 Felly, mae gennych rhaglen gwylliannau, ond mae y prosesoedd yn amser adygau, oedd i chi'n tychynau i gyd yn gwyllprifodol. Mae gyhoeddwn yn cymryd hwn fel y cyfrifodol ar y adygau roedd ei ddau ar ei ddiwethaf. Mae gennych ond, yn gystafell am y cyfrifodol, oeddol iawn o ardal ar yr angen oeddaeth ulysu'r hyn yn cael ei ddweudio. Mae y bylwyr yn i ardal ag ar-2 oeddaeth ysgrisiau bylwyr 48a, oedd y marshwyr yn ysgr The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, then after I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of members should press a request speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I start with group one, improving extent to which public have diets conducive to good health, and I call amendment 4 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, group with amendment 10. I ask Dr Richard Simpson to move amendment 4 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. The amendment is to clarify the objectives for improvement in the diet for public health purposes, to specify content, including calories. Obesity, diabetes and heart disease and stroke remain amongst the greatest challenges that we face, and if we are serious about improving the health of the public, our independent food agency will need to play a vigorous leading role. The elements that require to be addressed by our newly independent agency include salt, saturated fats, trans fats, sugar and calories. The FSA has done excellent work in terms of content in some areas. For example, the maximum values such as trans fats, saturated fats, sodium and sugar, as well as the minimum protein specifications were all put into the school meals programme 2004 regulations. On 19 June 2013, the Food Standards Agency in Scotland launched a new front-of-pat nutrition labelling scheme, which is very welcome, and I am delighted that we now have traffic lights as a system. Indeed, over the years, the Food Standards Agency has done an excellent job in many areas, including reducing the amount of salt in our diet, but salt consumption remains high at 8.1 to 8.8 grams per day, and it is important that we achieve a level of 6 grams per day across the agile population. On trans fats, again, there has been good progress, but the restriction of all trans fats, which are not naturally occurring, would have been achieved had my private member's bill received support in the last Parliament. Too many fast foods still have these dangerous fats present. On saturated fats and sugars, there have been progress too, but one area that has yet to be tackled as vigorously is that of calories. Amendment 10 is to specify that the agency has the power to bring in a national scheme on calorie values. At present, the bill refers to a hygiene scheme, which is welcome. There is a voluntary progress here, for example, with labelling recently by Sainsbury's of their wine calorie values in their wines. However, colleagues, more than 20 years ago, I visited the Mayo Clinic in the USA and they were showing calorie and saturated fat levels on the menus, so we need a step change in this area. It is welcome that the Parliament also has been putting calorie values on its menus, which I hope some members have paid attention to. As the bill is currently written, clause 2 subsection 2 makes clear the risks that are referred to in clause 2 subsection 1A and relates to the way in which food is produced and supplied. However, my amendment makes it clearer in respect of the new objective in clause 2 subsection 1B that the content of food beyond safety and integrity, including its calorie content and its advertising and its promotion, are now defined objectives. Currently, we have warning signs of tobacco with traffic lights for living and food, but we need to ensure that, in its advertising and in its promotion across the industry, they are held to strict conditions to ensure that obesity and public health issues are made clear and that the public are fully informed. I move amendments in my name, numbers 4 and 10. Many thanks. No other member has asked to speak in this group, so I now call the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We all agree that the content of food and the issues concerning its calorific value are important in the question of a healthy diet. I am therefore grateful to Dr Simpson for raising those issues. I know how passionately he promotes them. However, although the amendments in this group are perhaps well intended, I do not believe that they are necessary or will improve the bill. Amendment 4 could cause confusion by inserting what is essentially a function, like those in section 3 of the bill, into the objectives of FSS. That could be confusing in that it would give that particular function undue emphasis to the detriment of all the other important functions that FSS must perform. Indeed, the functions in section 3 already include functions of giving advice and information and informing the public about matters that affect their capacity to make informed decisions about food. If content and calories are matters of concern to consumers, giving information about them will already be part of what the body does. There is no need for this new amendment. More important, calorific values and food content are not the only factors that bear on a healthy diet. Referring them expressly in the bill creates a risk of an undue focus on those factors at the expense of considering issues of food health in the round. Further, the amendment suggests that FSS will have a role to set standards in respect of calories, content, advertising and promotion. That will not be the case. Food information and, to some extent, nutrition are matters regulated at EU level. Setting standards for industry based on evidence and advice from bodies such as FSS is a role for the EU and the Scottish Government, not FSS. Amendment 10 is similarly well intended, but I consider that it would not be right to add it to the bill at this time. The amendment would add a relatively significant new enabling power to the bill in circumstances in which neither the Health and Sport Committee nor the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has had an opportunity to input to it. Subject to advice from FSS and others, the Scottish ministers may well in due course support the idea of a public consultation on a mandatory scheme requiring food businesses to display nutrition values. That is what we did for the prospective mandatory scheme on displaying hygiene information as contained in the bill. However, more work would be required on whether displaying calorie values or wider nutritional information is effective in helping consumers to have healthy diets before we go ahead with the idea. I would like to hear from consumers about whether they would prefer to see a scheme focused on sugar or on salt first, for instance. However, the most significant reason for not accepting the amendment as it stands is the impact on small businesses and local authorities. Each time, mandatory schemes on calorie values, sugar and salt content, etc., are considered the impact on small producers as highlighted. We cannot ignore that. We have to be proportionate in our approach and balance the benefits with the impacts. Larger food producers and retailers, for example, will arguably have more resource to dedicate to researching and preparing the display of calorie values. Indeed, many larger organisations such as Dr Simpson highlighted have a policy in this already. However, smaller businesses such as caterers or restaurants will find this extremely expensive to comply with. Further, the additional burden on local authority officers would have to check that all those additional displays would be significant. We need to take a proportionate and partnership approach to any scheme that would put undue pressure on our businesses and on our local authority colleagues. For those reasons, I believe that amendment 10 is premature and requires more work and consultation to work up proposals for a scheme before legislation could be considered. Those amendments are well intended, but existing legislation can be used to deliver the same outcome, and the amendments as they stand would be disproportionate and have not been consulted upon. Therefore, I invite the Parliament not to accept amendments 4 and 10. Many thanks. Could you wind up Dr Simpson and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw? First of all, I thank the minister for some of the words that she has given. I understand the reasons for the Government saying that this is not at this time necessary. It is, of course, possible to introduce clauses and then not activate them until you are ready to do so. Given, for example, the social responsibility levy on alcohol, which has still not been regulated on but has actually passed in this Parliament five years ago, so actually the timing would be a matter for the Government to decide as being appropriate. I welcome the fact that the minister agrees with me that calories, along with the other things that I listed, are all important. Those amendments would have given a message to industry that they are in things that we intend to tackle in a vigorous way and that they should prepare for that. However, in the light of the minister's words, I am prepared to withdraw or not move whatever the appropriate thing that the Presiding Officer will advise me on. Thank you, Dr Simpson. You are seeking to withdraw. Is that acceptable? I have no one suggesting otherwise, thank you very much. In which case, we now move to group two, matters in relation to which Food Standards Scotland must keep the public informed. I call amendment 5, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, in a group on its own. I ask Dr Simpson to move and speak to amendment 5, please. I have raised amendment 5 because I feel strongly that the word, significantly, is an unnecessary restriction on the agency in protecting the public. The objectives in the previous clause talk about being proportionate and acting in a manner that fulfills their objectives. It is up to the agency how they deal with it, but to say that they have to define significantly is difficult. I do not fully understand the legal definition of what constitutes significant. For example, if something affects a very small minority, is that effect significant? It is for that minority, but in global terms for the population in Scotland as a whole, it is not. It may be regarded as quite insubstantial, but when added to other small effects, a number of small effects collectively can also become substantial. Therefore, that word, significant, is one that, quite frankly, sticks in my crawl. We tried to remove it at stage 1, but there was some debate as to whether I was allowed to intervene at that time. I am rising to make the point and to see how the minister defines the word significantly, because depending on how she does define it, I will either press or withdraw. At the present moment, I move amendment 5. Amendment 5, as Dr Simpson said, was lodged at stage 2. It was debated and then withdrawn following a division. As my predecessor said at stage 2, we understand the intention of the proposal to remove the word significantly here. It is important that Food Standards Scotland acts in a wide range of interests, as is important to consumers. That is the intended objective. However, the practical effect of the seemingly small change would be disproportionate. It would mean that the body could have to turn its attention to a hugely wide range of concerns significant or not. That could risk losing its focus on the most important matters. I think that the word significantly is vital here to make clear that although Food Standards Scotland will be concerned with all matters of interest to consumers, it cannot lose focus on those matters which impact most on consumers. For that reason, I would invite Parliament not to accept amendment 5. Thank you. Dr Simpson, could you respond and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw? I accept the definition of significantly that the minister has now put on the record, and that is that if it affects people in the way that I have described, that is a small minority, but they are affected substantially that action would be taken because that would be a priority for them. However, generally, of course, the Food Standards Agency should be looking at matters of greater importance. It will be up to them to prioritise it. However, on the basis of the minister's words, I am prepared not to press this amendment. Dr Simpson seeks to withdraw. Does any member object to that? No, in which case we move on to group 3, membership of Food Standards Scotland, and I call amendment 6 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, group with amendment 7. I ask Dr Simpson to move amendment 6 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, I appreciate that we had a good debate on this in stage 2 in the health committee when an amendment was moved by Eileen McLeod to change the minimum to 5, which was not accepted by the minister. This increase was supported in evidence by such disparate groups as quality meets Scotland on the one hand and which on the other hand. Let us look at the proposed minimum, which is 3 plus the chair. If two members are absent, that could reduce the board to 2. I am not speaking entirely theoretically, as I have looked at a number of other NGOs where the absence of two members is not actually unusual. I do not believe that a board could or should function without at least three members present, and I have therefore proposed a modest increase to four plus the chair, and I hope that at least three members will be present on every occasion. If we look at other evidence that suggested that there should be an employee director, and in addition to that, there should be gender balance and that there should be a strong consumer interest, then I think that this modest increase is appropriate. One further item, the minister in his response at stage 2 said that they would try to keep this board at a higher level than three, but if they are going to do that, then I suggest that they should have a higher minimum as well, not least because this would actually ensure that matters are dealt with in an appropriate way. Finally, there is the point that the minister also said that this board was smaller because the functions of this new agency were smaller. Minister, this board's powers and the things that it has to do are expanding significantly. Matters of public safety on food have come to the fore in the last year since this bill was beginning to be prepared, and I would suggest that we need a board that is strong enough to be effective, and on that basis I wish to move amendment 7. Amendment 7 has a similar tent to that of my previous amendment. It is intended, however, to be helpful to the Government, because if amendment 6 were rejected by the Government, that would make amendment 7 more important. What it does is allow the minister to ensure that, where members are disqualified through any new office listed under the preceding clause, she or he will have the power to grant an extension in order to ensure that the board is functional. I move amendment 7 in my name. Many thanks. Extremely briefly, Deputy Presiding Officer. A number of significant witnesses did seek for a larger minimum number on the boards. Richard Simpson has given a number of very good reasons as to why his amendment should be approved, and I am happy to support that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As Dr Richard Simpson said, a very similar amendment to amendment 6 was moved and withdrawn without objection at stage 2. The Health and Sport Committee also considered the number of members at stage 1 and accepted that the number set out in the bill is a minimum only. Ministers have given assurance to the committee on that. I will shortly be announcing the appointment of seven further members to add to the appointment of Ross Finney as chair designate announced last month. I hope that this is clear evidence of Government's commitment to run Food Standards Scotland with its full complement of eight, seven members and the chair as the norm. The minimum number in the bill, three members plus the chair, has to be low enough to allow flexibility during reappointment rounds or in case of emergencies. That number and lower numbers already work for other similar sized bodies. The Scottish Charities Regulator has a minimum number of four, including the chair, and the Scottish Housing Regulator has a minimum number of three, including the chair. That has not caused difficulty for them. The Government sees no reason to reconsider that minimum number. On amendment 7, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and impractical. It is unnecessary in that it is extremely unlikely that a member would take up any of the public offices or employment listed in section 7.1 without being in a position to give ministers some notice. That would usually allow ministers sufficient time to make arrangements to protect the ability of FSS to carry out its functions. Remaining as a member of FSS while taking up many of the listed posts would lead to immediate conflicts of interest. In fact, taking up many of the posts, parliamentary and council posts in particular, would mean having to declare an interest and then taking no part in FSS decisions in any case. There is nothing ministers can do to set that aside. That makes the arrangement suggested by amendment 7 wholly redundant, so therefore I invite the Parliament not to accept amendments 6 and 7. Many thanks and I ask Dr Simpson to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw please. If I may, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will deal with the amendments summing up on reverse order. On amendment 7, I think that the one thing that the minister said, which I do not agree with, is that a member of the Scottish Parliament or a member of the House of Commons, if you are elected, you go straight into business. You are not able to give a lot of notice. Therefore, it is problematic, because if there is an immediate disqualification, they would have to leave the board immediately, so no notice would be given. However, this was intended to be helpful to the minister and future Governments, including, one hopes, a Labour Government. However, if the minister chooses to reject that, I see the minister smiling, then I am happy not to move amendment 7. This is not the case, however, with amendment 6. I do believe that the arguments that have been put forward are not sufficient. I think that the other NGOs or agencies that she has quoted have quite different functions. This new body is now going to be dealing with the FSA in England, the Board of Trade in England, the European FSA. It is going to be dealing with all our public safety matters on nutrition and meat inspection. The list of functions is huge, and the required experience across that area is going to be massive. I very much welcome the appointment of Ross Finneas as the prospective chair of this, providing the bill is passed. He is a man of great experience. However, I do believe that the minimum number of four is a not unreasonable thing to have requested in the Government, and I am disappointed that it has been rejected or that it is proposed to be rejected by the Government. I will move amendment 7 in my name. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 6 be agreed to. I will agree. Parliament is not agreed, so there will be a division, but as this is the first division of this stage this afternoon, the Parliament is now suspended for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 6. This is a 32nd division, and members should cast their votes now, please. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 6 is, yes, 45. No 62. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 7 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, who is already debated with amendment 6, and I ask Dr Simpson to move or not to move. Many thanks. In which case, we now move to group 4, annual and other reports, and I call amendment 8 in the name of Dr Richard Simpson. Group 2 is amendment 9, and I ask Dr Simpson to move amendment 8 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We did have a debate on this area of concern at stage 2 about online publishing, and the view of the minister was that the time was not right to exclusively publish all reports only online, because that would exclude some who did not have access to digital applications. Whilst I would dispute this insofar as those members of the public who do not have personal access to the internet do have access through their public libraries, my original amendment that I do accept was probably ahead of its time. I hope that the minister will now be more willing to accept this revised set of amendments about the cost of printing, which should be published as an incentive to the agency to reduce its costs over time. Amendment 9 requires that reports laid before Parliament should only be online, as the MSP should all be reasonably digital savvy by now. Of course, those reports online can also be in formats for those with a visual disability or other disabilities. I hope that the minister will now accept those revised amendments as a more timely approach to the matter of trying to reduce the amount of paper that floats around the system, costs a fortune and destroys trees. Presiding Officer, if the intention of amendment 8 is indeed to help to keep a handle on the costs associated with printing reports and the environmental impact of that, then I am happy to offer my assurance that this is something ministers are always keen to encourage. However, this specific amendment is unclear and necessary. It is not clear whether the option to lay a statement of costs that Food Standards Scotland would have would concern the costs associated with printing copies to be laid in Parliament are all copies printed. This is confusing. I believe that amendment 8 is also unnecessary. It is not something that any other public body is being asked to do. The statutory duties of best value require public bodies to demonstrate and be audited on how they operate efficiently and economically. In any case, I will be happy to emphasise the need to consider printing costs and impacts in the FSS statement of performance of functions for the avoidance of any doubt over our commitments. Amendment 9 is unnecessary, Presiding Officer. Ministers have already pointed out at stage 2 when a very similar amendment was lodged that the way documents are laid in Parliament is already well regulated. The amendment is also vague in that it is not clear whether normally would mean that FSS would have to have good reason in a given case to lodge a physical document or instead that it could choose in any case to lodge a physical document provided it followed a general practice of lodging electronically. I therefore ask the Parliament not to accept amendments 8 or 9. I thank the minister for her response and I accept from what she is saying that the Government will seek to reduce the number of paper reports that come in as far as possible and, hopefully, the Parliament may look at the regulations regarding the submission of reports. The one thing that I would not accept in what she is saying is that the question of whether all reports or some reports was left for the FSA to make a decision. There may be occasions on which a paper report was appropriate and it was to give them some wriggle room, but otherwise I will not press these amendments with the permission of the Parliament. Dr Simpson seeks to withdraw amendment 8. Does any member object to that? In which case I have to call amendment 9 in the name of Dr Simpson. It is already debated with amendment 8 and I ask Dr Simpson to move or not to move. Not moved? Many thanks. That then takes us to group 5, minor and technical amendments. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 2 and 3. I ask the minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Presiding Officer, the amendments in this group are minor, either updating the draft or providing more clarity. I believe that those amendments will improve the clarity and consistency of the bill's provision. Amendment 1 corrects a minor oversight in the bill as introduced. The word subsection is required here for consistency with neighbouring subsections and to give full effect to section 32. Amendment 2 provides clarity on the circumstances in which regulations made in connection with administrative sanctions can allow for discharging criminal liability where someone has been served with both a fixed penalty notice and a compliance notice. This section added at stage 2 was intended to cover that situation. However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee published its report on the bill as amended at stage 2 last Wednesday. Its report recommended that we make the further change that amendment makes. Amendment 3 updates the list of acts that would be modified by the enactment of the bill. It is now clear that the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 does not extend to Scotland and so requires no modification. The amendment here removes that from the schedule accordingly. I move amendment 1. Many thanks. I had a request to speak from Nigel Doin. Is that correct? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just rise as the convener of the aforementioned Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and thank the Government for taking what we said seriously. It was an entirely unintended consequence of some drafting. I am grateful that they tidied it up. Many thanks. Minister, do you feel the need to respond? In which case, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 10, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is already debated with amendment 4. Dr Simpson, do you wish to move or not to move? Not move. Thank you. That brings us to amendment 2 in the name of the Minister. Already debated with amendment 1 and I ask the minister to move formally please. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 3 in the name of the Minister. Already debated with amendment 1 and I ask the minister to move formally please. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We are. In which case, that ends consideration of amendments. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 11826, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the Food Scotland bill. Could members leaving the chamber please do so quietly? Could those members who wish to speak in this debate please press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Maureen Watt to speak through and move the motion. Minister Maximum, 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Food Scotland bill. I would like to thank the Health and Sport Committee. Ordered please. There is far too much noise, we cannot hear the minister. I would like to thank the Health and Sport Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its careful handling at stage 2, as well as the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its very detailed scrutiny. I would like to thank the bill team and my colleague Michael Matheson for doing the bulk of the work surrounding this bill. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people in Scotland live longer, healthier lives, making sure that we eat a good, nutritious diet of safe food is vital to achieving that ambition. Foodborne diseases, for example, cost Scotland 140 million per year more significantly of the 130,000 consumers contracting foodborne diseases each year, around 2,000 will be hospitalised and around 50 will sadly die. Similarly, poor eating habits are one of the most significant causes of ill health in Scotland and a major factor in obesity. The Food Scotland bill gives Scotland some of the levers that we can use to tackle those issues. Firstly, the bill creates Food Standard Scotland to be Scotland's independent food safety and standards body. We have already announced the appointment of Ross Finney as a chair designate. I met Mr Finney last week and will shortly announce the name of the other members. FFSS will comprise of eight members, including the chair, as allowed for in the bill. I have noted concerns expressed earlier about the minimum numbers of members allowed for in the bill. I hope that appointing a full complement of members now demonstrates the Government's intention to maintain a broad membership for Food Standard Scotland. The FFSS will be a non-ministerial body operating free from the influence of ministers. The board and chief executive will need sufficient space to prepare and develop their strategic thinking and build key relationships with partners. We have also already announced the appointment of the acting Food Standards Agency director, Jeff Ogle, as chief executive designate. I met Mr Ogle on Friday and is keen to make progress. Jeff is already assembling his executive team and working with staff in Aberdeen to be ready for FFSS to take on its full range of functions on 1 April 2015. Food Standard Scotland's clear objectives as set out in the bill will be to protect the public from risks to health that may arise in connection with the consumption of food, improve the extent to which the public has diets conducive to good health, and protect the other interests of consumers in relation to food. To achieve those objectives, the bill sets out clear functions to develop and help others to develop policies on food and animal feeding staffs, to advise the Scottish Government, other authorities and the public on food and animal feeding staffs, to keep the public and users of animal feeding staffs advised to help them to make informed decisions about food and feed staffs, and to monitor the performance of enforcement authorities in enforcing food legislation. The bill sets out specific duties and associated powers for the new body on acquiring and reviewing information through carrying out observations and inspections, monitoring developments and carrying out commissioning or co-ordinating research. New food law provisions are the second lever that we are introducing through the bill to tackle food issues in Scotland. Those are designed to protect and improve public health and other interests of consumers by driving up hygiene standards and reducing the incidence of foodborne disease, providing safeguards against food standards incidents such as the horse meat food fraud, and strengthening and simplifying the penalties regime for breaches of food law. The bill provides powers to seize and detain food that does not comply with food information law. Those powers will more closely align food information powers with existing food safety powers. Currently, if food is unsafe, it can be seized or detained. Where food is unsafe, courts must order destruction of the food. However, there are no such powers for food that is safe but does not comply with food information requirements. In light of the horse meat food fraud incidents, the power to seize or detain food does not meet food information requirements in respect of labelling, for example, will help to eliminate food fraud. Without such a power being available at the moment, a food business may still be able to pass on food that does not comply with food information law. The bill also provides for the creation of a statutory fence of failure to report breaches of food information law. Again, that will more closely align food standard requirements with the existing duty to report breaches of food safety legislation. Under the suggested arrangements, it would become an offence to fail to notify food standard Scotland if any person suspected that food did not comply with food information law. The bill provides the Scottish ministers with powers to introduce a statutory scheme that will, among other things, require the mandatory display of food businesses of inspection outcomes. That is intended to drive up food hygiene standards and reduce the incident of foodborne disease. The bill will also streamline Scotland's food law enforcement regime by offering a range of new administrative sanctions so that offences will be dealt with more quickly and at less cost. The administrative sanction regime comprising of compliance notices and fixed penalties will give enforcement officers more flexibility to deal appropriately with food offences. The use of administrative penalty options will reduce the burden on the courts and reduce the costs of local authorities in respect of prosecuting through the courts system. I would like to turn to some commitments given by my predecessor at stage 2 to consider issues raised in amendments that were not accepted by the committee. I would like to offer some reassurances on those commitments. I can confirm that, as with all public bodies, ministers will expect that as much of the business of food standard Scotland board meetings and committee meetings will be conducted in public. As a non-ministerial office, food standard Scotland will be operationally autonomous. However, to achieve transparency, section 5 of the bill requires food standard Scotland to set out in a statement how it will perform its functions. I will be responsible for signing that statement off and will have power to modify the statement if I consider it appropriate. That statutory statement will have to include specific operational matters ranging from how consumer interests will be safeguarded, to how reports will be published and what business matters the board would not consider in public and why. That statement of performance of functions will be an important mechanism for helping food standard Scotland to build public trust. At stage 2, my predecessor also committed to exploring the practicability of introducing a scheme to encourage food business operators to report the outcomes of their testing and sampling. The Government has explored this further and I can confirm that we will be taking this forward. Ministers already have legislative power to make regulations in this regard, and so no amendment is required to the bill. We must first concentrate on bedding food standard Scotland with its current objectives and functions. However, during 2015, ministers will be expecting a public consultation on regulations to introduce a testing disclosure scheme. The details will be developed for consultation next year. In conclusion, the bill will ensure food safety is given the prominence that it deserves in Scotland. By creating food standard Scotland and equipping it with the necessary functions and powers, it will be able to make expedient decisions focused on issues that specifically affect Scotland and to take action to improve the diet of the people of Scotland. I move that the Food Scotland bill will be passed. We have had a food standards agency since 1999, but it is part of a UK agency. It has been a success. It has acted on its own initiatives. For example, as I said in the debate at stage 3 on the standards for school meals, it has acted more recently on independent research on fruit fraud, which led the rest of the UK. However, with the Lib Dem coalition breaking up the UK agency, consideration of the future of the FSA Scotland was necessary and Professor Scudimo's report in March 2012 strongly recommended an independent agency. This is a classic example of powers with the purpose, and Labour has backed the general principles of the bill from the outset. In what has become a standard Scottish approach, which seeks to ensure that experts and the public are fully engaged in any new bill, we have had two consultations and two further reports following the horse meat scandal. Scudimo is reporting again on food and feed safety and Ray Jones on traceability, labelling, assurance schemes and provenance associated with the primary red meat production and processing. We have come a long way since the SWAN report in the late 60s and its report on antibiotics and veterinary use, yet the issue of chemicals in meat production is a matter of continuing concern. If the transatlantic trade bill is approved, then I believe that we must ensure that US meat produced using growth hormones, for example, is controlled. We need to look at that in terms of that particular treaty. Most of the evidence that the committee received supported a new independent agency, but someone did argue that preservation of the status quo would ensure a consistency of approach, communication and advice across the UK, maintain good links to the EU and avoid duplication of effort. The committee rightly rejected that view. I believe that it is vital to Scotland's food production that we have an agency that is seen to be independent and able to make sure that Scotland's reputation for quality is fully protected. For example, our farm salmon is the only salmon with the labelle rouge making it a premium product. The new agency's powers are, as the minister said, to be enhanced. My amendments had sought to reinforce the agency's powers on diet and nutrition, working, of course, in partnership with the Government on Health Protection Scotland, which will be important in tackling what I believe will emerge as the biggest challenge in public health going forward. Currently, tobacco is the main legacy that we are tackling. Alcohol, of course, is important and progress is being made with price control availability restriction. I hope that support for many of the 10 elements in my private member's bill, we will continue to make progress on that. However, obesity, currently standing at 27.8 per cent of adults, threatens to reverse the gains in life expectancy over the last 20 years. When I started in medicine, the level of type 2 diabetes was at 1 per cent of the population, it is now at 6 per cent across the UK, over 250,000 people in Scotland. The agency will have to meet head-on food content, saturated fat, trans fat, salt, sugar and food density or calories, and that will mean challenging the current approach of the much-of-the-b-b-o-g-o-f approach of retailers, as well as the food industry. To do that, I supported many of the amendments, which which one of the premier consumer bodies had as table in phase 2. I believe that it is imperative that, in the appointments to the board, there should be a powerful consumer interest, an employee director, as Unison has suggested, and there should be gender balance. Labour will seek and act to act if this agency fails to demonstrate sufficient power in the area of nutrition. The committee noted that its views were to suggest that one of the roles of the agency should be to help to grow food and drink industries in Scotland, but if it is to do so, it will need to make sure that its role as a regulator remains paramount. We must never forget that the feeding of brain and spinal cord to cattle as a money-saving device resulted in BSE, which we have not, by the way, seen the end of. I have concerns about the use of antibiotics and growth hormone, as I have already mentioned, and we are only now beginning to emerge from an era of excessive additives. Agents for anti-caking, anti-foaming, bulking, food colouring, colour retention, emulsifiers, humectants to prevent drying out, preservatives, stabilizers, sweetness, thickness—all named within Europe as E numbers—are widespread and pervasive. One example of the challenge of additives currently is whether colourants and sodium bensuate contribute to increases in ADHD, hyperactivity in children. There has been a significant controversy associated with the risks and benefits of food additives. Some artificial additives have been linked with cancer, digestive problems, neurological conditions—ADHD, as I have mentioned, heart disease and obesity—but the evidence is often still equivocal. Natural additives may also be harmful or be the cause of allergic reactions in certain individuals. One example of that is azodies of sunset yellow, banned already in many Nordic countries. The EU has the highest consumption of soft drinks that contain these dyes, and Scotland has the highest within the United Kingdom, so clarity on safety is needed as at all possible. Of course, that is mainly a matter for the European Food Standards Agency, who sets many of the regulations for us quite rightly. Their expert scientific panel, which deals with food additives, the A&S panel, has started the process of reassessing all permitted food colours—45 in total—including the six additives that the UK Food Standards Agency called for food manufacturers to voluntarily stop in 2009. Those colourings that have been removed could produce significant challenges to some of our producers, including brands such as Iron Brew and bars from bars. Although bars already export a ponso-free drink in the form of Iron Brew to Canada, it has actually banned the UK recipe, so it is not impossible for food producers to change production without having to wait for the final results of tests. The new agency will need to commission research, but it will need to do so. It will need a minimum and anum of understanding, both with the remnant FSA, and it will need to work closely if not have an understanding with the European FSA. My own view is that it must lead us in a transition to a simpler approach to food. A world in which a slightly misshapen-carat or apple is regarded as acceptable as the pre-packaged tracer gas-filled products in supermarkets today—the packaging of which is neither biodegradable nor recyclable—and one where additives are minimised. It must rigorously apply the precautionary principle. There are many other issues that I do not have time to go into, but if I may say in conclusion that the hygiene aspect of this bill is critical, we still have one of the high rates of E. coli 107, and this is a challenge, as will be new emerging bacteria or strains. The matter of LA's trading standards will be dealt with a little bit more by my colleague Rhoda Grant. Clare Baker will also mention the meat inspection that we dealt with in stage 1, which is a critical part of the bill. I could go on for some time, but my time is up. I therefore commend the bill to the Parliament. The Food Scotland bill has been welcomed by most of the people who responded to the health and sport committee's call for evidence. The relative of the few amendments to it at stages 2 and 3 are indicative of the general approval of the measures that it contains. As I said at stage 1, at a time when most of us rely increasingly on processed food and ready-prepared meals, it is imperative that we can trust the safety and nutritional value of the food that we eat. It is also vital that we begin to tackle the very serious problem of obesity in Scotland. Given the changed remit of the Food Standards Agency south of the border and following the horse meat scandal, it is generally accepted that the time is right for Scotland to set up a new standalone body with wider powers than the FSA, which it replaces. FSS will bring together that body's existing public health protection role with the new objective on diet and nutrition, and it will also have powers in relation to labelled food and non-compliance with food law. To be effective and tackling the complexities of diet and nutrition in Scotland, the Food Standards Scotland will have to develop a strong leadership and co-ordinating role. That can only be developed by negotiation after the new body is in place and if it is adequately resourced and works closely with the Scottish Government's scientific advisers. At stage 1, the importance of the existing links between the advisory committees and the UK Food Standards Agency was highlighted, indicating that those committees will be able to pull together the significant on-going work in the UK and across Europe and give advice through FSA to Food Standards Scotland as an independent body. That makes the memorandum of understanding between Food Standards Agency and FSS crucial to the success of the new body by setting out how the two will work together where appropriate and enable them to exchange data and research findings in all areas of mutual interest. I confess that I do not know if the MOU has yet been published. I know that it was being drafted and I would appreciate an update from the minister on its development. I also welcome a progress. The memorandum of understanding with FSA and Europe is being prepared and it will be one of the first things that will be signed off by the new board. I look forward to hearing about that in due course. I would also welcome a progress report in the Scottish Government's monitoring of the food hygiene information schemes in Northern Ireland and Wales and an indication of when such a scheme might be set up in Scotland. The consumer organisation, which, following some of the concerns expressed at stage 1, has welcomed the plans agreed at stage 2 to enhance enforcement powers through FSS working proactively with local authorities to drive up standards and also the decision to allow the new agency to have improved access to food testing from retailers and manufacturers, which will allow action to be taken swiftly when and where food adulteration is detected to protect consumers and other businesses who rely on the same supply chain. It is indeed concerning that Twitch, just a few months ago in its mystery shopping activity, found evidence of adulteration and misrepresentation of foods in a number of takeaways and fish and chip shops right across the UK. It goes without saying that constant vigilance is required concerning the contamination of chickens with the campelob actor organism, described by Professor Hugh Pennington in evidence as the commonest cause of food poisoning today. A number of witnesses did comment on the board's size, which at three plus the chairman felt was too small. I am disappointed that Richard Simpson's amendment to increase the minimum number to four was defeated. I hope that the Government's faith that the board will always operate with enough expertise and be consumer-focused on all its work will be justified. I hope that the Government will monitor that going forward to ensure that the fears are unwarranted. Of course, I am pleased that the first board will have seven members plus the chairman if I heard the minister correctly. One important concern to the retail sector, which is as yet unresolved, is the absence of robust appeals mechanisms for fixed penalty notices and compliance notices. The sector very much regrets that the Government would not agree to setting out details of the appeals process and providing safeguards for retailers within the bill and would like assurances from the Government that it will work with retailers on any further secondary legislation to ensure robust appeals systems for both FPNs and compliance notices. Both the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Scotch-Whiskey Association have offered to comment on or assist with the drafting of regulations and guidance that will accompany the bill, and I hope that that offer will be taken up. I will not go into any detail about why retailers feel that the burden of proof for FPNs must be set beyond reasonable doubt and that a robust appeals system is important to ensure that they are based on the same level of evidence that is required under a criminal rather than civil penalty, because I know that officials have been in talks with the retail sector about this as the bill has progressed through Parliament. Likewise for compliance notices, where the lack of a strong appeal process could have very serious implications for the livelihoods of smaller producers. I would ask the minister to assure us that those concerns will be considered when any secondary legislation is under discussion and that the Government will explicitly consult organisations such as the SRC and SWA that have consistently stressed the importance of a clear and robust appeals process being available. If those residual concerns are addressed and taken into account, the pledge is given by the minister today. I think that the Food Scotland Bill can result in a very effective piece of legislation that will ensure the interests of food health protection and nutritional support in Scotland. I look forward to its implementation, assuming that it is approved at decision time and to hearing of its activities as Food Standard Scotland develops in the months and years ahead. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes please. Christian Allard to be followed by Claire Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to speak today on the last stage of his very much welcome Food Bill for Scotland. In the first put on record, my sincere congratulations to our new public health minister, the member for Aberdeen South and North Cain Cardin, Morrin Watt. In the stage one debate, I spoke a lot about the North East and of course I recognise that the public health minister has been promoting the North East of Scotland as the country is naturally louder many times before me. I experienced about the food industry, how to support food producers in the North East and across Scotland will be a great help in a new role. I believe that this bill will help Scotland becoming a healthy nation and a good food nation. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a predecessor, Mr Matheson, on the two senior appointments he announced to lead Food Standards Scotland. Ross Finney and Geoff Ogle will bring their own experiences in the food industry. I recently met Geoff Ogle in his office in Aberdeen and I'm delighted with his two appointments. My meeting with Mr Ogle, then acting director of Scotland's Food Standards Agency, was to get reassurance that food producers will get a fair deal from any changes that this bill will bring forward. The health and transport committee visited one of those producers, a seafood producer based in Aberdeen in the same street as Morrin Watt's office in Tory in Aberdeen. I know the minister will be familiar with Joseph Robertson, the family company funded in 1892, the seafood company producing the best quality seafood to plate produce. Michael Robertson, the managing director, shared his concerns with the committee about possible increasing costs for food producers associated with this bill. I trust the new agency headed by Geoff Ogle to reassure the industry on this point. Scotland doesn't operate in a vacuum at home or abroad, but Scottish producers have to be able to compete. This is why I believe that new labelling and regulations in Scotland must be accepted in the rest of the UK and in the EU and if they are to be enforced. A simple approach to food said Dr Simpson early on and there is a need for clarity and transparency. If I say let me clarify your point, I made in October debating this bill the committee reports a discussion with Michael Robertson, the managing director of Joseph Robertson about inspections and that local authority inspections were not as a high quality as a retellers own inspection. This is an important point to presenting officer and this is why I ask Food Standards Scotland to show leadership on this. John Slay, the chairman of chief officers of environmental health in Scotland, wrote to me and shared his members concern that I agreed with Michael Robertson's concerns. Let me reassure Mr Slay that I do not consider major retellers above environmental health inspectors, but Mr Robertson has a point. The new agency has to be the benchmark for everyone dealing with food safety. Food producers, particularly small and medium food producers cannot afford to spend the amount of money they are spending today to respond to the constant demands of major retellers to protect the consumers. It is imperative that inspections are of the same quality across Scotland and to protect the food producers they are accepted by all major retellers. I agree with the minister in rejecting amendments that would have increased the pressure on health inspectors or on local authorities who are funding them. I believe the new agency will have a prime role to play. My plea to all members of the chamber is to support our food industry and remind Scottish consumers to buy locally and to eat the very best of healthy food, the Scottish food. Many thanks. I now call Clare Baker to be followed by Colin Kear. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to make a contribution to this afternoon's debate. At the Parliament recently held our food and drink debate, and there is a growing recognition that the public health agenda and the food and drink sector need to be more closely aligned, the current becoming a good food nation consultation does indicate a different focus from the Scottish Government. It is attempting to tie together the debates on growing food as a strong section of our economy with how we address our domestic food challenges at home, both in terms of income and knowledge. That is to be welcomed. It can be challenging to work successfully across Government, and the new Standards Scotland organisation, which will cover responsibilities in public health, as well as regulation of the food sector, is an example of the need for closer working together, producing food policies across Government portfolios, which meaningfully relate to each other. What are the challenges that are facing the new body? This afternoon confirms the creation of the new organisation, and with the chair, a board will soon be appointed, notwithstanding the debate that we have already had on the make-up of the board, and the policy direction and the focus of the organisation will then be created. The debate now moves on to what does the new body achieve. As a Parliament, we have led public debates on tobacco and on alcohol. We need to now turn our attention to food. By 2030, we will be spending £3 billion tackling obesity if we continue to go the way that we are going. At a time when our overseas food export market will be having the potential to expand with the development of new emerging markets, we will be fighting battles about food here at home. Alongside obesity, we have health issues associated with poor diet and food poverty. There needs to be a realignment in our diets, and this new body has a role to play here. How do we have that debate? As part of the Good Food Nation consultation, the Government is proposing a food commission. Debate in Scotland around food can be difficult, and Richard Simpson has the tabloid scars to prove it whenever he talks about the soda tax. A commission could provide the space for a reasonable, evidence-based assessment and proposals. Will the minister relate to the new food standards body? If the new food standards body is to have a greater public health role, how will that co-ordinate with the work of the NHS to prevent duplication and ensure co-ordination? At the cross-party group in the Parliament a few weeks ago in Food and Drink, someone said that it should not be a good food nation but a good diet nation. At our debate in Parliament a few weeks ago, members took us on culinary tours of their constituencies with them. The focus is very much on pastries and pies and tablets. Perhaps it does not matter if we consume those products as long as they are part of a balanced diet. Are people clear—I am very tight for time—about what a balanced diet actually means? A focus on fad diets, even from the former First Minister, does not really change long-term habits and help to build good health. The new body has a role to play in providing trusted information, and the Government needs to support it to get the message out there. There will be no coffee table or kitchen table book that is going to be produced by the new body, which competes with those who can promise you the latest starlit figure if you drink maple syrup or whatever the latest fad is, but the Government and all partner agencies have the responsibility to promote clear messages and to do all that they can, working with producers and suppliers to support that. We do in particular—I believe—need to look at child obesity, and the reasons for that are complex. However, there is a real lack of information out there for parents. I genuinely do not think that there is enough access and information for parents to support them in those areas. The advice there needs to be tailored, and it is different advice than what we give to adults. In the stage 1 debate, I focused on the regulatory role of the organisation and its responsibility for a meat inspection. I would like to say again that that must be robust and resourced. We have seen cuts in terms of numbers and inspections, and we have also seen that at local authority level with environmental health officers. That will be a real challenge for the new organisation to reconcile how capacity can meet the demand that is to ensure food safety. However, the reputation of the food and drink sector in Scotland is strong, and the new organisation has an important role to play in keeping it that way. I thank my fellow members of the Health and Sport Committee for making what was a very enjoyable and interesting piece of legislation to work on. If I can call it the demise of the FSA in England to a shell of what it basically was, this Parliament has got the opportunity to put in place an organisation and regime in which the public and those within the food industry at all levels can have trust in. I think that that is incredibly important given some of the problems that we have had over the past number of years. With the recommendation of the Scudamore report accepted, the single body with a clear responsibility for all aspects over food safety and standards can be developed. It is the ability to take on many of the problems that we face in this country, which has really been the most fascinating thing. The poor diet that we have faced over a number of years that we have identified, we know what the problems are. I think that Dr Simpson has brought out a number of very good issues today in terms of the things that the FSA food standard Scotland will have to be looking at in the future are very valid. I very much welcome the minister in formulas of the size of the board. I think that that is good news. I think that it is the right size. I think that it is going to be led by the right person. I look forward to seeing how that expands within itself to become the force within the industry that we really need, because trust is everything. We have a food and drinks industry in this country, which is absolutely vital to our economy, and we cannot see it go downhill because of a lack of legislation, food fraud and, quite frankly, some dangerous issues in relation to infectious disease and the likes. Aside from that, probably the most informative visit that we made was really up to Aberdeen, and Joseph Robertson in the company has been mentioned here. We not only met the management of Joseph Robertson, who gave us an insight into the business aspects of the industry and what their thoughts were. Obviously, they had some serious concerns about labelling issues and what had to go on. How do we maintain our links at that time? Prior to the referendum, there were perhaps some politics being mentioned here, but how do we deal with the ability to maintain research funding and the likes, as well as the legislation, as it would be when it came through to transport and food identification, where some of those problems were arising? We think of the horse meat scandal in terms of the food fraud initiatives that have to be fought against. We can see that internationally—this is not something that our FSFs have to deal with just here in this country—we have to be international and outlook. I think that the word was bugs with don'ts, work within borders, something along those lines. We have to be international and outlook. I just feel that it is absolutely critical if our food industry is to maintain itself at the top of the tree when it comes to being looked upon from the outside. Finally, I know that we are running a little shy of time here, but I am delighted at the way that the bill at least helps local authority enforcement officers, because that is a tough thing that they have had to be going through. Some of the fines that were handed out in the past did not come anywhere close to the amount of profits that were made, and anything that helps local authority enforcement officers is to be welcomed. I will call Adela Duggan. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches. I call on Jackson Carlaw for minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was at my local bakery a couple of weeks ago. Mrs Carlaw and I are quite partial to their potato scones. Other inferior potato scones are available, no doubt, elsewhere, but I was there during the lunch hour for the local school. It was quite an eye-opener. One pupil came along and ordered a mutton pie and haggis in a roll, which was a combination that I had hitherto not heard of, with sauce, tomato and brown, all of which was demolished in short order. I realised that when we talk about the underpinning obesity issue, one does not want to be po-faced about the occasional treat. I have had a mutton pie from time to time, even like haggis. I have never had them combined together in a roll with sauce of both types. However, I understand that the responsibility that this food standard Scotland will have in terms of the better diet of Scotland is that it is very easy for us to be rather intellectual and highfalutin about it, because, in the same way as many other cultural issues that we, as a Parliament, have tried to grapple with, have found, those are very deep-seated. It will be quite a tall order, but nonetheless a necessary one over time. If we are to significantly address what in the broader health portfolio we understand is now an emerging crisis for the health service, which, when this Parliament was founded, we probably would not have included on the agenda of issues that one had to take into account in preparing future legislation. As long as it is not for an alternative potato scone brand, I am sure that the member would like to take the opportunity to disassociate himself with his colleague in Westminster, who said that the poor cannot cook nowadays. Naturally, I would, of course. The Mary Berry skills of the average Scotland are absolutely exemplary. I must say that the announcement of Ross Finney's appointment had passed me by. I admit that. There were those of us on this side who thought that the Deputy Prime Minister might have seen fit to a noble Mr Finney. However, he saw talents that some of us had not fully appreciated in other colleagues in this Parliament of the past. Mr Finney has now fortunately found favour with the Government who has given him a useful occupation. I thought that he might have joined us in the gallery today, but the meter is not running yet, obviously. Nonetheless, I wish him every success in the responsibility. He is a serious player, and I think that we will, with the experience that he had, be a first-class appointment. Those basal tones that have been lost to us here and which used to revive debates at that late hour in the afternoon as they boomed forth will no doubt be well founded there. I hope that I am not sounding too irreverent, because this is an important piece of legislation. However, the very fact that, as Annette Milne said, that there have been so few amendments underpins, in fact, the very broad cross-party consensus that there is to it. I just want to say one thing finally. In my years in the motor trade, we used to have customer satisfaction surveys. It was interesting, because people in the west of Scotland were never 100 per cent satisfied with anything, but we had to phone them up and tell them that they were, because sums of money depended upon whether or not people were completely satisfied. It's always made me very suspicious of those surveys ever since. However, I bring that to the subjectivity that will underpin fixed penalty notices. I think that it is very important that, in the secondary legislation that is forthcoming, there is a common standard and understanding as to how fixed penalty notices will be applied and the criteria that will underpin them. I hope that, in a very serious way, the minister will ensure that that is the case, because many small businesses could find themselves very adversely affected if we find variable, subjective criteria being applied to underpin that. Nonetheless, I very much welcome this bill. I know that the minister will be grateful that it hasn't been the hardest bill that she's had to inherit and take forward, and we look forward to supporting it in a few minutes' time. Many thanks. I know that Nanette Milne is missing from the chamber, and I respectfully remind members that, if they participated in the debate, they should be here for closing speeches. I thank committee members and, indeed, committee clerks and support staff for their help as we work through the health and sport committee. I also thank Joseph Robertson, the Food Standards Agency in Aberdeen, and the other organisations that hosted the committee visit to Aberdeen. It certainly made our job a lot easier seeing how the bill would impact in practice. It could have been a very dry and difficult bill to deal with, but when you saw how companies had to put food standards and indeed labelling into practice, it made it an awful lot easier for us to examine the bill. I would also like to congratulate Ross Finney on his appointment as chair for Food Standards Scotland. I think that that was a very welcome appointment, and I think that everyone in the chamber has been happy to congratulate him on it and wish him all the best in his new role. We are supportive of the bill and recognise the need for it following up the break-up of the Food Standards Agency at the UK level. We also hope that it will provide a robust regulatory regime that protects consumers. I think that consumers' needs and protection has to be at the heart of everything that Food Standards Scotland does. Those high standards not only protect consumers but also help to promote our produce and protect our producers, because it gives them the reputation that many have mentioned earlier in the debate that allows them to sell their products not only in Scotland but throughout the UK, Europe and beyond. Like others, I ask the minister to bring forward an appeal procedure against the fixed penalty notice. I think that a number of speakers mentioned that in Annette Milne and Jackson Carlaw as well. It is really important that justice is seen to be done and seen to be fair. A lot of people were very keen on the fixed penalty notice as it cut through bureaucracy, time and cost, but it also needs to be fairly administered to make sure that if there are any errors that they can be picked up and people have a right to appeal against any judgment made. As Richard Simpson said, I would turn to trading standards officers. Indeed, an awful lot of the legislation and regulation will come from Food Standards Scotland, but making sure that that works and inspecting and examining that comes from local government through trading standards officers and meat inspectors, food hygiene inspectors and environmental health officers. All those have a vital role in protecting consumers and making sure that the work of Food Standards Scotland is carried out properly and regulated at ground level. We see local government facing cuts and the worry is that, while Food Standards Scotland may put in the regime, that regime will not be properly policed at council level, so we would look for some reassurance that that will happen in order to protect consumers and producers alike. I thank the member for giving way. I reassure the minister that part of the Food Standards Scotland's function will be training in that area, so hopefully we will gear up the people in local authorities so that they can do their job better. I am grateful for that intervention. Can I also now quickly turn to the public health role, which was touched on by Claire Baker? It is really important that that role is there, although we have to see how it will be developed and we are keen to see how it interacts with other people with a public health role, such as the NHS and the like. It is very important that we look at public health. Richard Simpson talked about the increase in type 2 diabetes, which is enormous and needs to be tackled. Claire made the comment that we should be a good diet nation rather than a good food nation. I would have to admit that I was one of the people who took the culinary tour of the Highlands and Islands during the food debate a couple of weeks ago. I noticed that Jackson Carlaw continued that today with his promoting hutty scones from his local bakers, but I think that we need to, while promoting all of what is good—there is the old adage, a little of what you fancy does you good—we also need to look at how we tackle obesity, especially childhood obesity. We also get a lot of nutrition on packaging, but it is not always understood that a child's nutritional needs are quite different from an adult's nutritional needs, and we need to do more about promoting that and food labelling. Indeed, some of the food that is designed for children is loaded with sugar, which is not very good for them, so we need to look at how food is promoted and packaged. Labelling plays a really important role in that, and that will be part of the Food Standards Scotland's remit to make sure that food is labelled properly and gives the right advice. Yes, it has to be consistent with the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has to be in line with legislation from the European Union, as well as for other markets, because we want our produce to be sold further afield. Food labelling is really important about advising people what they should eat. Indeed, we need to look at things like imported foods from other parts of the world. Richard Simpson talked about antibiotics, additives and the like. We need to make sure that food labelling does all that, but it promotes our food. In conclusion, I think that Food Standards Scotland will help us to continue to build on the excellence that we have in the Scottish food industry. I hope that it will protect consumers at its heart and promote excellence in our industry. I thank the members for their contributions today. I welcome the breadth of support that the bill has received through all its parliamentary stages and the constructive contributions that members have made today. I say to Richard Simpson that I shared his concerns about TTIP, and I discussed it with officials before coming in to the chamber today. The EU commission has repeatedly stated that consumer health and safety and environmental standards will not be lowered and that, for example, there is no prospect of GM crops or hormone-treated beef being allowed into the EU. We will keep watching that space to make sure that that does not happen. In terms of an employee director on the board, ministers will ensure that employee representation arrangements will be in the statement of performance of functions that the FSS is required to bring forward. On all aspects of the provenance of food and the additives to food that he mentioned, I completely agree with him. That is why we need to encourage the use of good, wholesome food from local sources as far as possible. I sit in a net mill on the hygiene information schemes. Ministers will ask the FSF for detailed advice on introducing the scheme through regulations probably in late 2015. On the appeals for administrative sanctions, it is a legal requirement that all food law is fully consulted on. I will give an assurance that the appeal mechanism for compliance notices will be consulted on, but having spoken with the industry, there is no appeal mechanism possible for the fixed penalties. The bill offers us a chance to make a real difference in areas of significance concerned to the public, food safety and healthy diets. Setting out an nutrition and diet objective for the FSS on the face of the bill gives the body a more transparent and strategic role in this area. Having a clearer remit to give the FSS impetus to lead partnerships with other public bodies to tackle specific food and diet issues, the clear remit will help to clear up confusion over roles and responsibilities among partners. I remind members that we are not simply re-badging the Food Standards Agency in Scotland with the bill, as well as giving the FSS a clearer and wider remit on diet and nutrition. We are safeguarding the link between food safety, nutrition and labelling here in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland will take on all the functions that are currently exercised in Scotland by the Scottish division of the UK-wide Food Standards Agency. The remit of the Scottish division has for some years been wider than the remit south of the border. In 2010, the UK Government removed responsibility for labelling and for nutrition policy from the English arm of the FSA. In Scotland, we maintained the link between those and food safety. The UK decision was subsequently seen to have been a factor that hindered the UK Government's response to the horse meat scandal in 2013. The horse meat scandal demonstrated the importance of having a single body with clear responsibility for all aspects of food safety and standards. It is also important to note that the bill also requires the FSS to operate in a way that is proportionate, transparent and accountable, and to carry out good decision making, which includes consulting people and making its decisions publicly available. That will help to build a new relationship with consumers and is one example of how the FSS will operate in a different way than the FSS does at present. Another key new feature of the arrangements that we are making in Scotland is on making Scottish research more joined up. The FSS will be taking a more involved role in co-ordinating all-grant funded research into food and diet carried out by Scottish research bodies such as The Route and the James Hatton Institute. Claire Baker, who is not present at the moment, asked about the co-ordination of effort. It is proposed that there will be a co-ordination between NHS and the Food Standards Agency. Through its creation, we will be able to have better co-ordination with the FSS, NHS and the Scottish Government. I also agreed with Claire Baker that, as a nation, we have kind of lost our way on food portions. In our house recently, we were replacing chip dinner plates, and I made sure that we were replaced with smaller ones. We will wait to see if it makes a difference. Linking the research will provide a much wider knowledge base and a greater ability to co-ordinate efforts and focus. However, we will not lose the links with the rest of the UK and Europe. The UK Government and the FSS have given written assurance on access to scientific advice and to representation in Europe for the FSS. Knowledge sharing is, of course, two ways. There are areas of expertise in Scotland, for example on shellfish and E. coli, which our colleagues in the rest of the UK want to tap into. I would like to reflect now on some of the issues that we have considered today. I would like to recap on the importance of section 5 in the bill and the statement of performance of functions. As I said, in the opening part of the debate, Food Standards Scotland will be operationally autonomous, so the statement will achieve transparency and hopefully build public confidence and trust. The statement is where we will find assurance on operational matters such as the method of publication of reports. I would like to give a firm assurance that I will make certain the issues raised in the debate and, as proposed in stage 3, amendments will be considered carefully for inclusion in that statement of performance. That will offer clarity, hopefully, on a number of the issues that have been raised today. Presiding Officer, as this has been a very helpful contribution by members, I would like to thank them for all their input throughout all the stages of the bill. As Jackson Carlaw said, I have only picked it up at stage 3, and I am glad that it has been a fairly incontentious bill, but I hope that it will be passed unanimously at decision time today. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on the Food Scotland Bill, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lockhead on the end of year fish negotiations. Could I ask those members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? I call on Richard Lockhead to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, you have up to 13 minutes to do so, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, thank you very much. I just say at the beginning that it does not really feel like a year since we last discussed the annual fisheries negotiations here in the chamber. Time, of course, flies by. We are really busy, and 2014 has certainly been a busy year for Scotland. We have seen momentous and historic events, the likes of which we may not see again for some time, but, hopefully, not too long. The fundamental significance of fishing to this country remains year in, year out. Our communities continue to depend on our fishermen, who often operate in treacherous conditions, which make fishing one of the most dangerous industries in the whole land. That was brought home again this year, of course, with the loss of life from the ocean way accidents, a horrible reminder that too many pay the ultimate price to bring food to our tables. In Scotland, our fisheries are varied and spread the length and breadth of our country from small inshore vessels to the largest and most sophisticated offshore vessels. Of course, this same fleet of vessels is also supporting our vital onshore processing sector, handling and selling fabulous seafood that we are all over with an unrivaled reputation. I pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the resilience and spirit of this great industry and acknowledge its contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of many of our communities. We are right now in the midst of end-year negotiations. Negotiations by their very nature cause much uncertainty and the annual bun-fights that we are used to now can act against sensible forward planning, all of which strengthen the Government's resolve to secure the best possible outcomes for the industry in this year's annual negotiations that culminate at next week's Fisheries Council in Brussels. I am pleased, however, to note that we have started on a bright note with the gains achieved in the EU-Norway negotiations just last week. Indeed, for the first time in recent years, these talks were concluded in advance of the December Council negotiations, removing uncertainty over key Norseese quotas and access to Norwegian waters. There were, as you can imagine, some very intense negotiations around the total allowable catch for Cod and Hardwick, in particular. Those two stocks are closely linked in the rich and diverse mixed fishery of the North Sea, where harsh limits on one stock could lead to the increased discarding of the other stock. Forcing more discards on the fleet in this way would send the wrong message as the sector moves towards mixed fishery plans and the landing obligations part of the discard bans, where common sense, flexibility and innovation will have to be at our watchwords. I am glad to say that common sense prevailed, and after much discussion, the talks delivered a much-needed and scientifically justifiable 5 per cent increase in Norseese cod against a backdrop of a proposed 20 per cent cut. Norseese safe and whiting were reduced in line with long-term management plans, though, just like Hardwick, we continue to secure an inward transfer from Norway of additional whiting to help mitigate that particular cut. Other elements were rolled over from last year in a package that was broadly welcomed by the industry in Scotland. Given that Hardwick was assessed this year for the first time as one whole northern stock, straddling both the North Sea and the waters in the west of Scotland, I am also confident that, in Brussels next week, we shall be able to secure a significant increase in quota for the west of Scotland hardock stock. Negotiating season has now moved on to the EU pharaoh talks, which are just concluded today. This important bilateral agreement was reinstated in 2014, as many of you will recall, after a four-year pause and much angst, and it is now re-established critical access for our whitefish fleet to pharaoh's waters, which alone is worth over £3 million a year. The deal also provides much-needed flexibility through access to additional fishing grounds in the provision of an effort refuge from the cod recovery zone for many of our vessels. I am pleased to confirm to the chamber that we have managed to maintain the same level of whitefish quota, and there has been no increase in access for pharaoh's vessels. However, the quota that the pharaoh's can fish has been reduced in line with the overall total allowable catch changes from nearly 47,000 tonnes to less than 40,000. In negotiating those agreements, it is my job, of course, to balance the multiple needs across all sectors of the industry to secure the wider benefits for the all of our fleets. Let us be clear that the share of access given to the pharaoh's did in fact reduce from 43 per cent in 2010 to 30 per cent in 2014, and today's agreement maintains that level. I can, however, assure the chamber, because I know that this has been of concern to many people, that our compliance teams have targeted the resources and expertise on monitoring those vessels, i.e. the pharaoh's vessels that fish some of their quota in Scottish waters. In the past year, we have carried out 29 inspections on 51 pharaoh's fishing trips, a close-on 60 per cent inspection rate, which is a truly impressive level of scrutiny, especially considering the environment that our compliance vessels have to operate in at this time of year. I hope that those figures reassure our fleet. I also know that our fleet will benefit from the sustainable macro quotas for 2015 that have been agreed in the last few weeks, yielding a Scottish quota of just under 187,000 tonnes. That agreement will provide stability as we look ahead to next year, aided by our successful calls to the European Commission for increased banking provisions for macro in response to the Russian trade sanctions. However, we are now packing our bags for the annual test of endurance that is the December Fisheries Council in Brussels, when all those talks come together with the negotiation that has to take place next week for the internal European stocks. I am told that I am now the longest-serving fisheries minister in the whole of Europe, and I will reflect on my experience and never be convinced that this is a sensible way to do business in a sleep-deprived environment that is crammed over two days, as no doubt we will experience early next week. As expected, this year's scientific advice prevents what we always term as a mixed bag. However, it is fair to say that the overall picture is more positive than last year, with some welcome advice suggesting increases for key stocks such as Northern Shelf, Rockwell Haddock, Monkfish, Megrum and North Sea Nephrops. However, it remains as disappointing as it is illogical that once again, of course, we have to go and expand energy fighting off proposed cuts in days at sea that our fishermen are able to fish. It is again for straiting that we are still having to struggle for the year of this outdated and flawed strait jacket imposed by the now discredited cord recovery plan. That is why I was clear when I met Commissioner Vila last week in Brussels that the cord recovery plan is now well past itself by date and needs to be replaced urgently. I was encouraged by his willingness to listen, and I hope, of course, that his willingness is translated into action soon. More generally, we shall protect our position where the advice and quotas is unclear and where we need to ensure that positive recommendations such as we have from Monkfish and West of Scotland-Haddock are actually implemented next week. We shall fight hard to ensure that data-limited stocks are not simply cut arbitrarily but are looked at case-by-case basis and on the basis of the available evidence and using stock trends as indicators. I will also be pushing hard to establish the principle that where the science identifies the stock as being one and the same in adjoining areas, there should be an element of flexibility in how the quota may be fished across those areas. That would be available only where quotas held in both those areas to protect historic interests, but it would be key to reduce unnecessary discards and costs for our fleet. Had it conceived, it would have both fallen to that category this year. However, the wider policy context around December Council is different this year. Proposals from the commissioner are now translating many of the strategic goals of the new common fisheries policy. The signs are that next year's talks, which will be establishing quotas for the first year of the commercial landing obligation in 2016 as part of the discard bans, will be much more difficult. Before then, we will reach a significant milestone in tackling the discarding of fish when the pelagic landing obligation comes into force on 1 January next year, just in a few weeks' time. Of course, that is only the first step. From 2016, the ban will begin to apply to our whitefish and nephrot fleets, and from 2019 it will extend to all quota species. We all know that the Scottish Government supported action to tackle discard, as did many parties across the chamber. Of course, the industry also supported action because it is a no-brainer. Nobody wants to have to throw perfectly good fish back dead into the sea. It is not good for business, it is not good for our fish stocks and conservation, and it is certainly not good for consumers in an age of increasing food security issues. I know that Scottish fishermen as well as the onshore sector are worried about the landing obligation and the significant changes that it will bring to their day-to-day practices. We should not underestimate the challenges that they will have to face and the adaptation that will be required across our fleets. However, it is therefore right and proper that we work as hard as we can at Scottish and European levels to ensure that the landing obligation is introduced responsibly and in a pragmatic way and in a manner that avoids delivering big shocks and damages our fragile fishing communities. However, it is just as important that comparable vessels, for instance, fishing alongside each other, all face or anticipate the same level of monitoring of their activities at the same time. As we take forward these discard bans, and I make this point time and time again to my UK counterpart, we have to have a level playing field. However, I will look to make sensible use of the flexibilities built into the regulations and I will take a pragmatic approach to phasing in the new rules. I am also clear that we cannot continue with business as usual. I have already spoken about the need to develop 21st century fisheries management tools to deal with 21st century problems and issues and we should not be bound by the current structure that was created back in the early 1980s. If fishermen are being asked to adapt, then fisheries managers must also likewise be prepared to adapt as well. In short, there is an onus in both managers and fishers to innovate and embrace change, balancing responsible fishing with the viability of our fleet, and that is certainly the message that I will be delivering in Brussels. It is time for us all to roll up our sleeves and step forward together to meet all of these challenges that we are going to have to face. We also seem to face stiff challenges and difficult decisions at the end of year fisheries negotiations. We always face these difficult challenges. That is why at every negotiation we should be able to create the best possible conditions to get the best possible deal for Scotland. Unfortunately, the constitutional settlement that we have at the moment does prevent that. Unfortunately, the Smith commission's recommendations barely move us forward as far as securing the future of fisheries in this country is concerned. However, one reference to a fisheries-related topic finally appears right at the end of the Smith commission document with the proposal to review the current arrangements for raising seafood levees. That is an area that has long been frustrating for the Scottish Government because of the outdated and inflexible nature of the current levee arrangements. We have to get that right if we want to promote Scotland's fantastic seafood and help the industry. Believe it or not, the current arrangements stem from the 1981 Fisheries Act pre-dating Scottish Devolution by almost 20 years. As a relic of a bygone age, those arrangements continue to tie Scotland to the dysfunctional UK levee system that seeks vainly to do the impossible job of supporting every different industry north and south of the border, including importers from other countries, which are often clearly all in competition with each other. We have to change that system. The Scottish people should have the ability to decide to the extent to which Scotland may participate in UK levee arrangements with the freedom in legislative and practical terms to establish separate arrangements north of the border where we consider it is appropriate to do so. There is one other recommendation that is relevant to fisheries. The Smith report recommends that where there is a predominant Scottish interest and the lead UK minister does not attend, a Scottish minister should by default speak for the UK in the EU council of ministers. That clearly applies to fisheries and no doubt is a subtle reference to fisheries in the document, but, of course, it is the least that we should expect. It should put an end to the ridiculous situation where I, as Scotland's fisheries minister, with seven years' experience, have been forced to watch and sit in silence in the sidelines and watch as inexperienced UK ministers and even unelected lords represent the UK in important discussions affecting Scotland's fishing industry. That was the case last month when Lord Rupert Ponsonly de Molly had to be briefed on the most basic of issues at the vital negotiations. Can I just say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the decision to draft in an unelected lord with no experience of the issues at stake was an arrogant and insensitive insult that took no account of the mood in post-referendum Scotland? We now need genuine commitments to allow the Scottish minister to lead the development of the UK negotiating position as well as to lead for the UK when appropriate, and I do not just mean when the UK ministers can't make it or decide to leave for Eurostar or their flight home early. We were, of course, disappointed by the lack of reference in the Smith report to fisheries. In a quintessentially Scottish sector in which Scotland is predominant in the UK, we see devalmax as a no-brainer that makes clear and absolute sense for fisheries. It is therefore frankly baffling that this litmus test has not even been passed by the Smith recommendations. However, I will ensure that Scotland's priorities are always uppermost in the minds of UK ministers and that we will do our utmost to fight for Scotland's interests right across the board. What is never out of my mind is what all this means in the real world of our fishermen and the women who work in the industry as well, what they can fish, where they can fish at how much and how much time they can spend at sea. That is why we will continue to do our utmost to secure the best possible deal for this great and proud industry next week. Very tight for time today. I now call on Clare Baker to speak to and move amendment 11825.3 up to nine minutes, please. It is almost a year since the new common fisheries policy was introduced, but this forthcoming year is the year when the force of the changes start to come into effect. We are starting to see changes in the end-of-year negotiations that debate is referring to. There is increasingly less horse trading in late-night negotiations. There is an attempt to increasingly take the politics in grand standing out and rather increase the focus on delivering sustainable fisheries that support employment communities and our food sector, while not damaging stocks or the marine environment. Conservation and stability of stocks can deliver long-term economic health for the whole industry onshore and offshore, and we need continued commitment from the Scottish Government and the sector to deliver on that. Scotland's fishing sector employs in the region of 5,000 people in the catching sector, as well as supporting key employment in support of sectors. Scotland has world-renowned produce, and although our produce is sent all around the world, we could do more here to support our home market. Although we are an island, we are not big consumers of seafood, and there could be greater promotion of seafood, as well as a greater commitment to local sourcing. I hope for a positive outcome from the Good Food Nation consultation, which is on-going at the moment. The industry has a significant base in Scotland, but it operates throughout the UK, with a common regulatory system and a UK network of harbors and fish processors. That has been reflected in some of the concerns raised by the SSF around the quota consultation, but I will say a bit more about that later. Although the drama of previous years may be on the way out, the importance and complexity of EU negotiations increase, as they are not just about allocating effort, but also about changing the system in order to meet the environmental objectives of the common fisheries policy. We are now nearing the end of the negotiations, and I support the Scottish Government's key objectives going into the negotiations, and I wish the cabinet secretary well in these final stages. We are looking to amend the motion today to focus on the key issues for the sector, rather than to sustain a debate about who represents the sector when we all have a common view anyway. I do have sympathy with the cabinet secretary over recent decisions on who put forward the UK case, but, going forward, our understanding of what is clearly appropriate may not always be the same as the Scottish Government's. If the member has sympathy with the cabinet secretary, why did he remove the part of the motion that said exactly that, but it will be great for the cabinet secretary to have the opportunity to lead on the talks? My understanding of the Scottish Government's motion is that it does not refer to the particular incident and where I was supportive of the Government's concerns about who represented us at the EU negotiations. However, as we had during the referendum debate, I was pretty clear that I believed that the UK's strong negotiating position is actually the best deal for Scottish fishermen. Notwithstanding the questionable decision of the UK Government to bring in, at the last minute, the member of the House of Lords, to represent UK interest, I hope that the cabinet secretary will work well with his UK colleagues in the interest of the Scottish sector, as we have seen in previous years. Those are significant negotiations, and I want to see Scotland's support decisions that aid the effective introduction of the land of obligation, achieve fishing at sustainable levels and help to deliver good environmental status. That can be achieved while retaining a profitable fishing sector, but it will require effort and commitment from all partners. We need to keep an eye on the prize of a fishing sector, which is a future without compromising our marine environment. As the cabinet secretary outlined, the already agreed increase in North Sea, Cod and Haddock tack for the next year is welcome, and that will help ease the introduction of the new CFP. The successful negotiation of inward transfers of Haddock and Whiting quota is also welcome, as scientific evidence suggests that it is in good shape. Last year in the debate, Labour's amendment to the fisheries debate called for a clear plan of action to introduce the discard ban. I hope that I can be convinced today that that is in place, and the Government is supporting the sector in the efforts that have to be made. We should not forget why we are introducing a discard ban. Discarding fish was of by-catch or not high enough quality, was a practice of fishing for many years, particularly as the financial incentive increased. It took a TV campaign and a public outcry to really mobilise the movement against that practice, and it was a practice whose time was up. That can be a good thing, which respects our seas, the natural resource that it gives us, and it can open up new opportunities for the sector. Scotland has been a fishing nation at the forefront of good practice, and we should recognise the commitment of much of our fleet to achieve that. It has taken investment in some tough decisions. I recognise the frustration that there can be at the behaviour of other countries and the importance of the need for a level playing field, but the new CFP is a further challenge for our sector. The nature of Scottish fishing will make it very difficult to deliver a discard plan. We need to ensure that we have robust plans in place to deliver. Last year, the cabinet secretary spoke about the need for the commission to provide fishermen with additional quota to enable the landing of all fish caught, arguing that the commission must give us the tools to put in place sensible and practical discard ban. I would not disagree with the need for greater flexibility, but that is crucial. However, we also need to see greater regional decision making and planning, increasingly identifying and making best use of what is a shared quota and resource. However, we also need to see a plan from the Scottish Government, a clear indication of the measures that it expects to be introduced, as well as what checks and balances it will bring into the sector, to ensure that those who are fishing responsibly and working to meet the new standard can be rewarded. If there are fleets that are struggling to change or who are resistant to change, they are supported to adapt or compliance measures can be introduced. Of course, once we get to next year, there will be the huge challenges for our mixed fisheries. There will be huge difficulties. We do not have the right quota at the moment to achieve that, but there will be ways to make it easier. Scotland has been at the forefront of selective gears, but there is more that we can do in that area. At present, too many vessels are not using identified selective gear. We need to consider spatial management measures if we are to focus on avoiding catching unwanted fish. We need investment in research and development, working and supporting our universities to develop innovative solutions. Of course, increase or change quota is important, but we must also work hard to develop markets for the currently less popular species. The Scottish Government's economic analysis identifies offsetting economic benefits, introducing measures that will enable the landing and selling of all fish currently discarded, or increasing selectivity so that no unwanted fish are caught in the first place, has the potential to add up to £200 million to the landed value by 2020. Yes, we need more flexibility from the commission, but that will only take us so far. That means changes for our fleets, but if we start planning now for the challenges ahead, deciding on and being clear about the measures that will need to be introduced and the expectation that they will need to be delivered, there will be rewards. By 2015, Scotland and its fleets must show that they are doing all within their powers and abilities to fish at sustainable levels, delivering maximum sustainable yield. That must be achieved by 2020 at the latest. We need to develop a clear road map now that will set us on the right path for the next few years. The emphasis is often seen as being on the restrictive measures—selectivity, temporal and spatial management, behaviour change, but we should also work out ways in which we can reward the good guys, the fleets who are taking this responsibility seriously and delivering on the environmental objectives. The Scottish Government has consulted on quota allocation policy. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware of concerns that this period of restriction has been problematic or detrimental for some of the UK operators within Scotland. It is also my understanding that there is so far been little evidence of quota that has been held speculatively or as an investment. However, the Scottish Government makes a case that it is Scotland's national asset, and I await the outcome of the Government's consultation. However, if we are to see changes, that could present an opportunity for the creation of a pool of quota that could be used to recognise the effort being made by fleets to comply. If we could, it could be used to specifically reward vessels that are able to bring social and economic benefit to local communities who are helping to support fishing communities, provide employment opportunities and support a local economy, as well as a vibrant offshore sector. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. I now call on Jamie McGregor to speak to and move amendment 11825.2, Mr McGregor, six minutes. I am pleased to take part in today's important debate on the subject of the annual EU Fisheries Negotiations, which commenced on 15 December. The outcome of which is vitally important to Scotland's fishermen, the people who risk their lives to put fish on our tables. It is also vitally important to the processes and the fishing communities around our coast. We agree with the Scottish Government that our Scottish vessels need to retain the number of days that they go to sea, and cuts are simply not acceptable. We are encouraged that last week's EU Norway talks saw an increase in quota allocations for a number of key stocks for Scottish fishermen, including cod, haddock and place. I am also encouraged by what the cabinet secretary has just told us about an increase coming hopefully in West Coast haddock. Those increases are in line with scientific advice, and those stocks are in good health, and that is in large part due to the sacrifices our Scottish fleet has made over a long and difficult period of the cod recovery plan and the innovative and important conservation measures that our vessels have adopted, which have been very significant and which have surpassed by far the efforts of any other EU fleet. Our demersal fleet has seen its vessel numbers decline by around 60 per cent compared with what there were in the first time of this Parliament. This needs to be recognised by the EU in next week's talks. If further effort reduction is proposed, the cabinet secretary must ensure that this burden falls on other EU states and not Scotland's fishermen who have already done so much. Our Scottish fleet must now be able to enjoy some of the benefits after the pain of the last decade and a half or more. Fishermen and their representatives have asked me to highlight today a number of the key issues facing their sectors, and I am most happy to do this. One of the key and most pressing and immediate issues facing our pelagic fishermen will obviously be the implementation of the discard ban or landing obligation in their sector from the start of 2015. Scottish pelagic fishermen quite rightly want to ensure the level playing field for the control, monitoring and enforcement of this ban and make sure that that is truly achieved across the pelagic boats of everyone fishing in EU waters, whether vessels from third countries or other member states. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees with this. The level playing field is really very vital to them. There is clearly also a huge amount of work to be done next year to prepare for introduction of the landing obligation for the demersal sector in 2016, while it will bring even greater challenges than in the pelagic sector. There are real concerns in the whitefish sector about the practical implications of the discard ban, and working out a usable scheme that does not penalise our whitefish boats must be a very big priority for next year. Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has described the whole process leading to the landing obligation laws as a shining beacon of dysfunction, which has the potential to do significant damage to the fishing industry and communities of Scotland. I rather agree with the sensible suggestion in Tarrish Scots amendment that a phased approach must be considered. The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association, the Scottish Pelagic Processes Association and the Shetland Fishermen's Association are all very clear that another priority for their industry is the need to achieve a ferro deal in terms of the EU ferro mackerel fishery quota access agreement, which currently is totally skewed in favour of the ferros. Between 2007 and 2013, the ferros never exceeded a mackerel catch of 8,771 tonnes in the EU, namely Scottish waters off Shetland, but in 2014 that catch was a massive 46,850 tonnes. The level of this mackerel access quota must be looked at. Why do the ferros require a third of their quota to be fished off the Scottish coastline when the mackerel stock has become so much more abundant in their own waters? The current situation means that they are benefiting hugely from catching mackerel in prime condition in our waters, while not one kilo of the EU's mackerel quota has been caught in the ferroese zone. The nephrops fishery remains a very important and economically valuable one on the west coast of my region, and its associated jobs help underpin often fragile local communities. I share the real concern of the Clyde Fishermen's Association about the proposal for significant cuts in catch in the Firth of Clyde functional unit, although I note with some relief that there is a projected rise in the South Minch area. Nephrops fishermen in the Clyde area want to know what measures Marine Scotland will take to reverse the trend, and the Clyde Fishermen's Association are urging them to look again at their proposals that the minimum nephrops tail size be raised from 35mm to 46mm and the overall length from 70mm to 85mm. I also welcome the possible consultation on scallop fishing, which has been pushed for by the Clyde Fishermen's Association since 1995. In terms of my amendment to today's motion, I would just want to refer to previous comments made by Bertie Armstrong. I don't wish to be called arrogant. I'm afraid you don't have to draw to a clause, please. I'll finish off, then. The chief expert who said that the industry was much less concerned by who sits in the seats and absolutely concerned in every detail about what is said and what is on the speaking note for the minister or his representative, and the cabinet secretary knows that the UK Government has consistently and successfully worked with him and his officials. I conclude by wishing him the best of luck. Good. Thank you very much. I now call on Liam McArthur to speak to and move amendment 11825.1 in the name of Tavish Scott, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted if I'm a little surprised to be speaking in this debate. The detonation of a weather bomb and the consequential disruption to flights has meant that my colleague Tavish Scott is maroon still in Shetland and, given the vital importance of the fishing industry to Shetland and of those negotiations to that industry, Tavish Scott's absence from this debate is a loss, but I know that he'd want to extend his apologies to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, to the cabinet secretary and to colleagues for his absence. I was struck by the fact that almost one quarter of all fish landed in the UK was landed in Shetland, more fish was landed in Shetland in 2013 than in Wales, England and Northern Ireland put together. Although I'm not pretending that the figures in relation to my constituency in Orkney match those for Shetland, it's nevertheless a sector that is vitally important both economically and socially to the islands that I represent. Those negotiations and those that coincide with them matter a great deal. This year, unlike last, most of the deal appears already to have been done. EU Norway settled last week, so to the Faroe's access agreements earlier today. According to the SFF, there won't be a lot to fight about next week in Brussels, famous last words perhaps, but as someone who bears the scars of the round-the-clock negotiations in the middle of the night compromise agreements from back in the day, I can certainly welcome that and concur with the cabinet secretary's description of previous processes as a bun fight. It's not to say, of course, that there will not be challenges in a sector so varied having gone through so much change and operating in such an environment, one would expect nothing less. Perhaps one of the most obvious challenges referred to by colleagues already, certainly for the commercial fleet, is the implementation of the discard ban. Next month, the Scottish Government will implement a discard ban on the pelagic sector. A basic minimalist plan is in place and with a clean fishery where mackerel and herring swim and are caught in midwater shoals. The discard ban is relatively straightforward in this respect. That cannot be said for Scotland's whitefish fleet. From January 2016, however, the industry has to live with a fishing practice, which logic suggests is entirely correct and entirely desirable. Landing all fish rather than throwing valuable quota species over the side is absolutely right. However, the devil is assuredly in the detail, as Richard Lochhead acknowledged. Landing everything caught at sea in a mixed fishery within the existing quota system is fraught with risks and poses potentially disastrous consequences for some of our demersal fleet. I recognise that Marine Scotland has changed the perspective on implementation. The hard line appears to have softened, and this is very much to be welcomed. However, a discard ban for the whitefish fleet must be realistic. It should start not with four species, cod, saith, haddock and whiting, but instead with just haddock. Once a comprehensive assessment has been made into the effectiveness of the ban on haddock and the financial consequences for the vessels are clear, further steps can and should be taken. I urge the cabinet secretary to accept that approach, working with the industry to deliver a ban that can work not just in principle but in practice—something that I believe is a shared objective with many of the environmental NGOs. At present, the consequences of a ban are simple. If quotas are not significantly increased, then boats will go out of business as they will run out of quota as they land all the fish in port, cod is the obvious example. An increase in quota in a land-all policy also has implications for vessel design, operation and capacity. Three quarters of the Scottish fishing fleet is over 20 years old. Many are much older and need to be replaced. There is a problem nationwide, and I think that the Government should be looking to assist in vessel replacement by utilising the European Maritime Fishing Fund. The industry itself should be encouraged to look again at vessel design, new engine types and fuel mixes, as well as other innovations aimed at reducing carbon burn. I know that Marine Scotland have acknowledged that this issue must be addressed, and I certainly welcome that, although perhaps the secretary can make clear where he stands. Turning to other issues today in London, the Faroes access agreements have been finalised. The unfair deal that rewards Faro for illegal fishing of mackerel is sadly set to stay until 2019, and no one in the Scottish pelagic catching or processing sector thinks that this is a good deal. Those agreements are meant to be reciprocal, but there seems precious little gain for our fleet and our processors. Faroes said their waters were teeming with mackerel. It is therefore puzzling that instead of fishing in their coastal waters, the entire Faroes pelagic fleet is fished right up to Scottish coastal limits. Imagine the outrage if the reverse was happening. There seems little upside for our pelagic and dimersal sector in their reciprocal arrangements, and it is something that the cabinet secretary may need to take forward. I am running out of time. Maybe you can address it in your wind-up. Turning finally to the last part of the Government motion, the call for Mr Lockhead to lead the delegation is almost as much a part of the annual ritual as the December negotiations. As I have said before, making sure that the UK position reflects the priorities of the Scottish industry and then backs it up with UK votes is what matters most. Ensuring that those positions are arrived at sensibly and reflect the relative importance of different parts of the sector is key. The Smith agreement, despite what Mr Lockhead said, makes it clear that Scottish ministers should lead the UK delegation. There needs to be agreement, of course, with the Welsh, English and Northern Irish on the UK negotiating position, but in many areas, notably in pelagic and white fish stocks, the Scottish interests will and should be the predominant one. Should the UK Government have sent an unelected Lord to the Fisheries Council instead of Richard Lockhead, if he could have been there, no. That is why the Smith agreement recommends an inter-government arrangement that works, a Scottish lead backed by UK votes. I hope that the Scottish Government will back such an approach, after all the SNP representatives sensibly endorsed that approach in signing the agreement. The fishing industry made crystal-creel in the aftermath of the vote in favour of the UK that they expect both Scotland's Governments to work collectively and collaboratively in the interests of the industry. Parliament should expect that to be the case today and, more importantly, next week in Brussels. I wish Richard Lockhead and his officials all the best in their endeavours and move the amendment in Tavish Scott's name. We are now even tighter for time. Up to six minutes, please, as we move to the open debate, I call Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Cara Hilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I came here in June 2001, my very first speech was on fisheries appropriately. In that speech, I heart back to the work of Alan McCartney, member of the European Parliament, in relation to localities management, because it was he who championed that change in approach that we see a little of in the progress that is being made in European fisheries policy. On that basis, I very much welcome Labour's call for greater flexibility and regionalisation in its amendment. I think that that absolutely focuses on some important things. I do think that the very least I can say is that all three opposition parties have been unwise in deleting what it says in the Government motion about our fisheries minister, the most experienced in Europe, leading the UK delegation, and I quote, where it is clearly appropriate to do so. In other words, it is not seeking an absolute right, it is where it is appropriate to do so. Indeed, let us just consider the issues for fishermen in other parts of the UK, beside Scotland. It helps them to have the most experienced minister at the table. It is not about simply, as the Tory motion says, benefiting from the UK's negotiating strength in Europe, but the UK benefiting from the strength of experience that is being led by a Scottish fisheries minister would bring to the table. Now, I do not know the member of the House of Lords who led the UK delegation. He may be a very excellent person. We only address the issue of his inexperience and his working on a very different brief. As far as my research could see, his sole parliamentary contact with fishing had been to answer three written questions on the same day in October 2013, and I rather guess as a former minister, I might say this, that the civil servants wrote it rather than drew on the knowledge of the minister. However, that is a matter that will no doubt return to on another occasion. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has provided us with a briefing. I very much welcome that. It highlights the adverse interaction between old, unreformed and, as yet, not abandoned legislation and the new schemes that are seeking to eliminate discards. It is precisely that kind of area where an experienced fisheries minister will always sacrifice an inexperienced one. The pelagic fleet has heard of some of the difficulties that they face, less from biological factors but much more fundamentally from political decisions vis-à-vis the relationship between the pharaohs and the EU and, of course, the developing difficulties in relation to trade with Russia, which are creating difficulties in the industry. The SPPA also points out that restrictive legislation from Torsovan, which seems to be designed to distort the market, is adding burdens to our industry and seeing our fish caught in Scottish waters by pharaohs boats being required, essentially, to be landed in the pharaohs. That probably actually is not much in the interests of the pharaohs fishermen, because it is restricting the market opportunities for them. More fundamentally, it is potentially restricting the opportunities for our processing industry. We have seen many years of sacrifice by our fishing industry. The number of boats has come down, that decline is more or less stabilised and total allowable catches are going up this year. That is very good news and that is because of the sacrifices of our fishermen. However, where we previously might have seen that quota used usefully to increase economically valuable landings, it is quite likely that a lot of that will have to be used to be allocated to fish that might have been discarded. It is not clear that we have a system under the EU rules that is going to be of value to our fishermen to the extent that a better thought-out fishing quota system would be. Of course, the catching sector is very important, but even bigger is the processing sector. Many people are processing, packaging and promoting our fish. In my constituency, it is thousands of people. I recently attended a sea fish presentation. I was very impressed by the interaction that those who retail our fish, either as wet fish or in our restaurants, have with Scotland. We want to get more Scots eating this good-quality product for the health, but also for the health of our industry. The SFF is welcoming what has happened in the negotiations with the EU and Norway this year. That is good. The SPPA is much less happy about the Faroes tax position, but seeing had it quota rising is absolutely first class. The price of fishing for the fishermen at sea is high. My very first constituency event in 2001 was to see a bravery award to a fisherman who in January went overboard near Greenland to fish out one of his colleagues. He said that he was more frightened going up and speaking to the audience and the fisherman's mission at Peterhead than he was diving off the boat. Little he knows, the one is easy, the other one is difficult. I just share my apologies with members here. A rather urgent matter will take me away, and I will not be here necessarily for the next two speeches, but I will return for the closing speeches. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate in an issue of great importance to the Scottish economy, to our fishermen and to our coastal communities. Across Scotland, many people's livelihoods are dependent on the fishing industry, and we need to ensure that this is protected not only by taking short-term actions but by showing long-term vision for the sector to protect in our environment and resources by ensuring that fishing is sustainable and protecting our fishing industry by ensuring that it can be profitable both now and in the future and that it is able to reach out to new entrants. As colleagues have already referred to, 2015 is likely to be a turning point for the Scottish and European fishing sectors with the first phase of the landing obligation coming into effect on 1 January. That represents a huge change and a challenge for the fishing industry, and in theory that should mean that ultimately all catch will be landed and counted against quotas. As Clare Baker has already highlighted, that is quite a groundbreaking change, and it is a change that came about thanks to huge public pressure, with Hugh Fernley Whittingstall's award-winning fish fight campaign gaining more than 850,000 supporters. United in the call to end the crazy system where millions of healthy and edible fish are thrown back into the sea after they have been caught due to the bizarre way that EU fishing quotas are managed. Very few campaigns succeed in changing EU law, but fish fights certainly captured the public imagination, changing the way that we think about and eat our fish. The effective implementation of the discard ban is now absolutely crucial, and that is why Scottish Labour's amendment today calls on the Scottish Government to set out a clear plan of action to ensure that the ban is both implemented effectively and sufficiently monitored. The Scottish Fishman's Federation and others have expressed some concern that the European legal arrangements may not be in place on time, and that creates uncertainties for fleets during the transition period, which needs to be addressed and managed. Colleys have also referred to the particular challenges that exist in relation to white fish. The change will become effective from 2016, and their briefing for today's debate, the RSPB and WWF, highlights the need to promote more uptake of the selective gear in fishing vessels and spatial management systems to avoid the catching of unwanted fish. They warn that, at the moment, half of the commercial fleet are not yet using the identified selective gear, so we need a clear action plan from the Scottish Government and how it will work with the industry to meet those challenges. We will clearly change what will be difficult for some fleets. The RSPB and WWF highlight that there are also longer-term financial opportunities. It is estimated that eliminating discards from Scottish vessels, either by landing or selling all fish, or by increasing selectivity so that no unwanted fish are caught in the first place, has the potential to add up to £200 million to the landed value of those fish by 2020. So, sustainable fishing will hopefully make financial sense, as well as environmental sense. That is crucial, given the importance of the fishing industry to our economy, with the livelihoods of thousands of Scots in our coastal communities dependent on fishing continuing to thrive. Across Scotland, an estimated 5,000 people are directly employed in fishing, and as many as 48,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the sector. The fish process in sector, which Stuart Stevenson referred to, is especially vital to our economy, yet that can be a vulnerable sector, too, and we need more action to support it and improve its sustainability. Key to that must be promoting our fantastic produce here in Scotland to the domestic markets. We are all aware that fish is healthy and that we need to be in more of it, but generally a lot of us find it complicated to cook and are reluctant to try new types of fish, so much more needs to be done to promote fish as a sustainable, affordable, healthy and easy option. The Scottish Government's good food nation strategy offers this opportunity, and I hope that we will see that as the outcome of the consultation. Campaigns too like Sainsbury's Switch the Fish initiative for crucial and changing customer behaviour and similar campaigns by other retailers need to be encouraged to persuade people to eat a wider range of fish and not just the big five. Highlighting the choices that we make every day and the way they can secure a sustainable future for our fish industry in Scotland. Schools, too, have a big issue, a big role to play in explaining the importance of fish in the diet and creating opportunities for children to give different fish a try. When I was writing this speech this morning, I had a look at my children's school dinner menu and, while Harry Ramstone's barter taddock was a frequent option, that seemed to be the full extent of what was an offer, and I think that that needs to be looked at. Given the issues, too, that people have got about cooking fish, practical lessons in school, we would be a real benefit, too. I think that our children need to have a greater appreciation, too, of where their food is from in the case of fish, how it is caught and processed from start to finish, and that will ensure that in future they can make good choices, live healthier lifestyles, become more educated shoppers and consumers in future. I share the cabinet secretary's concern about the fishing industry being a dangerous industry. It is estimated that 1 in 1,000 fishermen die each year as a result of their job. That is over 100 times the rate for the average job in Scotland. Many more are injured in the course of their work. I understand, too, that there has been little improvement in the fatal accident rate in the Scottish fishing industry in the last 30 years. Given that fatal accident rates in almost every other occupation have fallen sharply during the same time, that suggests that commercial fishing has become progressively more hazardous over time. Therefore, I would welcome any comments from the cabinet secretary and what actions the Scottish Government is taking to make fish a safer career. That will obviously make it more appealing to new entrants and be a real benefit to families and to our coastal communities. In conclusion, we are now nearing the end of the fishing negotiations, and it is vital that the Scottish Government does whatever it can to ensure that Scotland feels full benefits of the reformed common fisheries policy, that the discard ban is implemented as quickly as possible, and that those fleets that we are adapting to the challenges are rewarded, ensuring a vibrant and sustainable future for our fishing industry and for the jobs, families and communities that it sustains. Many thanks. The SNP Scottish Government fights hard for Scottish fish processors, producers and the whole sector in Brussels, and they will do next week. It is important for us at this annual review of fishing to think about what could strengthen Scotland's position to back our ministers. As a member of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, having had a chance to look at some of the Smith commission proposals, I would suggest that we need to make sure that the respect agenda that was talked about earlier this year is something that is applied to the way in which Scottish ministers are engaged in representing our country when their appropriate stance would help to strengthen that approach in Europe. Presuming that a devolved administration minister can speak on behalf of the UK at a meeting of the council of ministers according to an agreed UK negotiating line where the devolved administration minister holds the predominant policy interest across the UK and where the relevant lead UK Government ministers unable to attend all or part of the meeting is a suggestion from the Scottish Government about how to achieve that. It is remarkable about the way in which some people have commented on the need for that to happen all the time. In particular, I refer to the kinds of funds that we get at the present time through the EU fisheries fund. Spice has shown us that, on 2007 to 2013, on Euro per tonne of average fish production Scotland's bottom amongst the countries that have fishing fleets, on Euro per tonne on average fish catch, Scotland is second bottom, on Euro per average gross tonneage of fishing fleet, Scotland is second bottom, Scotland's fishing fleet has been badly let down by not having a Scottish Minister lead the negotiations in Europe to make sure that those funds apply to our area with all its difficulties and with all the wild nature of the seas around us. I would like to suggest that it may be a good idea to ask why the Conservatives have been prepared to say that, as Jamie McGregor did on 12 June this year, it would be wrong for fishing communities in Scotland to receive more money from the European Fisheries Fund and to suggest that the Scottish fishing industry is too successful to require extra support. Indeed, Ian Duncan, the recently elected Tory MEP, was criticised quite rightly for claiming that Scotland's fishing industry should not receive vital funding. He said that the funds should go to those places that are struggling and that the Scottish industry is not struggling. That is at the end of May this year. Presiding Officer, it is amazing to me that a similar stance was taken by the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in a discussion on the radio about the said Mr or Lord Ponsonby de Mollie. Bertie Armstrong said that, although all the priorities are spread across the UK—and, of course, again, that sounds slightly odd coming from Scottish fishing leaders—no, Scottish fishing leaders, because other Scottish fishing leaders were appalled at remarks that came out from this gentleman, who then went on to say that it is important to think about the sea prons for the Northern Ireland fleet and the Celtic sea haddock for men in the south west. Yes, indeed, our Scottish fishing leaders should be out there fighting for Scottish fishermen, and we need to get off the bottom rungs of the ladder in that the European Fisheries Fund and much more. I would like to turn at this time to the review of the Good Food Nation, which has been mentioned by Stuart Stevenson, but more detail by Cara Hilton and, indeed, by Claire Baker. That is a long-term strategy of trying to get people to eat better. The disconnectedness that people have hinted at is one of the key themes in the unfinished business of the strategy that aims to get this sorted by 2025. Many people in Scotland are disconnected from their food. There are considerable efforts being made in schools and elsewhere to engage with children. Nevertheless, many people of all ages in Scotland remain profoundly unaware of how and where the food they eat and its ingredients are produced. However, at the same time, on the upside, there is an upsurge in the demand for local food. That is part of an encouraging way to produce and sell locally-grown food in all its shapes and sizes around our country. That means that we have to make sure that the inshore fleet, in particular, which has much more local markets—I count Scrabster, Kinlop Berby, Loch Inver, Alipwll, 174, under-10m boats, 45m, over 10m—is producers of much of the food that should be being sold in Scotland and around our country. It is up to our Government and other agencies to procure fish to a greater extent and to make sure that our schoolchildren are patients in hospitals, prisoners and so on, as well as that wider public have a chance to eat the best of Scottish. I support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary. Thank you very much. I now call on Chrisio, I'll have to be followed by Graham Pearson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me first declare for anyone today who hear me speaking for the first time that this French-born MSP has worked for the last 30 years in the Scottish fishing industry. And I'm honoured to represent the many fishing committees in North East from Fresno but at the Peterhead and since May 2013. We still have to wait for the outcome of the EU negotiations, but, yes, like other members said before me, we can agree that things talks are getting a lot better than they did the past few years. However, the main reason why negotiations have been easier this year is that we have settled the macro dispute. I said it at the time we in Scotland need to recognise that our fishing communities have nothing to gain to let such dispute in the pelagic sector to run for years. The white fish industry suffered as a result of an industry that needs all our support. There is a lesson to learn here. Less dispute and more partnership with our neighbours is required. Let's make sure that the pelagic bilateral talks between the EU and the federal islands in Ireland this week are not going to spill over to the white fish industry. This part, Jamie McGregor did not speak about. Our share is the concern of the share of the Scottish Pelagic Process Association, a Jan McFadden, who I met first more than 30 years ago, and I thank him for his briefing. The tone of the negotiations presenting officer must show our will to negotiate with others. The tone used by some when talking about the challenges faced by the Scottish fishing industry is a tone to drive, an anti-European agenda, one that should be left to members of UKIP. The Scottish fishing industry deserves better, so do what is left of the fishing industry in other parts of the UK. I shall take this opportunity to repeat that this cabinet secretary is the most experienced fishing minister in Europe, one who should be sitting at the main table and speaking for the people who represent the fishing communities across Scotland. Some disagree presenting officer, and I shall explain why the arguments don't hold water. Last month, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the representative body for fishermen in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, the NFFO, said its members' interests were in danger of being sacrificed to placate the claim of more powers for Scotland. That was the reaction after reading the submission of the Scottish Government to the Smith's Commission. We didn't need to worry. The suggestion from the Scottish Government is still in the backbone and very much has been deleted. I understand the austerity towards further devolution for Scotland. It is a direct result of the democratic deficit experienced by the industry in England, and like all the parts of the UK, the English industry does not have a parliament or devolved body that can stand up for its own interests. We know the UK parliament is not looking out for the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland, which the Scottish fleet has not been described as expendable. I was surprised to, like Rob Gibson said earlier on presenting officer to here, that our own Scottish Fishermen's Federation chief executive seemed to agree with the NFFO. Berti Amshung said on BBC Radio Scotland on the 10th of November, is Richard Lockhead the best man to stay at his priorities? He is certainly the best man providing he talks to us carefully as the priorities are agreed. He kept on and said he is certainly the best man to talk about Scottish fishing, but is he the best man to talk about the fishing for us fishermen or people in the south west? I think not was the answer of the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to his own question. I am the only one in the chamber thinking that this sounds hard coming from someone representing the Scottish fishing industry's interests. Let's remind this chamber what happened last month where Mr Sen to speak in crucial EU talks for the Scottish fishing industry, a conservative Lord, Lord Demole, a non-elected Lord with no previous experience whatsoever in fishing. Is he the best man to talk about fishing for us fishermen or people in the south west? I think not presenting officer. We can all agree that it is never appropriate for a non-elected Lord who knows nothing about fishing to speak for our fishermen, us fishermen or not. The UK government proves again that it couldn't care less about our fishing communities. Fishing is never on Westminster's radar. The Scottish government is doing a lot for fishing and wants to do more. Fishing leaders need to support the call for this cabinet secretary to sit in front of it and need to be four square behind him. Briefly, please, clear bacon. The member might venture to know that Westminster is debating fisheries negotiations on Thursday this week. I don't know but I'll be very pleased to hear about it and I hope that at Westminster, we will not do what the three political parties have done, is taking out a very important part of the motion of the cabinet secretary, saying that the cabinet secretary, the fishing minister in Scotland, should have a part to play at the talks, particularly that it's in the Smith commission. Common sense of flexibility should be the two principles when it comes to fishing negotiations is what we hear all the time. This year I would like to make a call for the cabinet secretary to address a particular problem of closures of skates and rare fisheries in the north-east and west of Scotland. Let's make sure that lessons have been learned to avoid a repeat of what the unfortunate situation that happened this year. Thank you. I now call Graham Pearson to be followed by Dave Thomson up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today. I'm also grateful for the range of briefings that I received before the debate and ones that I found very informative from the various organisations. Jamie MacGregor acknowledged the pain and the sacrifice that has been made over the decades by those in the industry as the revolution attached to the industry and they reorganised to deal with modern demands. Stuart Stevenson, in his contribution, indicated the outcomes from those previous works and the way in which the industry is now fit for purpose in delivering on behalf of the United Kingdom. He also recorded that our cabinet secretary is the longest serving fisheries ministry in Europe and I'm unsure if to congratulate him in the honour or to commiserate and wonder where has he gone wrong in his endeavours. Nevertheless, I would say that it's most unfortunate that the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition at UK level decided to allocate responsibility for negotiations last month in Brussels to Lord DiMorri instead of relying on the evident expertise of our own cabinet secretary to represent UK interests. However, I would hope that Mr Lockhead would reflect that perhaps the frenetic promotion of nationalism over the past few years has had some influence and decisions in this matter and that his contribution in the new post-referendum era will be more welcomed at UK level and more constructive in the way that it is received. I'm happy to. Sian Ard. Thanks very much for the matter to take an intervention. You know, I will not call Lord Smith a nationalist and he has in his own commission put out that it's the current candidate of the coordination of European Union policies issues needs to be improved and doesn't member agree that he needs to be improved and that that improvement is exactly what the cabinet secretary has asked today and what the Labour Party took out of the motion. I think as the debate goes on through the afternoon, the nuances in the debate will bring out where loyalty should lie in regard to the fishing industry, which is the most important part of what we debate today rather than the language of the various motions. I think that the developing conflict involving the western world and Russia as it affects our fishing industry reflects the importance of our discussions today, and the commission's agreement enabling the 25 per cent roll-over in allocated catches from 2014-15 helps the Scottish fishing industry to cope with the import embargoes that have been instigated by Mr Putin and have been estimated as costing the wider food industry up to £89 million in the year. Fisheries operates in Scotland as a Cinderella industry across most of our communities. We enjoy the produce that they produce but seldom consider how it's brought to our table and the pressures faced by those in the industry when providing first class fish fresh and safe for consumption. The policies imperatives and ensuring industry needs are complex but inescapable. We have a growing world population now in excess of £9 billion, all who need our food, an industry that has geared up to supplying the needs with modern boards, modern technologies and professional crews able to deliver catches at an industrial level. However, there is a pressure to conserve stocks of valuable fish to provide food for future generations and an industry with a vision for sustainability. The cabinet secretary must, in my view, ensure that he continues his support for those brave crews who go out into the sea on our behalf. The increase in quotas are optimistic for the end-of-year agreements and one hopes that those agreements will be fulfilled. Cabinet secretary must ensure that the new rules regarding discards are made clear to the industry and to the public alike because discards are ill-understood by the general population and seem to be an area of conflict over previous years. Cabinet secretary should also contribute to the continued development of new technologies, net designs and crew education to ensure that a mutual understanding is maintained in regard to the competing demands arising from conservation needs and consumer demands. He must also ensure that there is no repeat of the black fish scandal that affected the industry only in the past few years. I hope that he will give us an assurance that he will laze with the justice secretary accordingly to ensure that the good name of Scottish fishing is maintained in the years ahead. At the same time, a liaison with his opposite number in education would do no harm to ensure that our young people across Scotland have a better understanding of the fish produced in our very seas and will have a better understanding of that delivery than I did in my time. Scottish industry accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the total UK catch and around 7.5 per cent of the EU total volume, according to European Commission 2014. That is too important and industry for us, for us not to take a careful care of the future, and I remind the cabinet secretary to give us that assurance. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, and now Colin Dave Thompson, after which we move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is indeed an important debate and proceeds the implementation in January of what many believe will be the final nail in the coffin of Scottish fishing, the discard ban. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Richard Lochhead, has done the best he could for our fishermen over many years now, most of the time, all of the time with his hands tied behind his back by the Westminster Government and because of a dysfunctional EU common fisheries policy. Baron Demole has been mentioned. Far be it for me to criticise him, but such was the confidence of the Scottish Fishermen's organisation in him that they described him as clueless, and went on to say and I quote, he doubted he had spent much time on Eatons playing fields discussing black scabbards and the discard ban. I couldn't have put it better myself. What is illustrated here, of course, yet again, is that the UK Government treat us with contempt and cannot be replied upon in crucial EU negotiations where Scottish fisheries are concerned. Of course, we all had a chance to untie the cabinet secretary's hands on September 18, but unfortunately we did not take it. We loosened the knots, but full freedom is yet to come for the cabinet secretary and the rest of us. We, your SNP Government, have done all we could to protect our fishermen and fishing communities, but we have not been able to do so as much as we would have liked. That has not been because of a lack of will, but because of a lack of power to do so. I was born and brought up in the great fishing town of Lossymouth, whose harbor was parked with fishing boats when I was a boy, and whose school delivered qualifications in navigation. Such was the demand for fishermen in Lossymouth. Indeed, one of my first jobs at the age of 12 was heading and tailing prawns after school in the fish shed belonging to Siegel, a well-known local firm. I also led my first strike there at the age of 14 when, as prawn boys, walked out after a dispute over pay. Many of my family went to sea and some still do, and, of course, we have suffered our share of tragedy, like all those in fishing communities. I have been to sea a number of times in the Murray Firth, the Mench, off the butt of Lewis, but only for a day at a time. Some, like Sandy Patience of the Fisherman's Association Ltd, have spent their lives there. I can also lay claim to have written the SNP's fishing policy in the 70s, when we responded to the opposition claim at that time that SNP stood for still no policies. Therefore, as someone who has great empathy with our fishing industry, I found it particularly galling to listen to Bertie Arnstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, backing better together and the UK in the referendum. A UK that sold out our fishermen in 1971, when the Tories signed us up for Europe, a UK that cares so little about fishing that it sends a junior inexperienced Tory to represent us in Brussels, and a UK that is currently reneging or trying to as best it can on its vow to give extensive powers to this Parliament. Presumably Arnstrong spoke on behalf of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, but I am sure that he did not speak for many of our fishing communities or possibly even many of his own members. Those members need to decide whether they have the right leadership, I would suggest. Arnstrong, however, is not totally uncritical of the UK and has described the discard ban as a shining beacon of dysfunction, but he still insists in his briefing for today's debate that there is a bright future for Scottish fishing. Does he really believe that, or is he wearing his rose-tinted UK specs again? I hope he is right, but it does not look good unless we get the discard's ban right. Compared to Arnstrong, the Fisherman's Association Limited's recent submission to the Smith commission backs my view that Scotland is not being served well by the UK and EU fishing negotiations. It states that, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, holds the power in all EU and UK fisheries matters, it puts Scotland in a marginalised position, which results in decisions being taken that are not in the best interest of Scotland. Fal maintained that Scotland should be able to lead the UK in the EU and fisheries, especially given the importance of fishing to the Scottish economy. Of course, Fal quite rightly pointed to the unmitigated disaster that the common fisheries policy has been to the Scottish and, indeed, the UK fishing industry. Their chairman, Sandy Patience of Oak, whom I know well, told the Scottish Discards Steering Group on 27 November that Fal has no desire to be further involved in the discard's ban. He describes it as unworkable and impractical and fears it will crush what is left of the industry. I fear he is right, and although I support the cabinet secretary in his efforts to implement this flawed policy, I would ask him to be ready to argue for its abandonment. If he does not get a suitable agreement next week in these, as the motion says, pivotal negotiations, or it does not work for the pelagic fleet next year, if that means to find Brussels on this important issue, then so be it. As I lost a loon for a fishing toon myself, I am with Oak Loon, Sandy Patience and Fal, as they strive to protect their way of life, heritage and birthright. Many thanks. I now move to closing speeches, and I call on Liam McArthur up to six minutes, please. I think that we have just heard an example, not just of referendum deniers, but I think that the personal attack on Bertie Armstrong was outrageous. The call for him to be ousted is in marked contrast to SNP members who were lining up both to praise him but also to quote him in fisheries debates from 2007 onwards. By and large, I think that this has been the usual, generally consensual debate with issues of concern being raised across the chamber. All have acknowledged the importance of the sector, not just to island communities like the one that I represent, or coastal communities, but far beyond that. I think that it was a point made by Cara Hylton in her contribution, also alluded to by Stuart Stevenson in pointing up the importance of the processing sector. That importance is economic, yes, but I think that the resonance of the fishing sector goes far beyond that in the Scottish psyches. It is an importance that cannot be measured simply in pounds and penns or, indeed, even in jobs. The negotiations have obviously been the focus of the debate this afternoon. Against the backdrop of, I think, generally encouraging conclusions to the negotiations between EU and Norway last week, I think that the agreement with Faro earlier today was perhaps the best of a bad job, but that is definitely an agreement that still grates with many in the pelagic sector. There is great anger still within the industry, but as we look ahead to next week, I think that there is no doubting the fact that those negotiations look more straightforward than they have been in the past. I think that that was a point acknowledged by the minister. I think that he made a very valid point about the extreme opening negotiating positions, which means that an awful lot of effort is expended trying to roll back from a position that nobody realistically expects to be held, but nevertheless seems to be the modus operandi of the commission. Jamie McGregor and one of two others point to the threat of further effort controls. Again, I very much welcome Richard Lochhead's strong emphasis on the need to hold the line. That is an area where our industry has already conceded a great deal, and it is time for others to perhaps shoulder more of that responsibility. Turning to one of the key themes of the debate, the discard ban, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I think that that poses generally far fewer problems for a pelagics fishery that is far cleaner. Going forward from next year, that should be borne out, but the discard ban, while right in principle, needs to be got right in practice. In that respect, as we look to the demersal fishery and the implementation of a ban from 2016, we are not yet remotely close to where we need to be, and the potential for that being significantly more problematic is acknowledged all round. I was interested by Kara Hilton's reference to the fish fight, and there is no doubting that that was a campaign that captured the public imagination. I would perhaps question whether it captured the complexity of the issue. For those who are charged with the responsibility of developing policy on the back of that, yes, it brought to the attention an issue that nobody disputed needed addressing, but it perhaps created an overly simplistic impression of what needed to be done to resolve it. RSPB, in its briefing and pointing up the importance of the use of selective gear and other technical measures and rolling that out more widely across the fleet, is something that is featured in fisheries debates dating back as long as I can remember, and I think that there is still more that needs to be done there. I think that there is a brief intervention yet. Just to highlight to the member that, surely without that campaign, the issue was much less likely to be addressed in as timely a fashion as it was because of the consumer pressure. As I said, I do not want to diminish the importance of campaigns such as that, but I think that there is a risk sometimes that what they do is paint in primary colours and leave policy makers who are then charged with the responsibility of responding with a difficult tax to match those expectations to the complexity of the issue. Turning finally, I think to the political issue that ran through today's debate, that of who leads the delegation. As again, I said at the start of the debate, I think that the Smith agreement does provide us a basis, a sensible basis for implementing a set of arrangements that better reflect the needs of the industry, better reflect the political aspirations, I think, of the public. I think that the Scottish ministerial leader is no doubt, as Stuart Stevenson indicated, that that delegation benefits from the experience, not just of the minister but of the officials that are supporting him or her. By the same token, Scottish ministers benefit from having the weight of UK votes and influence behind them. We have not got that right. The example that was cited is a perfect illustration of it. Nevertheless, I think that the Government motion, and this was perhaps something that Graham Pearson was alluding to, the Government motion talks in very reasonable tones. I think that some of the rhetoric that was used during this debate in order to make that point was considerably less reasonable. I think that the respect agenda that Rob Gibson was pointing to is a two-way street. In concluding, I again wish the cabinet secretary the best of luck in the negotiations next week. Whatever seat he or his officials are sitting at, I hope that he continues to have influence and brings to bear the experience and expertise that he has, and that he will continue to promote Scotland's interests in those negotiations. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It makes a pleasant change to be holding this annual debate in an atmosphere of some, dare I say, optimism about the future prospects for Scotland's fishing industry. Normally, the debate is full of doom and gloom with grim forecasts of further cuts in quotas and days at sea and worrying prophecies of the further demise of our fishing fleet. What accreditation is to that fleet and to all those who work within the sector that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is able to conclude its briefing note to us with this statement? There is one overarching fact, and that is that the fish stocks of concern to the Scottish industry are, with few exceptions, either in robust health or heading encouragingly in that direction. It goes on. There are some very significant challenges to be met. Principal among them is the discard ban. However, if those can be overcome and we look outwards to greater fishing opportunity, rather than inwards towards protectionism, then there is surely a bright future for Scottish sea fishing. Greater fishing opportunity is not a phrase that we have heard a lot of in recent years. I hope that whatever continuing challenges remain must be that that air of optimism continues and that it is not long before discussions on greater fishing opportunities and, presumably, a consequential expansion of our fleet becomes the norm in those debates, rather than the exception. However, as the debate has shown, there are still significant challenges to be overcome as we embark on what everybody agrees is a turning point in fisheries management in Scotland. What enables us to call it that is the first phase of the discard ban that comes into force, as many have pointed out on 1 January, for the pelagic fleet and, a year later, for the demersal fleet. While it is clear that the ban will impose more difficulties for the demersal fleet than the pelagic, it has to be a matter of considerable concern that, as Bertie Armstrong has put it and Jamie McGregor drew attention to the whole process leading to the landing obligation laws, is a shining beacon of dysfunction. While that probably should not come as a massive surprise given that it is the EU that we are talking about, it does open up the possibility that different countries, different member states, may interpret the regulations in different ways and, in doing so, fail to create the level playing field that I think we are all agreed is so essential to the success of this policy. If anyone is tempted to think that this is not much of an issue, I did note that both the RSPB and WWF briefing noted, and I quote, sympathy for a fleet which faces potential uncertainties as to the legality of landing fish in the new year should the necessary European legal arrangements not be in place. That same briefing, however, does also note the potential benefits of successful implementation of the landing obligations, eliminating discards either by landing and selling fish that are currently discarded or by maximising the use of selective fishing gear. It could be worth, as Clare Baker pointed out, up to £200 million to that sector between now and 2020. Surely that must be worth the effort, but it also requires the Scottish Government to do everything in its power to encourage innovative and proven selective fishing gear to be used. I have to say that we are also highly supportive of the plea to phase in the new regime for whitefish stocks that the industry has made. I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary appears to be sympathetic to that approach as well. Another major concern that has also been mentioned has to be the outcome of the EU Faroe Islands agreement and its impact on our pelagic fleet, although I do note what the cabinet secretary said about this morning's agreement. It does seem extraordinary that one third of the Faroese quota is caught off the Scottish coastline, and it all will have been caught. As Ian Gath of the Pelagic Fishermen's Association has said, not a kilo of the EU's mackerel quota has been caught in the Faroese zone. He goes on to ask what seems like a very reasonable question. As the Faro islands were granted a hugely increased mackerel share this year on the basis that mackerel is more abundant in their waters, why do they then need to fish a third of their quota in Scottish waters? That has to be a good question. If this morning's agreement has done anything to address what seems to be a glaring imbalance that is leaving our fishermen increasingly disadvantaged in the global market, will that be all well and good? However, I will be interested to see if the fishermen's view of that agreement is as positive as the cabinet secretary's. Liam McArthur's contribution would suggest that it perhaps is not. Let me conclude by referring to the amendments that have been tabled. It is noticeable that, without any collusion, all three opposition parties have opted to try to amend the motion from the second use of the phrase and supports. In other words, they have sought to remove the slightly political aspect of the motion that the Government wants to include and will no doubt succeed in including. Stuart Stevenson suggested that we were unwise to remove that section. Christian Allard has been becoming positively animated about it, but I do think that the cabinet secretary's opening speech and some of the contribution of his backbenchers has shown that we were right to do so. I do not have time. I am very sorry, Mr Allard. For our part, we will do everything we can to ensure that the relationship between the UK fishermen and ministers and ours is a healthy one and that the vital importance of Scottish fishing fleet to the UK fisheries sector is properly recognised. However, the road to success is surely through working closely together, as has often been the case in the past, to achieve mutual benefit across the UK rather than simply continuing the pre-referendum jargon that failed to persuade the Scottish voters to vote for independence just two months ago. I hope that the cabinet secretary will not be tempted to go down that route in his closing statement. The Smith commission has recognised the need for a different relationship. The UK Government has already responded by inviting Angela Constance to represent the UK at a vital EU meeting. In a spirit of consensus, I suggest that the cabinet secretary accepts the amendments and proves that we can all work together for the betterment of Scottish fishing industry. That is what we voted for on 18 September. This has been an optimistic debate, not least Alex Ferguson's last sense of optimism about the future negotiations. It is almost a year, and it suddenly does not seem like that since we were in this chamber with a similar debate for the end-of-year fisheries negotiations. Last year, before the cabinet secretary was due to travel to Brussels for the negotiations, we were awaiting the formal introduction of the new policies that were intended to do away with many of the structural problems and the bad practices. We must be hopeful that the policies underpinning the new CFP will solve many of those issues. I want us to consider just how important the industry is to us and how much the people who are involved with this industry—certainly those that go to see—do face challenges and dangers. I think that we should all take time to reflect on this, and on the task faced by those who go to see here and across the globe. I hope that the cabinet secretary will make some comment on Cara Hylton's concerns about health and safety and how the fatalities have not been improving over the past 30 years, indeed worsening. I am sure that members will agree that the widely criticised practice of discarding that will lead to bans is absolutely essential and will vastly improve the overall health of our shared fisheries. As always, we must be careful to balance economic interest with sustainability to ensure that a fit for purpose plan is in place, and we will listen very carefully to what the cabinet secretary is saying in his closing remarks in relation to that. That is stressed in our amendment. I was, however, concerned to read that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has reservations over the effectiveness of the legislation underpinning the discard ban or landing obligation. According to the SFF, there is confusion, as we have heard in this debate, around the legislation, making it unlikely that the fleet and compliance agencies will be made aware of the precise legislation in time for the implementation. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can say a bit more about that. As we approach the final round of negotiations over the fishing effort, it is important that all species are fished sustainably. Members from all sides of the chamber have discussed the quota or allocations for various species in some detail, and I will not go into that detail here. Although it was good to hear of the discussions that have been had already by the cabinet secretary on the discredited cod recovery plan, we wish him well with those negotiations. It is important to note that the SFF is broadly happy with the outcome of the bilateral negotiations between the EU and Norway on the Haddock and Cod stocks, so that suggests that a good deal may well have been struck. Both the industry and environmental NGOs are in agreement about the maximum sustainable yield, so that is again a note of optimism that we can hold on to. I also note that today's agreement confirmed by the cabinet secretary with the EU and Ferro deal, but it appears from what has been said by Liam McArthur that we need to be listening carefully to the fishing industry on that. Although I did note what the cabinet secretary said about there being more tonnage available to the Scottish fleets in that agreement. Graham Pearson has highlighted concerns about the Russian ban and the loss to our economy because of that, and I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can comment on that at all. I want to focus somewhat on regionalisation, because with the aim of sustainable but economically viable fisheries, it is important that the European fisheries are managed in a regionalised way, and with the agreement for the new common fisheries policy showing that the top-down one-size-fits-all approach to fisheries management is, frankly, pathetically simplistic. I wonder if the cabinet secretary will be able to say a little bit more about how he sees the regionalisation going forward. Last year, I highlighted organisations such as Boltfish and the Chevengan Group, if I pronounce that rightly, which covers the North Sea member states, and I wonder whether he has involvement in these. I want to turn my remarks to this year's rural affairs and environment budget now and point out that the research budget, generally, and the marine and fisheries budgets are set to decline in real terms unless there are changes here. That is particularly concerning in view of the fact that the national performance framework marine environment indicator is worsening. Is it plausible for the Scottish Government to place the blame for this largely on the mackerel dispute that was resolved earlier this year when it is the whole marine ecosystem that is being analysed for this indicator? I seek reassurance from the cabinet secretary that he is confident that these funding cuts are indeed acceptable in those circumstances. Rob Gibson made a plea for the purchase of local fish, and Cara Hilton has pointed out that the Scottish Government is currently consulting on the good food nation. Many have highlighted in this and previous debates the importance of being adventurous with our fish diet. Now we hear only last week of research published in the British Medical Journal that women who eat a Mediterranean-style diet may live longer than those who don't, according to this new study, which has looked at one marker of ageing. No, I'm afraid I can't remember last minute, just about anyway, and this includes fresh fish, of course, so this is another way in which we can be sure that we encourage people to, particularly women, indeed, to put fish in their diet. I think Graham Pearson's question of the cabinet secretary about liaison with his education counterpart on fish is fundamental for the future if we are to educate future generations of consumers about what type of fish they buy. I do indeed wish the cabinet secretary well in the negotiations, and I'm sure his expertise will be greatly valued within the UK delegation, which will bring strength by having more clout than it would if it was only Scottish in my view, although I know that we disagree on that. I hope that, alongside his UK colleagues, he will be able to deliver an agreement that benefits the industry and consumers in Scotland and the UK as a whole, as well as our shared marine environment and, of course, future generations. I now call on cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate. Cabinet secretary, you have until 5.30, please. Thank you. As I approach my eighth consecutive annual fishing negotiations, I very much welcome the comments and reflections from members from across the chamber on some of the big issues facing our fishing communities and wider seafood sectors. I think that it is quite a strange atmosphere just now in our Scottish fishing industry. There is a mixture of optimism and also deep anxiety at the same time. I think that those factors have also been reflected in many people's contribution. There is some degree of optimism, however, and even the fishing news, the newspaper, which I'm sure all members subscribe to, has been relatively optimistic in the last couple of weeks as well. I was reading in relation to the situation in Shetland in Peterhead, firstly, on 5 December. The fishing news said that local whitefish fishermen landing prime whitefish caught within 20 to 30 miles of Shetland from trips of 16 to 72 hours unanimously voiced optimistic comments about the future of their industry. Of course, we have also seen high landings at other key ports in Scotland, particularly Peterhead, where it said on 5 December that last week's achievement was only the second time that an annual total of 1 million boxes of whitefish has been achieved at Peterhead since 2000, when nearly 1 million and 30,000 boxes were landed. There is a degree of optimism in the fishing industry at the moment, but, of course, against a backdrop of anxiety. I should declare an interest as the son of the cartoonist of the fishing news. Will he agree with me that the optimism within the industry will not be held by Government backbenchers launching the sort of attack on fishermen's leaders that we have heard from David Thompson earlier in the debate? Will he distance himself from those comments? What I think is that the industry with optimism will not be helped by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties not giving the power to their Scottish ministers to make sure that we address some of the deep anxieties that the fleet has. Let us not forget that we are talking about seafood in this debate. We are talking about the product that is landed by a fisherman who goes to sea in all kinds of conditions and atrocious weather from time to time, which, of course, means very dangerous conditions. That seafood is very valuable to Scotland's economy. It made a huge contribution to Scotland's fantastic export records, particularly in terms of food, obviously, where seafood accounts are around 50 per cent of food exports. We should be very grateful to our fishermen for going out in all kinds of conditions. That food, of course, graces some of the best restaurant tables in the whole of Europe and even in places like Orkney where I happened to be last week enjoying some fantastic local seafood, albeit that it was imported from far away Shetland, the food that I was enjoying last week. That provides an enormous contribution to Scotland's economy by the seafood that is landed by our fishing industry. It is something that hopefully we can celebrate more than ever before next year, 2015, the year of food and drink. Let us make sure that healthy, nutritious seafood is at the heart of the promotion of that sector and, of course, in our schools as well. I think that Cara Hilton and others mentioned the importance of building seafood into food education and introducing it to our children. That is why the Scottish Government funds the Seafood and Schools initiative, which is becoming ever more successful. It is a dangerous occupation, however. I think that also some members asked me to respond to what we are doing to promote a culture of safety at sea within the industry, which is crucially important. We know that from recent tragic events and it is something that we can never devote enough time to and we have to keep doing that. I can tell the chamber, of course, that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been working with the Scottish Government to make sure that personal flotation devices are made available to every fisherman in Scotland that requests one. Of course, funding for that. Over £300,000 came from the European Fisheries Fund and the rest of the funding was contributed by the fishing industry itself. To protect our seafood, to protect the jobs in Scotland—we all want to safeguard—we need sustainable fish stocks in our waters. It is also about protecting a valuable food resource. Graham Pearson and others mentioned the fact that the world population is expanding, and therefore we have to protect this valuable food resource. That is one reason why we have to make sure that we have the right policies in place at European level and Scottish level. However, stocks are improving, and it is down to the massive sacrifice of Scotland's fishing industry, particularly over the past 10 years or so, where many good men have been forced to leave the industry because of crazy regulations from time to time. However, as a result of the sacrifices of the industry, stocks are recovering. The optimistic outlook for 2015 and beyond, hopefully, is something that we can realise. However, if you look at the proposals for the fishing negotiations this year, in terms of the commission's proposals for thermos stocks that will be discussed next week, we have monkfish being proposed for a 20 per cent increase, nephrox, that is the prawns, for a 15 per cent increase in the North Sea, a rollover for the valuable migram stock, and in terms of the west coast, we have a 113 per cent increase proposed by the commission for Rockhall-Harwick, and a 20 per cent increase for monkfish and a 1 per cent increase for the valuable migram stock in the west coast as well. Looking at what was agreed last week in terms of the North Sea stocks, we have seen a 5 per cent increase for North Sea cod, a 15 per cent increase for North Sea haddock, and a 15 per cent increase for place as well. There have been some reductions for other stocks, but our key, valuable stocks are seeing increases. Of course, where there is a reduction in stocks is part of long-term management plans that we all support. We have to recognise that those stocks and those recommendations are in good health because of the sacrifice of our fleet. The fleet do not have to wait for discard bans. Our fleet is undertaking a lot of effort using selective gear and other measures to reduce discards. The whitefish fleet in the North Sea has reduced discards since 2007, the first year when I became minister, by 64 per cent. The prawn fleet has reduced discards of cod, haddock and whiting in the North Sea by a further 93 per cent. In the west coast, we have seen some reductions as well, albeit that there is still some ongoing serious problems in the west coast of Scotland that have to be addressed. Now, we have the new common fishers policy. We have two key objectives that result from that. First, we have to achieve sustainable stocks by 2015, where possible, and definitely by 2020. That will be challenging for some of our stocks, albeit that eight of our 12 key stocks are already being fished at sustainable levels. Secondly, something that has dominated this debate is the objective of banning discards between 2015 and 2019. I fully accept that this gives Scotland enormous challenges, given the mixed fishery that we have in Scottish waters. We have many different species swimming together, and if we run out of quota of one stock, it means that you have problems in catching the other stocks for which you do have quota, because you have to land your fish and you are not allowed to discard it. That is why we need Europe to make sure that we modernise the regulations. We will be fighting for that next week and through 2015. It also means that we have to continue to work with our fleet here in Scotland. There are plans in place. We have a Scottish discard steering group. We are working with the onshore sector, the fish processors, as well as the fleet itself to look at what that means for the fleet and what new measures can be adopted in Scottish waters. However, my message to the European Commission is that we cannot use 1980s legislation to deliver 21st-century solutions for discard bans. I remember going to the council in 2007, the first time I went to a council and raising the issue of discards in European waters and how it was unacceptable and ecological vandalism. There was very little interest from other member states or the UK Government back in 2007 to tackling discards, so we have travelled a long ways from 2007 to where we are today in 2014. We are now going to tackle discards once and for all, and that is in the interests of fisheries conservation, the interests of Scottish jobs and the wider fishing industry. If you could bring your remarks to a close. A big year for the industry in Scotland. I have to say that I am now shadowing my fifth UK fishing minister. No doubt it will soon be the sixth UK fishing minister after May's UK elections. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous that the UK Government chooses to send an unelected Lord to represent Scotland's fishermen at the council of ministers as opposed to the experience of Scottish ministers. That shows absolute contempt for the people of Scotland and, most importantly, in this case, absolute contempt for our fishing communities and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on that sector. If we can get the big decisions right in 2015, we will have the opportunity to allow our fleet to sail in Camarwaters. So, while there is some disagreement over some of the issues and the Government will be opposing the amendments in the opposition parties, I hope that that is one objective that we can all rally around. Let's get the best deal for Scotland's fishing communities next week in Brussels and let's allow our fleet to sail into Camarwaters. That concludes the debate on the end of year fish negotiations. We now move to next item of business, which is decision time. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 11826, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the Food Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to, and the Food Scotland Bill is passed. Can I remind members in relation to the debate on end of year fish negotiations, if the amendment in the name of Clare Baker is agreed to, the amendment is in the name of Jamie McGregor and Tavish Scott-Fall. The next question is at amendment number 11825.3, in the name of Clare Baker, which seeks to amend motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on end of year fish negotiations, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes. The result of the vote on amendment number 11825.3, in the name of Clare Baker, is as follows. Yes, 47. No, 63. There were no abstentions. Sorry, and the amendment is therefore disagreed to. If the amendment in the name of Jamie McGregor is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott-Falls. The next question then is at amendment number 11825.2, in the name of Jamie McGregor, which seeks to amend motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on end of year fish negotiations, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11825.2, in the name of Jamie McGregor, is as follows. Yes, 45. No, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question then is at amendment number 11825.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on end of year fish negotiations, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11825.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, is as follows. Yes, 16. No, 62. There were 32 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question then is at motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on end of year fish negotiations, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11825, in the name of Richard Lochhead, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, zero. There were 48 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the Chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.