least the same level of support, vital support, to upgrade our ports and harbours, to upgrade the ice facilities and access to reasonable cost electricity, to deal with modernisation and innovation, such as the electronic eye-option system that is being looked at at Fraserborough, for example. Yes, I will certainly give way. We need to do all those things, and there needs to be a method, a funding method, that enables that to happen. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking this. In that spirit, would he, when he is next in lower work, be prepared to make a very positive decision about future funding for the new lyric fish market, very much in the principle of the modernisation that needs to happen? I certainly will do that. I hope to get to Shetland. I can blame the British Government for that, because I had to go and meet them in Wales, so I could not go to Shetland. That was cancelled, that is why I was not able to do that. To be serious, I absolutely believe that there is a legitimate point that needs to be answered. What will replace the good things that have come from Europe? Moreover, what will happen to the workers in the processing factories who come from the EU? Will they be secure? Will they be welcome? Those are very basic questions, and they obviously need to be answered. Regarding the role of access, Marie Todd was quite right about what happened in the 70s. I was a bit surprised that Tavie Scott was so youthful that he could not remember the debate in the 70s, but I stand corrected. It is essential that the exclusive zone is not traded away. The worrying thing about what the Prime Minister said in a throwaway comment about Spanish fishermen today is that it suggests that she is already contemplating that there may be such negotiations. I will, when I meet the UK ministers on Thursday of next week, including Mr Eustace and Ms Lentsam, emphasise that they would please now provide us with that which they have hitherto refused to provide clearly. An absolute undertaking that they will, in no circumstances, trade away the right to fish in Scotland's waters as part of a Brexit negotiation is reasonable to expect that that assurance is given. It has not been given as yet. I have asked for it three times face to face. I will continue to ask for it, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate all of those matters with members this evening in order to highlight that and also the enormous importance and value of what Scotland's fishermen and fishing industry do for our country. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate. I now close this meeting.