 Fy soda liegt eggai iawn i gyd y families ambu Budisiolaid, i wnaer datblygu a i dawn wnat posibl ddyn焦. Fy ladoel, gyda频 Fygir yn gyn yr dysgamaen Dysg αin y � مثol wedi eu caelwadolavaidd a gadegiadu'r un amlaeddan a g suis I yn ddigau clapol a hostig mawr, ac ddydd ddod yn obwyaf a'r l()s yn cyfleiol o consul iawn, i wnaeddechrau a'r bwysigaidau'au trsiad dros iawn ydy. As we face the uncertainties of Brexit, this resilience and determination will be called upon as we fight to deliver the best deal possible, both at this year's December council and in the longer term as well. At this time, I am dismayed that the UK Government's negotiations with the EU have still not delivered clarity on a host of critical issues that all of us, individuals, communities, industry and government, so badly need. We are on the edge of an economically damaging separation from the EU without any real assurances on the terms of our departure or our future relationship with the EU and other nations. The postponement of today's meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement does absolutely nothing to bring that clarity and, in fact, quite the reverse. The disarray in golfing the UK Government has muddied the waters even further. That the UK Government could even have counteranced a draft withdrawal agreement, so obviously detrimental to Scottish interests after there being no substantive engagement with the Scottish Government is not a coincidence. Rather it is confirmation that a UK Government sees Scottish interests as entirely expendable. Although that is not the subject of today's debate, it is imperative that Scotland's voice is heard when the UK is establishing a deal on fisheries relations with the EU. It is my intention to champion the views and priorities of the Scottish industry in any and all scenarios. It is also essential that we carry on with the day job. I am determined to approach this year's quota negotiations with a business-as-usual attitude. Presiding Officer, let me summarise where we are in this year's negotiations so far. It is fair to say that this year's scientific advice from ICES has been challenging. There have been bright spots, including increases of advice for some stocks, such as northern shelf saith, hake, monkfish and migrim, and further afield for Rockhall haddock and Atlanta scandian herring ash. There has also been more positive news for West of Scotland nephrops after last year's difficult negotiations. However, across a range of other important stocks, the advice has been more difficult. Some of our most important pelagic stocks, including macro, blue-witing and North Sea herring, presented advice for significant cuts next year. Similarly, in the North Sea, a number of our key whitefish stocks, such as cod, haddock and whiting, all had cuts advised. In the West of Scotland, cod and whiting stocks remain intractably low, and no catches are advised. Significant cuts and low or zero-level quota clearly present very difficult choke risks in 2019, the first year in which the landing obligation will apply to all quota stocks. We continue to have an active role in the EU's regional groups to drive forward the development of innovative solutions to choke risks. Next week's December council is essential that all member states embrace the spirit of finding collective solutions to the remaining choke risks. We must prevent the situation in which our fleet is being tied up when there is still quota available to fish. We are working tirelessly to address those challenges. I can assure the chamber that the resolution of such choke risks is my absolute top priority at next week's council in Brussels. Of course, the scientific advice may not translate directly into the final quota for next year. The negotiations are where balances and compromises sometimes need to be found. As usual at this point, this year's negotiations are well under way and have already delivered strong outcomes in some of those areas. After protracted negotiations, the coastal states have finally reached agreement on fishing levels in 2019 for mackerel, blue-whiting and atlanto-Scandian herring. For mackerel, Scotland's single most valuable stock, the Government was influential in delivering a principled and justified approach to limiting the advice cut to minus 20 per cent, delivering a benefit to Scotland of around £101 million. However, the coastal states have once again failed to agree comprehensive sharing agreements for those important and valuable stocks. That means that it is likely that it will continue to be fished beyond agreed levels in 2019. At this year's November council, quota levels for a number of deep sea stocks in 2019 and 2020 were agreed. Those are important by catch quota that will allow the Scottish fleet to continue to target other important shelf edge fisheries such as monkfish under the landing obligation in 2019. This year's negotiations between the EU and Norway have been particularly difficult and delayed because of a number of unforeseen complications. The negotiations finally concluded in principle on Friday evening, but due to time constraints, full details of the verbally agreed deal have yet to be provided in writing. That is unsatisfactory, but it is not in our gift to control the wider process. Needless to say, my officials will scrutinise the agreement in great detail when it does appear. I am fully expecting it to confirm as good a deal as could be hoped for in the context of difficult scientific advice. The advice cuts to North Sea cod and herring have been limited to minus 33 per cent and minus 36 per cent respectively, and we have secured the advised increases for safe and place of plus 16 per cent and plus 11 per cent respectively. In the exchange of quota with Norway, we have again delivered a package of inward transfers of North Sea opportunities that will help to avoid choke risks in 2019, and we have successfully reduced the outward transfer of blue-whiting. Moving on, the EU pharaoh talks are under way in Brussels, as I speak, and are expected to conclude tomorrow. That agreement allows for the essential quota and access opportunities to Faroese waters for our white fish fleet. In contrast, reciprocal arrangements that allow Faroese vessels access to fish some of their quota of key stocks, including macro, in our waters are unutilised by the Scottish fleet. I am pleased to report that this year sees the end to the private deal, the commission struck in 2014, granting inappropriately high levels of access for Faroese vessels to fish macro in our waters. I will seek to reduce, in percentage terms, the level of Faroese access for macro next year. Finally, this year's negotiations will culminate at next week's December Council in Brussels, which will negotiate the remaining stocks that were fished solely by EU fleets in EU waters. My focus at the council will be to ensure that good scientific advice is converted into actual quota to resist cuts where there are scientifically justifiable reasons for so-doing and to continue to secure other outcomes linked to tackling choke risks. Presiding Officer Brexit has loomed large during those negotiations on fishing opportunities. Negotiation dynamics are certainly different this year, given the wider political landscape. Technically, this year's talks have been business as usual, given that we are still a member state. However, as expected, the wider scenarios still in play around Brexit are having some upstream influence in what we may expect to achieve at this year's talks. That may make things more difficult, but potentially in some ways it could give us a lever that we have not had before. The commission will wish to strike a deal that the UK is happy with and will honour during 2019 in the event of no deal. Third countries such as Norway, Faro and Iceland also wish to agree stable fisheries arrangements agreements in 2019, and the commission will no doubt have taken those points into account. We are, of course, working hard behind the scenes. My officials have already been preparing the ground with the European Commission and with many others who have a say in final outcomes, much as they have achieved well before we arrive in Brussels. We still have outstanding issues with choke species, particularly North Sea Ling and West of Scotland cod and whiting. We have been working with industry proactively to generate solutions to avoid the fleet being tied up. In the final preparations for December council, we will use the full weight of the Scottish Government to get solutions in place. It is vital that the UK Government understands the need to prioritise practical and pragmatic solutions, and that message is delivered loud and clear in Brussels. As such, I have reiterated our concerns to George Eustace ahead of the council itself. In conclusion, we can see that the autumn negotiations are complex. This year, they take place in an increasingly complex political landscape. What is clear is my commitment to ensure that those talks bring about the best possible outcome for our fishing industry and have Scotland's best interests at heart. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I now call on Peter Chapman to speak to and move amendment 15096.4. I thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with the fishing industry this year, and I am pleased to speak on their behalf in this important debate, to open for the Scottish Conservatives today and to move the amendment in my name. The industry got some good news yesterday when David Mundell visited the Peterhead fish market, which was actually bursting at the seams with over 9,000 boxes of prime fish on the floor. Let me tell you that is quite a sight. Mr Mundell announced another 37.2 million of extra funding for fishing to be spent during the transition period of which Scotland gets £16.4 million. The past year has been a good one, a profitable one for the catching sector, with both good catches and good prices. In Peterhead, the new fish market has proved its worth and sold a record weekly total of 36,241 boxes in the last week of November. The investment of £51 million in deepening the harbour and building the new market has been fully justified. However, looking forward to next year, things are looking so rosy. We are facing cuts to many of our pelagic and our white fish stocks, mainly in line with scientific advice. North Sea cod is to take a 33 per cent cut. The advice was actually for 47 per cent, Haddock is to take a 31 per cent cut as per advice, Whiting to take a 22 per cent cut as per advice, and Herring to take a 36 per cent cut, where the advice was actually for a 51 per cent cut. Mackerel, our biggest and most valuable stock, is to take a cut of 20 per cent, where again the advice was originally for a 60 per cent cut. On the plus side, codas for saith are up 16 per cent, place are up 11 per cent, both as per scientific advice. The totally allowable cuts for monkfish and hake will be set at the December Fisheries Council, and the various changes to TSEs that I have already discussed will be ratified at that time. It must be said that those quota cuts to some of our most important species at a time when the landing obligation comes fully into force are unhelpful at the very least, and could be disastrous at the worst. The reduction in North Sea cod could make it a choke species alongside others, including West of Scotland cod and hake. The landing obligation is explicit, that catches of all regulated species, those that have quotas, must be brought ashore. Once the quota for any choke species is caught, the fleet must stop fishing. There is therefore a significant and real risk that tens of millions of pounds worth of fish could go on uncaught as a result. The cabinet secretary speaks in his motion about exploring all available solutions in regard to choke species. So can the cabinet secretary today give some clarity to us as to what action he will take to avoid early closure of our fisheries? There is also now real concern on the number of foreign vessels operating within the Scottish sector, mostly in waters around Shetland. A recent survey carried out by the sector found a total of 122 foreign vessels in Shetland waters. Those were made up of 19 UK with foreign-flagged vessels, 12 Spanish, 33 Norwegians, 8 Germans, 27 French and 23 Danish vessels. Those foreign vessels are all targeting white fish, and to give some scale, the Scottish fleet has only 85 vessels targeting white fish. That is a significant increase in foreign vessels from previous years. It now seems that the member states have exhausted their own stocks and are encroaching north and west to catch the various species that we have worked hard to protect and rebuild over a number of years. The member talks about foreign vessels coming to our waters. Isn't that exactly the situation that the French have faced this year, with the Scottish fleet encroaching on waters in the west channel? That argument was—our fishing boats were completely in the right in that argument. The French were not supposed to be fishing on those waters, and we were allowed to fish on those waters. To be quite honest, their reaction to our boats was absolutely illegal, and we can never support what went on there. I ask that Mr Ewing agrees that this level of foreign fishing pressure is unsustainable and is completely unfair to our fishermen. I wonder what can be done to protect our stocks from that excessive fishing pressure. Another anomaly that rightly annoys our fishermen is the annual swap of 100,000 tonnes of blue whiting to Norway, of which our share is 20,000 tonnes. In return for that, the EU gets 21,500 tonnes of Arctic cod. That is no use to our fishermen. We get no benefit from that because those cod are all caught by Spain and Portugal. We must push for Spain and Portugal to pay their share of blue whiting transfer to Norway to mitigate the cuts to the Scottish fleet. The EU fair negotiations that we heard from Mr Ewing will take place today and tomorrow, and that agreement is also heavily skewed in favour of the Faroe Islands. The Faroese catch something like £45 million worth of mackerel in Scottish waters, while the entire EU fleet catch only £5 million worth in Faroe waters. Again, we need to push for the reduction of Faroese mackerel access during this week's negotiations. As I said, last year or this year has been good for our skippers. However, the fish processing sector has seen a decrease in capacity. From 2008 to 2016, there has been a 34 per cent decline in fish processing capacity in north-east Scotland. We are losing business and jobs to Humberside, where fish processing is growing. We are uncompetitive due in great measure to high business rates, and we need to reverse the trend to handle the extra fish, which the sea of opportunity will undoubtedly bring. I can do that. I thank the member for giving way. I am sure that, like myself, he has spoken to fish processing firms in his part of Scotland. Has he not noticed that they have mentioned above all other concerns they have the supply of a workforce and what Brexit will mean for that? The workforce is absolutely an issue, but the declines have been going on for nearly 10 years, long before anybody ever spoke with Brexit, so it is not just about that. Never in the history of UK politics have our fishermen and our fish processors had such a high profile. I would guess that fishing has been mentioned at the dispatch box in Westminster, more often than the last six months, than it has been in the previous 40 years. That proves just how important this industry is to our party and indeed our Prime Minister. Fishing matters to the Conservatives. We are the only party who recognise and are fighting to obtain the sea of opportunity that Brexit brings. Quite frankly, I am disgusted with the way that this SNP Government and indeed the Labour Opposition try to suggest that we will sell out this industry. It is rank hypocrisy of the most blatant kind. We are the only party working hard to deliver on the instructions of the people to come out of the EU and to take control of our borders, our money and our waters. That means coming out of the CFP and taking the shackles off of our fishermen. I have taken three already, so no. It has been blatantly obvious to us all that this SNP Government has used the Brexit vote as a weapon to build more and more grievance between here and Westminster in the hope of lavering another independence referendum. In fact, that tactic has changed again. The First Minister made it abundantly clear at FMQ's last week that she wants to stop Brexit in its tracks. The message to our fishermen is clear. The SNP will do everything that it possibly can to keep you in the hated CFP. No chance of taking control of our EEZ. No chance of redressing the balance where we only catch 40 per cent of the fish in our waters. No chance of coming up with solutions to the landing obligation. No chance of growing prosperity in our coastal communities. I wonder how many members in the chamber today have signed the SFF pledge. We all have. I also wonder how many members in the chamber, from the Opposition's benches, have spoken to our fishermen recently. I hosted a meeting with David Duke 10 days ago, where we sat down with 30 members of the industry, including skippers and processors, and I wasn't Peterhead fish market only yesterday morning with David Mundell, where we again talked with the industry. The message was clear on both occasions. They want the only deal on the table to go through. They recognise this deal will deliver what they need and what they voted for in 2016. This deal gives us a degree of certainty, whereas voting down this deal creates chaos. Of course, chaos is exactly what the SNP and the Labour want for their own political motives. No thought about what would be best for our country, no thought that our fishermen want this deal, no thought that our business leaders want this deal, not the only thought from the Opposition is, let's just vote this down and try to gain some political advantage out of the chaos. This is politics that is worst. This deal isn't perfect, but it is the only game in town and is pragmatic and workable. Our fishermen will never forget and will never forgive the SNP if they prevent us from leaving the hated and the discredited CFP. I was going to try very hard to avoid Brexit in today's debate, but, given that Peter Chapman didn't amend his own speech in light of the fact that there is to be no vote on the deal in the UK Parliament this week, I think that I need to turn to that. I say very clearly the reason that we are concerned about the deal to be put before the Westminster Parliament at some point in the future is that it keeps people in the CFP. We will have no negotiating rights and should the backstop come into force, not only will we be in the CFP, but we will also have to negotiate trade arrangements. That is certainly not good for our fishermen, so I think that you can sign any pledge that you like, but if you are working against the good of our fishing community, I do not think that that carries any weight at all. There have been years when this debate was all about cutting effort and quotas and tough decisions for our fishing communities. There are still tough decisions to be made, but if those difficult decisions taken back then have led to recovery of stocks, if that teaches us anything, it is that we should manage the seas to make sure that there are fish there in abundance supply for our future generations. Brexit has drawn attention away from the year-end fisheries negotiations and we have to make sure that the pantomime that is Brexit does not distract us from some of the big issues surrounding the negotiations this year. Not only will the outcome of these negotiations be the foundation for what we go forward into Brexit with, if it ever happens, it will also affect our fishing community and what it will be doing in the coming year. Our amendment recognises that there will be increased quotas in prawns in the west coast and in other fisheries where stocks continue to rise. We are asking the Scottish Government to look to distribute this to provide the maximum economic benefit to our rural communities while safeguarding the quota from being traded away. That would create a foundation for Brexit that must lead to greater allocation of quota to our rural communities while also preparing to step up our effort in preparation for a greater share of our fishery eventually. In some of our island communities they lead the way on this already. They have kept quota in public hands and they lease it out to the fishing community. That means that it cannot be traded away or gain an inflated value that puts it out of the reach of new entrants to the industry. If new quota was distributed this way through local authorities or even through community ownership where there is a distinct community, then it can be leased out to local fishermen and new entrants. Priority should be given where practical to smaller boats, routed in their communities in order to provide the maximum economic impact on remote rural areas. Those working on those boats are more likely to live and spend their earnings in their communities. That also provides the opportunity to be innovative with licences too. The Scottish Government could keep ownership of the licences but leased them out and that would prevent leakage of those licences elsewhere or to be traded, as we have seen in the past. In order to keep those assets providing the maximum economic benefit, we should keep them in public ownership to be leased rather than traded. In order to attract new entrants, funding would also be needed to help with the purchase of boats. That will no doubt be commercially available if a business can show that they have got access to a licence and quota. However, it may be that small grants are required to provide a degree of collateral. That would allow us to maximise the benefit of the new quota while also gearing up for Brexit. However, it is not just catching but processing that we need to increase. Processing creates jobs and adds value. Where possible, it should be carried out in our rural communities. That needs workforce planning and training. There are workforce issues currently affecting processing and that will get worse with Brexit and its impact on migration. It is sad that we see salmon processing factories closed down and others relocate when we need that part of the industry to grow. It might be that we need to change how those factories work to look at other species but we need that infrastructure and workforce. To do that, we need to make sure that it has seen us an attractive career choice and make sure that the infrastructure is available for workers to live within those communities. We need houses, schools and services. If we provide those, we can then take steps towards repopulation. If we are going to reap the benefit of increased catches, we must now plan for the workforce to capitalise on that, both in the catching and processing sectors. We agree with the discard ban, but it is very disappointing that there is as yet no solution to choked species. When there is no quota for the by-catch, then the fishing industry cannot catch their quota of the species that they are awfully pursuing, regardless of the amount of quota that they hold for that. Every year, this time of year, I have argued that the Scottish Government or local authorities should own quota for choked species. If they own that quota, they could make it available to those who have to land a by-catch. They could lease that quota at a cost that neither encouraged nor discouraged its landing but crucially allowed the industry to continue to fish. Further, there must be use made of everything that has landed. Because of the advances in selective fishing, we are catching less and less by-catch, and that means that there are fewer uses for it. I understand that traders are not interested because of the small quantities involved, and that means that it is difficult to dispose of. Again, I believe that the Scottish Government must step in to ensure that by-catch is put to good use. Failure to do that will mean that it will not be landed. Even if it were landed but left to rot at the key side, then it is just as bad as it would be better to discard it at sea. At least it would feed the birds in sea life. Therefore, finding a solution to that problem is now essential. Although we need to develop even more selective fishing methods, it is realistic to prepare for some by-catch. The smaller that by-catch, the more difficult it is to find uses for it and a market to sell it. Therefore, we must step in and find a solution for fisheries that are affected in that way. I turn briefly to the other amendments. We will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. Although we have sympathy for the Green amendment, it is too widely drafted and would apply to static-gear boats. It is widely accepted that static-gear is the most selective form of fishing, and those small boats are community-based, which makes them crucial to the rural economy. There are also the boats that have the narrowest margins. I do not believe that the Greens meant to add to their costs or thought that they needed to be tracked in the way that amendment suggests. We cannot support the Conservative amendment, although we recognise that that was an aspiration of the fishing community. The deal that we have on the table does not do that. In fact, it does the very opposite, keeping fishing within the parameters of the CFP without a role in the negotiations, while in the long run leaving them open to export lebis, the worst possible of both worlds. Presiding Officer, those negotiations are crucial to our industry. While those talks are not anticipated with the trepidation that they want to wear, we cannot be complacent. We need to build on foundations for the future of the industry and plan how we reap the highest economic benefit for our rural communities. We need to build a workforce and infrastructure to do that. To miss this opportunity would be to let down future generations. The Green amendment this afternoon allows me to return to a subject that I spoke about in last year's debate, which is the urgent need for the full tracking and monitoring of our fishing fleet. In just the last month, two incidents of illegal scallot dredging in Loch Gerloch and Westeroth have caused untold devastation to our marine ecosystems. The Firth of Lawn was subject to similar destructive dredging in February, while few of us can forget the shocking footage of the decimated seabed of Loch Karen last year, which forced emergency action by the Scottish Government to protect our precious flame shell reefs. We know that it is a tiny minority of the fishing sector that engages in this illegal activity, but every time an incident is reported, the public loses a little more faith, and the environmental and scientific community rightly questioned the commitment to protecting our seas. We have to urgently look at a full and comprehensive monitoring scheme for our fishing fleet that builds confidence in the sector, while addressing the pressing issues that are facing our fish stocks and our ecology. Mike Rumbles has done this by a very tiny minority. Why is it important to have monitoring technology on all Scottish fishing vessels? It is, but it is not just about monitoring and compliance. It is also about data gathering and about creating a level playing field. We need to support those who are acting legally, who are employing monitoring technology at the moment, by extending that across the whole fleet. I think that most fishers there would welcome such a commitment. I need to make a little bit of progress. I might take Mr Chapman a little bit later on. Remote electronic monitoring, or REM for short, is the most up-to-date system available, which combines satellite tracking with sensors and CCTV on board fishing vessels. It goes beyond the vessel monitoring systems currently used in the industry, as it can provide near-live information, not just about where a vessel is, but when it is actively fishing. It also captures video footage of the crew's behaviour and imagery of the fish catches, which can be reviewed for both compliance and scientific purposes. REM has been trialled in the UK through the fully documented fishery scheme, with positive results. However, in Scotland, that has concentrated mostly on North Sea Cod, and is entirely voluntary. Participation peaked with 32 vessels in 2014 and since then has declined. A roll-out of fully documented fisheries in the scallop sector has been limited only to the largest boats, meaning that only 14 of the 94 scallop dredgers registered in Scotland are fitted with REM. Full fleet coverage would likely have prevented the illegal fishing that we have witnessed this year. I will take Mr Chapman. I thank the member for taking the intervention. His motion speaks about monitoring and policing the Scottish fleet. Why does he not think that they need to monitor and police the EU fleet as well? That is a very good point and something that could be taken forward through further reforms of the CFP. Of course, we will not be in the CFP because we will be taking rules rather than making rules. We have to see the whole of Europe's fisheries fleet move forward in terms of sustainable practice. That is not prohibitively costly technology. There was a WWF study last year, reporting that it costs less than £3,500 to fit out a vessel with REM. Currently, although we are in the EU, 90 per cent of those costs are fundable from the MFF fund. I appreciate the point raised by Rhoda Grant about other sectors that are perhaps less pressing in terms of installation monitoring technology, but those can be phased in over time. We can look at appropriate solutions. The cabinet secretary in a recent letter to my colleague John Finnie emphasised the important work that the University of St Andrews is doing looking at appropriate monitoring techniques and innovation. The resulting onshore monitoring for a fully equipped fleet would be in the cost of £5 million for the entire UK, which is a quarter of the cost of our current monitoring scheme, which relies on on-board observers and dockside monitoring. The data provided by a full fleet REM scheme would greatly surpass our current system, under which less than 1 per cent of fishing activity is being monitored at sea. The data is more consistent and can be gathered over a longer period of time, allowing for better quality scientific monitoring of our fish stocks. I would argue that REM is the only way that we can look meaningfully at solutions to chokespecies, while respecting the scientific advice that the Government motion commits us to. I welcome the recent announcement of additional funding from the Scottish Government for the monitoring and tracking of inshore fisheries, but piecemeal programmes across different sectors do not go far enough. We need a commitment to installing remote electronic monitoring across our full fishing fleet in time if we are to reap the benefits that it will bring. There is precedent for this. New Zealand will complete a roll-up next month of a digital monitoring scheme, in which we will see all-licensed fishing vessels fitted with electronic catch and positioning reporting and CCTV. A cost-benefit analysis prior to introduction in New Zealand concluded that the system has a net benefit of over 75 million New Zealand dollars in the first 15 years. Their Government has recognised that monitoring is not solely a policing issue. It is also a way to demonstrate the sustainability of the native fisheries to consumers and to identify and address any threats as early as possible. Numerous studies and reports have shown that the fishing industry in the UK is largely supportive of REM, as it is the best way to demonstrate that the majority of our fleet are fishing legally and sustainably. To conclude, remote electronic monitoring can tackle legal fishing in our inshore waters. It can monitor and address the landing obligation in issues of chokespecies, while providing better scientific data than ever before on which to base future fisheries management. It is cost-effective and delivers long-term saving on monitoring regimes. Largely supported by the industry can rebuild confidence in the sustainability of our fishing fleet. It has a positive role to play in nearly all the issues that we will be discussing in this chamber this afternoon. I hope that the Government will commit to a full fleet roll-out as early as is practicable. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now call Tavish Scott to speak to and move the amendment in his name, 15096.2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. With a week to go before the December EU Fisheries Council negotiations and with the EU Faroese financial on right as we speak, today's debate in this Scottish Parliament should be about following the fish and not following the Prime Minister around Europe. I am not sure what the point of following the Prime Minister around Europe is at the moment. Indeed, the only Tories that seem to be following the Prime Minister are the Scottish Tories, and that is still beyond me, particularly after what happened last night. To reassure Mr Chapman, I spent the whole of Monday with fishermen in Shetland. The fishing industry in the islands has had a strong 2018. Fish landings are at the highest since 1972 or 10 per cent up on 2017. Two new fish markets in Llerwick and Scalloway will open in 2020, doubling the capacity. New fleet tonnage is being ordered. Indeed, four new white fish vessels should arrive in 2020 or thereabouts. The youngest crew in the Scottish fleet, all under 30, LK47O, the courageous, has had an outstanding year. Twelve young Shetlanders have taken the introduction to fishing courses at the marine centre in Scalloway, and all are now working in the industry. There is a degree of financial confidence, something that cannot be said of every one of those debates that we have in this place. As seafood exports from Shetland exceed £300 million every year, what must Government do to ensure that those numbers continue to improve to the benefit of both the local islands economy and that of the Scottish economy too? My one local ask of the cabinet secretary is not so much for him but for his colleague the transport minister. Shetland does not have enough freight capacity from Llerwick to Aberdeen on the nightly ships, so can the Government ensure that, when the new specification is set for the shipping contract beginning in October 2019, the future needs of the seafood industry will be accommodated? Those growth figures have been provided to the Government. Industry needs to know that the greater tonnage of fish landed can be shipped south. We may come on to where it gets shipped thereafter, but that is for the other debate. The outlook for 2019, as a number of colleagues have mentioned this afternoon, is both challenging for whitefish and the pelagic catching and processing sectors. With whitefish, we know that the EU-Norway talks have concluded with a 33 per cent cut in cod for the North Sea. I recognise, as does the industry, that the Scottish Government fought the initial ICES recommendation of a 47 per cent cut in conjunction with Norway and with others. Cod will become a choked species, not a question of when or if. It will become a choked species, particularly in the northern North Sea and therefore a major issue for the Shetland and northeast fleets around our coast. The cabinet secretary needs to look at any measures that can mitigate against cod quota, tying boats up at the key, swaps with other EU states, and he may have hinted in that in his remarks at the introduction to this debate. The industry has also proposed technical measures. Those include real-time closed areas, but such a measure must apply to all boats. Otherwise, we know from experience that vessels from other EU member states and, indeed, Norway prosecute those areas when our boats are held out with them. That must be a new policy that covers all vessels fishing in this area, but it is a policy that works as much to commend it. I hope that the Government will take it forward in conjunction with other EU states and, indeed, with Norway. A 31 per cent cut in haddock is worrying too, but, certainly in the Shetland fleet context, vessels have not managed to take up their full quota allocation in 2018. Therefore, that cut may be balanced by changes elsewhere. There is a wider point about fisheries science that I want to reflect. I propose to the cabinet secretary that he sets up an independent scientific peer review system of the ICES advice. That would allow the Government to review fisheries data with specialist expert advice and construct long-term management plans just as Norway does. I know that his officials work closely with Norwegian colleagues on those points. The marine centre in Scalloway and Sands at Dunstaffanage both have scientific fisheries expertise, so why should our industry not benefit from that expertise and enhance the industry's scientific understanding? The new approach to science also needs to tackle the changes in the northern North Sea compared to the southern North Sea that the entire industry knows all too well about. Water temperature has had an impact on where stocks are thriving and indeed staying. Fisheries management needs to understand that. Secondly, I would beef up the Marine Scotland Observer programme on boats. Thirdly, I would suggest to the minister that the EMF funding, which has paid for the Scottish Fishermen's Federation Observer work, is maintained through the chaos of Brexit and whatever future will happen. We know that ICES science is not foolproof. No science ever can be, and to suggest it is not to understand the nature of science of fish. Read the EU-Norway agreement from Bergen, 2 December 2016. On Haddock, it was found that an ICES error had resulted in a 45 per cent cut in Haddock quarter at that time. That is what went through. My proposal would help to guard against such massive fluctuations by ensuring some peer review of this advice. It would allow fisheries management to verify the science and avoid those vast disruptions in the marketplace. What happened the year after 47 per cent had it cut? As the agreement shows, the quarter was increased by 27 per cent. Again, huge swings in tonnage landed. That, of course, does nothing for the processing sector or for the markets that we are seeking to supply. Avoiding such an approach would be in the long-term interests of science, in the long-term interests of stock management and, therefore, of the industry. It must make some sense. On Haddock, as the minister rightly mentioned, the EU-Norway has gone through five negotiating rounds this year, finally agreeing a 36 per cent cut in Herring quarter. Again, another huge variation. When mackerel is set to be cut by 20 per cent down from the 68 per cent cut, the scientists recommended it. Again, the peer review would help in this process, because, as the minister will well know, the scientific fish tagging programme has not worked as expected. It has not been able to prove the science as we would all wish. The Scottish Government was effective in those quarter negotiations, and I want to recognise and thank it for that. A 20 per cent cut is precautionary and is a better outcome, all but one that has consequences for the catching fleet and the processing industry of the stock that is the most important to the Scottish industry in terms of value. Finally, the EU-Ferial bilateral is happening as we debate this afternoon. It is not just about quarter share but about the access to UK waters. In this mackerel fishery, that means the Northern North Sea. The current arrangement is unacceptable to the industry, and I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government. I agreed with Peter Chapman's assessment of that process and the cabinet secretary's remarks earlier. 30 per cent of the Ferries mackerel quarter can be caught in our waters. Their boats catch more by volume in Shetland's coast layer than the Shetland fleet combined. I am sure that the Parliament can recognise that such a deal is hardly construed as equitable. That must change. I asked the cabinet secretary to make that argument and use that negotiating position next week in Brussels. Yes, Scotland gains some demersal access in ferries waters, some from the north-east and one vessel from Shetland. That value is but one-tenth of the pelagic gain for Ferro. As the cabinet secretary knows, that does indeed need to change. That is, Presiding Officer, a hugely important December fisheries council. The Scottish fishing industry needs to have successful outcomes, both to mitigate the proposals that are not based on solid science, and there are a few of those and to take a long-term perspective to stock management. The minister and his team certainly have my support in seeking to achieve those important objectives next week. That concludes our opening speeches. We will move into the open part of the debate just to let members know that there is plenty of time this afternoon. I want to call Stuart Stevenson to be called by Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I did a quick sum before coming down. I think that this is my 11th or 12th speech on the fisheries negotiations since coming here. But each year has its own individual temple and individual issues. The one thing that endures is that the fishermen's representatives, be it the SFF, the SPWFA or others, do not choose any political party. In fact, they want all of us to be their allies in the fisheries negotiation and throughout the year. I am certainly up for that. I first attended Fisheries Council as a batbencher with our shadow fisheries minister Richard Lockhead in 2002. It perfectly illustrated the issue in that the commissioner at that time was Franz Fischler from Austria, a country with no coast whatsoever and no interest whatsoever in the common fisheries policy. We met Maia Cuchna, who was his assistant and adviser. She was a lawyer, not a fishing scientist and not a fishing person. Does that neatly capture many of the problems of the way that Europe deals with fishing? It might also be as well to remind colleagues that the first and so far only debate that we have had in this Parliament on the SFF's sea of opportunity was one that I brought forward and received support from right across the chamber. We do not need to argue about whether we agree with the sea of opportunity. We clearly do, and we should not create false barriers that suggest anything other than that. Fishermen are, if there is anything, certainly hunters, but they are also conservationists because they know that, if they do not leave fishing the sea this year, they will be none there for them to hunt next year and for their sons and their grandsons and for their communities to hunt in the future. We should listen to our fishermen. The landing obligation in the form that has come from Europe has presented a substantial problem. We have heard reference to that already. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation in the briefing that they sent to me referred to choked species, and that is certainly a big issue. It is one that the Meetings of the Northeast Fisheries Development Partnership, which I attend pretty much all the time, missed one or two in the past 10 years or so. It comes up every single time and properly so. I just make the wee passing comment to what Peter Chapman said about business rates, that sea fish has briefed us and that shows that the rateable value per square foot in Peterhead is virtually the same as it is in Grimsby, and it is lower in Fraserba, and it is as well, to remember that there are more complex reasons for the structure of the industry, processing industry and what it is. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association, Peter Chapman, is quoted at length from his briefing, but the key point is that it now seems that other member states and third countries have exhausted their own stokes and are accroaching north. That is precisely the challenge that we have as the SWFPA highlight in the common fisheries policy, where we give away access and get very little in return. It also highlights the issue of non-European economic area crew, and I think that it is as well to just footnote that, once we leave the EU, that will potentially be an issue for crew who may come from the EU as well. Now that we have had mention of the new fish market at Peterhead, I was delighted to help the board with one of two issues that it had during its construction. It is something that I know of no one who is not supported. We are delighted to see the Duke of Rothsy up, not only to open it but also to sit down and see fish gutting and eat some of the wonderful fish that get landed at Peterhead and elsewhere. In 2017, I, of course, talked about 100 per cent control of a water out to 200 miles, and that is something that I continue to go for to this day. In 2016, I quoted myself, always a good source, to quote, when I in turn quoted from our European Committee in 2001, which said, we should speak with one voice, there is tensions that should be buried for the common good. I hope that that advice, all that time ago from our own parliamentary committee, will be something that we will continue to tack tent of. Jamie McGregor was here in 2015 and was always an excellent contributor to our debates. We talked about cod, and my favourite thing at the sea is cod rows, so I hope that we come on to that. In 2014, the pharaohs were being talked about then. Of course, the difficulty with the pharaohs is that the pharaohs can kind his weight because, with the change in temperature, the fish move north into their waters. Negotiations of the pharaohs are always going to be difficult, but they need to be prosecuted with considerable vigour. In 2006, I said, we need a successful, sustainable industry. We may differ in the route to that about some of the difficulties that we face in delivering that. It could be said today, it could be said every year. I talked in 2004 about ISIS. It is well-remembered that ISIS has been around for more than 100 years. It is an important source of information about the stocks and one that we should depend on. We have heard a suggestion from Tanish Scott that it should be peer reviewed. I think that it probably is, but you can never over peer review, so I have some sympathy with what he says. Let me just close by saying that it is an important industry. Nearly 5,000 people are employed on Scottish-based vessels, but many, many more onshore depend on the industry. Of course, we have to learn from the Scottish Government's experience over the years of sitting outside the chamber that you can still influence what happens inside the council chamber. I hope that the UK Government next year will not go there too pessimistic as they are outside the core decision making, but work with the Scottish Government as they always have done to reasonable, if not perfect, effect and learn how to manage things and get what we need when we are not actually sitting in the council chamber. Edward Mountain, followed by Alasdair Allan, and Mr Mountain, did he fast yourself? You can have up to seven minutes, even a wee bit more this time in hand. You are so generous, thank you. Another year end and another annual debate on next year's European fishing quotas. This year's EU-Norway talks on proposed fishing quotas will worry Scottish fishermen. There are proposed reductions in total allowable catch for mackerel, North Sea cod and haddock, as we have heard. While most of this mainly is the result of scientific evidence, the result on some of the fish catches seems to fall particularly hard on Scottish fishermen. Those are the key commercial stocks and the coupled with the landing obligations promise to make this next year a tough year for our fishing industry. Once again, we could see our fishermen when they reached their quota limit, having to hang up their nets and see millions of fish either landed by foreign vessels or go uncawed. Given all that is going on at the moment, as the cabinet secretary hinted to, it is perhaps unreasonable for us to expect the EU to give particular respect to our fishermen. I am not surprised, for one, that the EU-27 will negotiate for the EU-27. However, we know that in future years, this will change. Let me be clear that Scottish fishermen want nothing more than for the UK to leave the hated common fisheries policies and for the UK to take its place in an independent coastal state. The cabinet secretary knows and has acknowledged that. When the UK has the power to negotiate our own fishing quotas, we have the potential to stop bad deals that are presented to us by the EU. When the UK sits at the table, it will be able to strike the bilateral deal with Norway on the northern north sea, on the traipartite deal with the EU and Norway on the southern sea. I believe that those deals will better serve the interests of Scottish fishermen. That is why I welcome the UK fisheries bill, which even the cabinet secretary has begrudgingly described as having broadly positive outcomes. There is every reason for this SNP Government to welcome the bill. This Parliament will receive more powers to regulate sea fisheries resources, to protect the marine environment, which we have heard from Mark Ruskell, is so important. I am disappointed that your amendment is such that it limited the tracking to Scottish vessels. If it had gone wider than that, I feel that there would have been a measure of support from the side of the chamber. It will also give the Scottish Government the ability to issue licences to boats that fish in waters controlled by Scotland. I would like to take a moment to remind the Scottish Government how unfair the common fisheries policy is. On average, EU vessels landed £540 million worth of fish in UK waters between 2012 and 2016. By comparison, UK vessels landed £110 million worth of fish in the same period in EU waters. That, to me, does not seem right and equitable. We should not allow our fishermen to be shortchanged. Quotas and access rights will still be a central part of UK fisheries, but the UK will have a duty to get a best deal for our fishermen. We have a duty to ensure that our quotas and access rights reflect sustainable goals so that the UK fishing industry as a whole can have a secure future for generations to come. Cabinet Secretary, we do not need scientists to tell us that fish are not fixated on borders. They are not Scottish, English, Northern Irish or Welsh, which is why the UK is the best place to ensure that we co-operate within the UK with others to ensure that the sustainable stocks are kept for the future. Co-operation should not come at the cost of securing the best deal for the UK, which is something that we need to strive to in the future. As a final point, I would like to welcome the UK Government's announcement. Mr Chapman pointed out that an additional £37.2 million of extra funding to strengthen the UK fishing industry, which comes on top of the commitment to match the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. I believe that a sea of opportunity awaits our fishing industry, and the Government is determined to help fishermen to seize it. The rural coastline communities in the Highlands and Islands, in areas that the Cabinet Secretary and I both represent, know that this opportunity is coming. Any attempts to frustrate our exit from the common fisheries policy would be more than an insult to those communities. Every year, when we have this debate, I am struck by how the UK fishing fleet is being held back by the EU. If we stay within the EU, nothing will change. Our fishermen do not want that, the country does not want that, and it is time to respect the fact that now is the time to ditch the common fisheries policy. You did not even use extra time. I cannot please you no matter what I do, Mr Mountain. I call Alasdair Allan to be followed by Claudia Beamish, Mr Allan. As others have mentioned, the European Fisheries Talks this year has been somewhat overshadowed by European negotiations of a different kind and by the toxic fallout from tonight's vote or rather the lack of a vote in another place. However, that does not make the Fisheries Talks any less important to fishing communities. However, that said, it simply makes it impossible to talk about them this year without mentioning Brexit, so I am not going to go through the motions of trying not to speak about Brexit. Amid all the on-going absurdities, some of them were referred to by Stuart Stevenson, the absurdities of Austria and Luxembourg having votes in the EU Fisheries Council, but Scotland not, or the fact that Scotland and its elected Parliament are being given no direct say over the direction of fishing post-Brexit. What should unite this Parliament, and others have said it, is our determination to get the best possible deal from the talks, both for the Scottish fishing industry and for the environment. The Prime Minister is still determined, as far as anyone can now really tell, to present a choice to fishermen between her deal and no deal. In the case of the former scenario, we now know that the UK itself is volunteering to give up the voting rights that it now has to influence the process when it comes to fishing. Meanwhile, our fishing industry will only benefit from zero tariffs if an EU-UK fisheries agreement has been reached that includes arrangements on access to waters and fishing opportunities. For the no deal option, I can but quote Lewis MacMillan, who catches prawns in Loch Fyne. If there is a line-up of lorries at the border because of Brexit, you will be in trouble. The prawns need to make it to Europe alive. If there is no agreement on fishing access and shares, trade on those products will remain out with the customs union or out with the customs territory and subject to WTO tariffs. The national coordinator of the Scottish Cruel Fishermen's Federation, Alistair Sinclair, said that tariffs would hurt our margins and profitability and would dismantle 20 years of perfecting the current system overnight. There is the additional worry of what Brexit potentially means for the supply of a fish processing workforce. I visited McDuff, Shellfish and Stornoway earlier in the year and that point was made very clear to me indeed. As a related aside, the UK Government's hostility to a concessionary visa scheme for non-EEA workers could also have Labour implications for fishing boat crewing, a point in which Baratlantic, which is limited in the Isle of Barra in my constituency, has made forcefully to me as well. However, all those problems and many others make the case, I believe, for listening to what the European courts said yesterday and start to accept that no deal and the Prime Minister's deal are not the only two options available. As things stand, the UK Government's deal and statement do not provide any hard terms or agreements for fishing rights in the future. It stated that the UK and EU intend to reach a fisheries deal by July 2020 in anticipation of our will. Edward Mountain. I thank the member for taking an intervention. What it did say in the judgment that we would have to rejoin under the same terms and conditions, does that mean that we do not have to, in your opinion, go back under the common fisheries policy or do we have to go back because it is a current term and condition? Alasdair Allan. Obviously, if we choose not to leave the European Union, then the court case makes clear that we would stay in on our current terms. I have never expressed any affection for the European common fisheries policy on that one thing. We can probably agree, but I think that the court ruling was pretty unambiguous that we would stay in on our current terms. However, what I want to say is that they have stated that the UK and EU intend to reach a fisheries deal by July 2020 in anticipation of the transition deals expiry. I am assuming for the moment that the UK Government still thinks that there is going to be a transition period, but many fishermen worry that those vague provisions mean that the UK Government intends to forfeit access to British fishing territories to EU nations in exchange for an EU trade deal. It is understandable why they might have those fears. It is against this chaotic backdrop that the present… Yes, I will, yes. Peter Chapman. The unit accepts that we have made it abundant to clear every opportunity, every occasion that we will not link access to our waters to the market for fish in Europe. We have said it and we have said it again. Alasdair Allan. I certainly think that there is room for more than some ambiguity about that one, because it has been made abundantly clear in the political declaration in the wording of that that there does appear to be a link being made. As far as I can see, the UK Government has already agreed that future agreement will cover access to UK and Scottish water and shares. There are many unanswered questions about that, and it is a significant concession on the UK Government's part to indicate that access and shares will, to some degree, be traded away before annual coastal state negotiations take place. Presiding Officer, there is a great deal that is wrong with the EU common fisheries policy. I do not think that many of us would dispute that, but the worst thing wrong with it is that Scotland has had no hand in shaping it because we have left that matter to the UK, whose Governments have consistently mishandled its development to the point where they now seem willing to trade away even their own limited influence over it. Make no mistake, Theresa May's withdrawal agreement prepares the ground for a betrayal of our fishing communities and our fishing interests, and the Tories look likely to sell out our fishing communities. If I may have a moment to direct some of my fire away from the Conservatives, can I say that it is of equally little use for anyone to tell fishermen that it will all be sorted out by a future UK Government at an unspecified date in an unspecified way? The Scottish Government has not been clear what we want. For fishing communities, as much as for anyone else, other parties now need to start telling us what their policy is for the future of Europe. All parties must come off the fence about what those options are and what options they are prepared to pursue. As we have seen, empty gestures on that are not enough. I have now lost count of the number of times that the Secretary of State for Scotland has threatened to resign from his sinecure if the UK does not leave the common fisheries policy by December 2020, something that is not guaranteed by the withdrawal agreement or by the political declaration. He threatened to resign if any agreement introduced different arrangements for Northern Ireland, which that agreement does. Despite the Tories' bluster, we can see where fishing features in the UK Government's priorities. The remark leaked from them on 22 November described fishing as a low priority for the UK Government in leaving the EU. Just as in 1970, they described it as expendable on the way into the EU. Scotland's fishermen can be assured that the Scottish Government will fight their corner in Europe, while the UK Government will fight nobody but themselves. The turmoil around Brexit will be deeply concerning to many people who live and work around our coast and are involved in not only the fishing industry itself, but in processing, in transport, in wholesale and retail. That makes the Scottish Government's role all the more important in this year's council, providing a steer clear we hope for a future industry that is sustainable regardless of the EU exit outcome. I am very pleased to speak in the debate and to approach it in the main from a perspective of my brief as spokesperson for Scottish Labour for environment and climate change. I thank Go to Open Seas, the Marine Conservation Society, RSPB Scotland and Scottish Wildlife Trust for their helpful input into preparing for the debate. Like many across the chamber, I feel very firmly that sustainable fishing makes for a sustainable industry and makes for sustainable communities as well. Coastal communities can, and often are, be fragile communities and economies and depend very much on those negotiations and the Scottish Government direction. They must be given certainty of science and the tools to fish appropriately in their local marine environments and more widely. The marine environment is indeed precious, but its vulnerability can be forgotten or even misunderstood by the public and even sometimes by us policy makers because it is very difficult to see with our own eyes. The way to really sustain communities is to manage ecosystems that enable productivity now and in the future. It is a sensible option. Everyone wins with clean, healthy seas. This time last year, the cabinet secretary assured the chamber that, I quote, one of the Scottish Government's key negotiating principles is to follow the best scientific advice. Tavish Scott's amendment today recognises that same importance, not least in relation to climate change and its effect on changing fish shoals and migration. Given the welcome commitment by the cabinet secretary, can he comment on the lack of stock assessment for species for which it has sole responsibility? What plans does the Scottish Government have to gather that data for species such as scallops so that it can truly say that it acts on sound science? Scallops, of course, have been in the news recently with the alleged illegal dredging in Westeros and elsewhere. It only takes one boat wrongfully dredging through an important habitat that can cause decades' worth of damage in just a few hours. I welcome the Government's condemnation of the reports, but the solution has been raised a number of times, including in these yearly debates of which I may not have taken part in 12, like my colleague Stuart Stevenson, but now six. Vessel monitoring systems are being demanded by the industry and environmentalists in relation to MPAs and inshaw fisheries. My thanks to the cabinet secretary for his answer in the chamber last week, citing that £1.5 million of investment in tracking and monitoring technology will be available. Not only will that help a level of monitoring to prevent unwelcome transgressions, it will allow Scottish leadership in verifying the quality and sustainability of our produce. However, Scottish Labour would need more details of funding arrangements, more widely, for vessels in order to be able to support the green amendment today. Given that licences will be reissued in January, now seems like the time to make changes in this area, so we are not having the same conversations that we have had in previous years in next years' debate. The chamber is well aware that Scotland has a vast coastline and is naturally suited to a thriving fishing industry, and as such receives the majority of the UK's quota allocation, but a third of that quota is allocated to just five operators. I understand that some of this means landings of fish to foreign ports. That does not seem like the furthest arrangement of what is a public resource, and there should be ways to direct fishing licences to smaller boats and fleets with a more direct local connection, as my colleague Rhoda Grant has highlighted. To consolidate that, while true that it provides a number of jobs both direct and indirect, has meant that smaller fishing fleets and harbours can struggle to compete. What consideration has the cabinet secretary given to the issue of marine resource inequity, which Scottish Labour's amendment highlights and Rhoda Grant's points about public ownership and local authority ownership as leasing models? Our Scottish Labour amendment today also highlights the importance of new entrants to the range of fisheries. Choke species remain a difficult issue that requires some inventiveness in their solution. The landing obligation is a positive step towards reducing waste, bettering selectivity of catches and ensuring that there is a degree of accountability. Fishermen have made excellent progress with fishing strategies and technological advances to play their part, but there are unresolved issues with certain choke species. In smaller ports, there is no market for those species, caught by accident, and fishermen in those circumstances need proper advice and guidance from the Scottish Government. It was welcome that the Government guaranteed the funding for projects under the European Maritime Fisheries Fund in 2016, but the 29 March is drawing near. That fund is immensely important in supporting fishermen in transition to sustainable fishing, diversifying coastal economies as necessary and improving the quality of life of coastal communities, while also protecting our marine environment and the loss of the fund would be immense, not least in terms of the support that it can offer to training of workforces for processing and also for new vessels for this and the younger generation coming forward for fisheries to prepare them to fish sustainably in the future. Can the cabinet secretary offer any assurance that this will continue to be replicated, although I hear comments from others in the chamber today. In the end, I wish the cabinet secretary well on behalf of Scottish Labour in the council to liberations, which will be so important for underpinning the future, whatever that may be. The first time that I took part in this end-of-term December debate on the fisheries negotiations was in 2006, when I came into this Parliament. At that time, Ross Finney was the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Rona Brancann was his deputy. At that time, negotiations could and would go straight up to the wire on Christmas Eve, and I mentioned that I hope that Ross Finney had done his Christmas shopping already, or was he intending to try and get some time in Brussels to do it. Rona Brancann mowed across the chamber that she would probably be doing his Christmas shopping, and I thought that that was above and beyond the duties of the junior minister. I see Mary Gougeon turning round to me. Yes, Mary, you might want to check your job description. However, over the past 12 years, we have seen the nature of the talks change from being about maximum catch as possible to sustainability and a much wider focus on the wide variety of species. Sustainability of fish stocks is key to the long-term viability of the industry, and because international negotiations seem to be stretched out over a wider number of months, we do not seem to be in the same position of going up to the wire as was the norm previously. Throughout these 12 years, we have seen an increasing focus on discards and now the issue of choked species. I am pleased that, as an industry, there is now a better understanding of the work of ICs and an overall monitoring of fish stocks. I welcome the much better collaboration over information of the state of the fish stocks rather than the reliance on anecdotal evidence. The Tories might want to reflect on the fact that the total allowable catch applies to all EU members. It is the divvying up of that is what there are arguments about. Presiding Officer, it is inevitable that, as this year's debate goes on, the subject will be dominated by Brexit and the shambles that it is. The power grab from this place by Westminster over fisheries is a complete affront to democracy, and yet another sign of the contempt that the Westminster Government has to devolution of power to the Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and the consequences thereof. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has written to the UK Government about our fishing fleets ask of those negotiations. The Scottish Government's amendments that we wish to see of the Westminster Fisheries Bill are wrong to say that the sale of fish is not linked up, why on earth did the UK Government put aquaculture into the fisheries bill. Despite the so-called red lines of the CFP, the ardent Brexiteers, as we all know, the fishing industry is always the least important to Westminster when deals must be done. We know that fishing is less important to Westminster than the financial sector, the car industry and virtually every other industry. Very little is said about our fish processing industry, and it is the most important industry in the world. It is the most important industry about our fish processing industry and its needs. Although the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is very vocal about the big boys in the fishing industry and the fishing catching sector, little is heard about those vessels under 10 metres who fish nearer to our coastlines and the very valuable shellfish industry, both of which are vital to so many of our coastal communities. Presiding Officer, I have a number of fish processing industries in my constituency. This is where the importance of the amount of landings in Scotland is really important, as well as the catch that Claudia Beamish mentioned. Some of those in my constituency have benefited from EU grants to expand, and all of them have a reliance on Eastern European labour, and how the UK, even before the leaving date, has become such a deeply hostile environment rather than the welcoming country that we want to see on those benches, really has been so sad to watch. It also threatens the whole viability of the processing industry. I am deeply worried about their vital markets on the continent and, most importantly, how those customers will be accessed, as if it looks like lorries will be backed up at the channel ports. That is why I support Angus Macdonald and Douglas Chapman and others who want to get the ferry from Rezaith to Zebrooka up and running again as soon as possible. Our seafood products from Scotland are really valued in Europe. Anyone who has been at the huge seafood exhibition on the continent can testament to that. The Scottish stand is a must-see, and the seafood stand is a go-to destination. That is why, cabinet secretary, I was pleased to see that you put amendments on the seafood levies in the fisheries bill. That definitely needs amending, too. I will take no lessons from the Tories on fishing. I am old enough to remember and have been active in politics since the 1970s. The SNP vehemently fought against the sell-out of the industry then. You might well want to listen. I recall taking part in a blockade of fishing vessels of Aberdeen. Excuse me a minute, Ms Watt. I cannot hear anything because of what you are saying. If you would just stop, I would like to hear you, Ms Watt. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remember taking part in the blockade of Aberdeen harbour of fishing vessels right across the harbour. I cannot recall any Scottish Tories being there as Ted Heath sold out the industry. The SNP's long-standing and well-known view is that the common fisheries policy has been damaging to Scotland's fishing industry. We have continually argued that it is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped or substantially reformed. Our 27 manifesto pledged to continue to work for withdrawal from the Scottish fisheries policy. In 2011, our manifesto stated that the common fisheries policy was well passed its sell-by-date. It was very telling that David Mundell was in Peterhead yesterday to try and show up that last remaining pocket of support in the north-east, as elsewhere folks are seeing the Brexit shambles for what it is. They, along with the people in the north-east, will never forgive the Tories for the shambles and very sorry episode of Brexit. I remind members that there is extra time if you need to take it. Finlay Carson, followed by Angus MacDonald and Mr Carson, please. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate at such a crucial time for the Scottish fishing fleet. Although fishing might only represent a small percentage of our overall gross domestic product, there are around 4,800 fishers employed on Scottish vessels, not to mention the thousands of businesses that rely on fishing in many communities right across Scotland and our United Kingdom. Fishing is vital for our rural communities and the economy. Fishing is indeed greatly responsible for keeping the lights on on many of our coastal communities right around Scotland. When I closed for the Scottish Conservatives in this debate in 2016, there were 2,033 active fishing vessels in Scotland, but a year later, that had gone up to 2,065, showing clearly how the industry is thriving. Representing Galloway and Western Fries, I am acutely aware of the challenges that they face and how we must protect their interests as we leave the European Union. Indeed, my constituency is home to the UK's largest scallop port at Curcubrie, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay my thanks to her fishermen locally who work tirelessly, often putting their lives at risk all year round, sometimes in the most horrendous conditions. Indeed, as I said in the debate last time round, it is often only when tragedy hits that we highlight the importance of the fishing industry, and sadly many of my constituents have experienced that when individuals have been lost, their boats have failed to return to port, such as the Solway harvester in the Marielle from Curcubrie. The scallop sector generates £40 million a year for the fishing sector. Sadly, this sector is coming under increasing pressure and criticism from organisations such as the Green NGOs regarding illegal fishing in areas that are currently close to fishing, which most recently have been mentioned in Garelock. The industry must not be allowed to be tainted by the actions of the few. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association wrote to the minister, given that they have 30 scallop vessels in their membership, and asking that he controls those rogue vessels by introducing vessel positioning monitoring systems on board all vessels irrespective of length. Two other members have already raised the issue. The culprits are less than 10 metres long and land relatively few scallops. They are having a significant negative impact on the sector, giving anti- scallop dredging organisations the opportunity to attack the sector at large, especially on social media. Currently, it is only the larger vessels that are committed to vessel positioning monitoring as a condition of the licence. The minister is committed to introducing such equipment in all scallop vessels, but has set a time frame of 2020. That is simply not good enough. We need it to make a condition of the licence at the earliest possible opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot support Mark Ruskell's amendment, because it only refers to Scottish boats. We would like to see all vessels fitted with those devices, and Marine Scotland possesses the force through its licensing to do just that. Given that the SWFPA has written to the cabinet secretary, Anne Rosanna Cunningham, the cabinet secretary for environment, requesting immediate action over the introduction of robust positioning monitoring equipment on all scallop vessels irrespective of size, perhaps the cabinet secretary in the summing up can indicate what action he intends to take and when. The industry needs the support of the Scottish Government. This time last year, I was hugely concerned at the lack of urgency from the Scottish Government when it came to supporting our Scottish scallop industry regarding new proposals from the Isle of Man Government. Despite me highlighting the early concerns of the Cucubrie fishermen in August 2017 that the boats were potentially facing daily catch limits and having to report to the Isle of Man ports daily, the cabinet secretary initially appeared not to take the concerns seriously. I had raised the issue with the minister, urging him to stand up to the man's government and defend the interests of fishermen in the south-west, but it was not until it was raised sometime in December that the position was sorted out. I really must correct the member's assertion that it is simply not correct that I did take action swiftly and expeditiously, and that action ultimately was successful. I agree that his intervention was eventually successful, but the issue was first raised in August before action was taken. We need to protect the fishermen that fish within their regulations to ensure sustainability. We have 482,000 square kilometres in our EEZ. This morning, the A-Claire meeting Calum Duncan, who I think is still in the chamber, told us that Scotland has five, six sea and has 20 per cent of the total coastline of Europe. However, we only have two marine protection vessels. I would suggest that that needs to be addressed. Also, a huge and significant to the Scottish scallop fleet is the importance of barrier fee trade. As a significant volume of shellfish, 85 per cent is exported to the EU market. For example, our west coast sea products base in Cacubrae is a fine example exporting to France, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland, Holland and Germany. I welcome the announcement this week from the UKF Government that when new fishing arrangements are put in place, increased funding for the fishing industry is going to be around £16 million. Since the vote to leave the European Union in June 2016, the debate has certainly taken place in a different context for our fishing industry. It is upon us on the benches that throughout the negotiations we have stood up for our interests and made the commitment to leave the common fisheries policy, which has been hated so long by our fishermen. I was pleased to sign the pledge from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation committing to leaving the CFP by December 2020 and enabling the UK and Scottish fishermen to have complete control over our waters. I might have voted to remain in 2016's referendum when it comes to fishermen and our fisheries that I recognise the sea of opportunity that leaving the European Union can bring to this specific industry. Not only will we given powers back to our coastal communities, but we can follow the very highest standard of marine conservation. As a member of the Parliament's Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, as well as my party's spokesman in the natural environment, I am fully committed to ensure the highest level of standards that are scientifically met. At possibly the most important time ever for our fishermen, I am proud to be standing up for them at every opportunity. We must ensure that we get the best deal next week from what will be the last under the current arrangements, and we must deliver for our fishermen in the future outside the common fisheries policy. Failure to do anything else will be a complete betrayal of our fishermen. Thank you very much, Mr Carson. I call Angus MacDonald to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Mr MacDonald, please. Okay, thanks, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to speak in this afternoon's annual debate on sea fisheries and the end-of-year negotiations. I joined Claudia Beamish in contributing to this debate for the sixth year running. Clearly Scotland is blessed with enormous natural resources and our seas are part of that resource, and they play a vital part in providing our coastal communities, among others, with employment and an economy that supports their livelihoods. It is therefore important that we have the opportunity to influence and participate in any process that could affect the operation of our fishing industry in order to protect the industry, the jobs that it supports, and to ensure that we can sustainably develop the industry's reliant on sea fisheries. Of course, as we have heard today, it would be impossible to contribute to this debate without facing the calamity that is Brexit. Thanks to Brexit, this is probably the last December council that the Scottish Government will participate in. Then again, maybe it is not. We will clearly all have to wait and see what develops in the madness of Brexit land, but there is one constant among all the upheaval and turmoil, and that is that the Scottish Government has been clear that it will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the interests of our marine industries and our coastal communities. Scotland's interests must be protected and that means that the UK Government has to make arrangements that will do just that. Clearly, as we have already heard, the best way to achieve this is to ensure that membership of the single market and customs union is retained, although ideally being out of the common fisheries policy. Of course, there is a risk that the UK Government would be willing to enter into negotiations where it would simply look to bargain away the livelihoods of these communities. A move that would render all trust and credibility in its own arguments redundant, not that there is much credibility, if any, left in them, given yesterday's fiasco. Moving on from Brexit, although I cannot promise that I will not refer to it later, it is crucial that sustainability is built into Scotland's fisheries going forward, irrespective of the shape Scotland's future relationship with the EU takes. I was shocked to see footage recently of alleged scalloped dredging in a protected area near Oben a couple of weeks ago. The actions of a few chancers are simply unacceptable not to mention illegal, and I would hope that Marine Scotland will be able to identify the perpetrators if they have not already and throw the book at them if they are found guilty. However, those issues are an example of the need to modernise the fishing industry, in particular through ensuring, as I have called for in previous speeches, the fitting of vessel monitoring systems to all boats, that full documentation is in place, including the use of remote electronic monitoring, and that Marine Scotland compliance is sufficiently resourced to enable effective enforcement. Those measures are key to ensuring that our fisheries are sustainable and to clamping down on rogue and illegal activities in inshore protected areas. I look forward to supporting Mark Ruskell's amendment calling for the use of robust vessel tracking and monitoring technology on all Scottish fishing vessels, but I tend to have some sympathy with Edward Mountain, which does not happen often, with his suggestion that Mark Ruskell's amendment could have gone that bit further and apply not just to Scottish vessels. It is encouraging to say the least that the Scottish Government takes enforcement of fisheries management and protection of the marine environment seriously, and I welcome the Scottish Government's £1.5 million investment in fishing vessel tracking and monitoring technology that was announced in October, as well as the fact that enhanced electronic monitoring for higher-risk vessels operating near sensitive areas is coming in next year, and the tracking of vessels under 12 metres will be introduced from 2020. I can understand the concerns about the costs, but I think that Mark Ruskell said that it would be around £3,500, which should be available from the EMF fund or its successor, but that is if there is a successor to the EMF fund. We still do not know if that is the case. As we move forward into what is effectively the unknown, it is crucial that we protect Scotland's interests in all areas, including our marine industries. That includes finding practical and workable solutions to issues such as the choked species. With the west of Scotland cod and whiting being one of the most significant challenges when it comes to choked under the landing obligation, it is imperative that solutions to control fishing mortality are in place, giving the stock a chance to recover. Further, ensuring that those solutions are simple and manageable and allow our fishing freaks to fish other species while encouraging adjustment in their practices. Our seafood industry is remarked upon across the globe. Fisher landed on our shores and, within a matter of hours, have transported to the far reaches of Europe and beyond, building on the reputation of Scotland's produce being of the very highest quality. One of the largest markets of our seafood is, of course, southern Europe, and undoubtedly the biggest challenge to this is Brexit and the concerns that our fishermen and processors will be unable to get their produce to the markets on mainland Europe in time. Obviously, those issues are still up in the air at the moment and, for the sake of trading agreements, it really is an uncertain time for industries across the country, not only the fishing industry but the marine industries as a whole. The UK Government cannot be allowed to sacrifice our fishing industry as it would appear to be prepared to do. From the clear betrayal of our fishing communities, contained within the Prime Minister's widely panned withdrawal agreement, to the potential to further gamble away access rights to our waters and that there is a transition that will keep us in the CFP for the foreseeable future, we must consider every option available to us. That must include the ability to choose a different path ourselves and negotiate on our own behalf in order to protect our industries and the communities that are reliant on them. In closing, I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government is focused on securing the best possible deal for next year's fishing opportunities while continuing to make the voices of those communities heard to the UK Government when it comes to sensible solutions to issues such as choked species. Although my constituency is little in the way of fishing communities none, it has restaurants and food processing businesses who rely on those industries for employment, and I am confident that the Scottish Government has our best interests at heart heading into those negotiations with such wide-reaching impacts. I wish the Scottish Government success in Brussels. I call Lewis MacDonald, followed by yet another Gordon MacDonald, three MacDonalds in a row—we couldn't ask for more. Lewis MacDonald, please. Indeed, Presiding Officer, that at least is a good, auspicious sign for the minister's trip to Brussels, if he has so many MacDonalds behind him. Annual rituals, of course, have their place even in a Parliament, and one thing we know for sure is that this annual fisheries debate is going to be with us one way or another for a long time to come. Stuart Stevenson reminded us not only of how often he has taken part, but even of what he had to say, and a number of other members have done something similar today. However, in just the same way, we cannot wish away the reality of our geography, a large island in the midst of many smaller islands, surrounded in turn by the rich fishing waters of the northeast Atlantic and the North Sea. Fishing vessels from these islands and from neighbouring continental coasts have fished in each other's waters for half a millennium, and we know that that will continue for as long as there are fish in the sea. As the cabinet secretary reminded us, our nearest northern neighbours, the Faro Islands, are in the midst of their annual round of fishery negotiations, even as we speak. This year's talks between the European Union and Norway staggered to an inconclusive close towards the end of last week. As indeed Fergus Ewing said, there are just the same challenges and frustrations in those negotiations with independent coastal states as there are in the discussions among EU member states in Brussels. What the fishing industry in Scotland and the other countries of the United Kingdom want to know is on what basis future negotiations will be conducted between the representatives of these islands and those representing neighbouring countries. At the moment, Scottish ministers and industry representatives sit on the European Union side of the table in these discussions. The question is whether that is going to change, if so, when, and at that point, what difference will it actually make. In October, as no doubt many other members have done, I had the opportunity to visit the fantastic new fish market at Peterhead. I was introduced to many fishermen and fish merchants and processors by Jimmy Bucking in his role as chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association. I have no doubt the secretary of state for Scotland and even Mr Chapman will have heard much the same mix of views as I did when they visited Peterhead yesterday and met Mr Bucking. I have no doubt, too, that the cabinet secretary and all those members who engage with the fishing industry will recognise them, too. Fishermen in the north-east believe that there may be a CEO of opportunity ahead, but the outlook is shrouded in a fog of uncertainty. Any skipper will tell you that the responsible behaviour in fog is to proceed towards your destination but to do so with caution and an awareness of the risks that a false turn or a loss of concentration may bring. Fish buyers and processors are much more aware of the risks than many catchers are, because they know how much their sector has to lose. They do not blame the catching sector for opposing explicit linkage between fishing opportunities and export opportunities far from it, but processors feel just as strongly that their sector's interests in unfettered access to EU markets should be protected as well. As both Fergus Ewing and Tavish Scott said, this year's negotiation poses some difficult challenges, particularly because of the extension of the landing obligation and the impact of that on choked species. Those challenges will not disappear if we leave the EU. Our obligation to protect fish stocks for future generations will continue to apply no matter which part of which table ministers sit at. Much of the uncertainty for the period in which current talks cover is about the proposed transition period, because that is currently scheduled to run from 29 March 2019 until the end of 2020. Beyond that, there is further uncertainty around the proposed backstop agreement on Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the political declaration that the EU-27 has accepted as the basis for future UK-EU relations. If no long-term agreement has been reached by two years from now, then either the transitional arrangements will be extended or the backstop arrangements will come into force. Either way, there will be implications for Scottish fisheries. Britain leaves the table of the European Fisheries Council if and when it leaves the European Union. However, the British fishing effort in quotas will continue to be subject to European rules during the transition period. The longer a transition period continues, the longer it will be until Scottish and UK ministers are able to negotiate on their own behalf with third parties and with the EU itself. In the meantime, we will have to follow EU rules and allow the European Union, which we will have just left, to negotiate with other neighbouring states on our behalf. The alternative to an extended transition period may be the Northern Ireland backstop, which envisages the UK remaining inside the customs area of the European Union until a permanent solution to the Irish border question is found. For the avoidance of doubt, the protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland explicitly excludes trade in both wild and farmed fish from the rules governing the single customs territory unless or until the UK, as an independent coastal state, reaches a comprehensive fisheries agreement with the European Union, including agreements on access to each other's waters and fishing opportunities. The fog of uncertainty is not going to clear any time soon. We do not know what the Prime Minister hopes to bring back from her European tour, but we know that, after the fog has cleared, we will still be obliged to sit down with Norway, Iceland and the pharaohs and, indeed, with the member states of the European Union to agree how to secure a sustainable future for fisheries in the seas around us. We need, as Tavish Scott said, to have confidence in the science and then to apply it. Whether in or out of the European Union, in or out of the common fisheries policy, fishing effort and economic benefits will still depend on the health of the seas and on catches, which must be based on scientific assessments of future sustainability, and those assessments must, in turn, be as reliable as possible. Those, Presiding Officer, are the realities for the whole sector, inshore and deep sea, catching and processing, and we will lose sight of those realities at our peril. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who serve in committees who have an interest in the fishing industry for giving me this opportunity to speak on the fishing industry. As a member of the economy committee, I understand that the Scottish fishing industry is a significantly valuable sector of our economy. The number of active fishing vessels registered in Scotland was 2,065 at the end of 2017, representing an increase of 32 vessels or 2 per cent of the fleet. Their catch consisted of demersal species, including haddock and cod, totaling 102,000 tonnes landed by Scottish vessels, pelagic species covering herring and mackerel had 301,000 tonnes landed in 2017, and shellfish landings represented 62,000 tonnes. Together in 2017, the value of Scottish landings was over £560 million. The strength that the Scottish industry now enjoys is down to the determined efforts from those in the industry itself. However, the support from the Scottish Government over the years has and will continue to be crucial in building and sustaining its success. As this year's council could be the last diva that Scotland participates in, we want our fishermen, processors and fishing communities to be in no doubt that Scotland's Government and Parliament will be doing everything we can to champion their interests and fight their corner in these vital coming weeks. The cabinet secretary has indicated that at the end of year negotiations are complex, and therefore, with my depth of knowledge in the subject, I will take this opportunity to highlight the concerns of Scottish fishermen and processors. Unfortunately, the fishermen of Scotland believe that they are being sold down the river by the UK Government. Theresa May's withdrawal agreement prepares the ground for a betrayal of our fishing industries, and the Tories look likely to sell out fishing communities once again. Recent newspaper reports stated that, at Peterhead fish market, there was widespread confusion, no thank you, and fear among skippers and buyers about what the futures hold. One fish trader from Aberdeen was buying up boxes of cod, collie and hake, destined for bologna and dinner plates across France. He said, they're saying, here we go again, sold down the river. People are just so fed up of it, sick of it, they don't know which way to turn. We're getting empty promises from Theresa May, who isn't strong enough. He continued, I'm devastated. We had a situation where we were told it would be sorted in two years. We accepted that, and now we don't know what's going to happen. We just want clarity. Fishing leaders fear the UK Government or in the brink of signing a Brexit deal linking access to fishing waters to trade. It would mean UK fishermen regaining control of their waters, but seeing huge tariffs slapped on fish sold through Europe. The co-ordinator of the Scottish Creel Fisherman's Federation blasted, I really wouldn't trust the Tories as far as I could throw them. Whenever it comes to fishing, it's always been a sacrificial lamb. He said, we rely on a smooth transportation of live shellfish into Europe until such times as we get clarification that it's going to continue. We still have a huge uncertainty out there. We have huge worries. We are small individual fishermen working from creeks on the east and west coast. I haven't been encouraged with the negotiations that I've been made aware of so far. Seafood Ecos said that seafood processors needed to be able to employ EU labour and to be able to ship fish quickly to vital markets in France and Spain. He said, we're having fish here today, which is in France tomorrow, but from the French side, I'm hearing there could be delays of 48 hours going through customs control. That would be devastating for this industry. That uncertainty continued yesterday morning when David Mundell was in Peterhead. The Scottish Secretary spoke with the fisherman and told him about the vote that was going to take place this week, only for the fisherman to discover what must have been a mortifyingly short number of moments later that there would be no vote this week. The Scottish fishermen have absolutely no reason to trust the UK Government when, at every turn, they have sold them down the river. They were told that fishing quotas would be a red line for the UK Government. That line disappeared quicker than a Brexit secretary at a cabinet meeting. David Mundell vowed to resign if the UK stayed tied to EU fishing policies and quotas, yet he remains in post, despite a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit, leaving fishermen worse off. Fishing is important to our economy and we can't trust the UK Government, so the Scottish Government should represent the industry in Europe in future talks. I see, as we move to the last open debate speaker, that he is not here. You are not on my list, Mr Halcro Johnston. There has obviously been a change. Hold on till I correct it. I am terribly glad that you are here. I have wasted quite a bit of time, and I let you know that there is still quite a bit of time in hand. The last of the open debate speeches is from Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am not used to being missed, so I will take that as a compliment. I come to today's debate having reflected on the future of an industry that has a long history in the Highlands and Islands, my region. We remain, after hundreds of years, a centre for fishing. There is more fish landed in Shetland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined, and the Isles with Scalloway, the second-largest fishing landing area in the United Kingdom after Peterhead. On the mainland, we see communities along the Murray coast, places such as Lossymouth, Berkhead and, albeit across the electoral boundary into the northeast, Bucky. Those towns and villages were shaped by the historic attachment to the fishing industry. Still, the ties there remain, and they retain the coastal character that initially caused them to build and grow. The Scottish fishing industry is healthy and continues to grow. Last year, we saw a small increase in the number of vessels heading out of Scottish ports. It is looking ahead to the opportunities for the future. However, it is not without challenges. It has faced several blows over the last century, not least the direction of the common fisheries policy. A colleague has already mentioned the cuts to key quotas that are planned for next year. The industry must face the commercial pressures of fluctuating prices at market. Last year, for example, we saw a drop in mackerel prices, Scotland's fleet's most valuable stock. Fishing remains an important industry in regions like my own and in the northeast, and it is one that is viable and has a sustainable future. Just yesterday, I met Lowik Port Authority, who lead an impressive modern port in the islands that continues to expand, having recently constructed a new pier in a key area, increasing their capacity. The Port Authority is also developing a major new white fish market due to open in 2020. I also met representatives of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation. There is real optimism for the future of the industry, a future outside of the CFP. Those organisations are working together, bringing forward the infrastructure that they need and planning for the future. However, the decisions that affect their industry and their sectors must often seem very distant to them. This year's end-of-year negotiations will be against the backdrop of a number of changes. The extension of the landing obligation in 2019 is one. However, I have no doubt that the UK's departure from the European Union will overshadow much of the discussion and comment that will take place this year, but we will be leaving the common fisheries policy, one that has been a target of decades of derision from our fishermen, and we will become an independent coastal state again. The fishing industry recognises the potential benefits of this, not just in the immediate term, but the potential for future decisions to be made domestically. Of course, there is no question that we must exercise these new powers that will come back to the UK responsibly. There will be an increasing scope for us to look at the environmental impact and sustainability of our fishing industry here in the UK. This is an area where government and industry will have to work closely together to build a system that there is mutual confidence in. I will say that the UK has a positive record on implementing sustainable practices and the effective husbandry of our seas. Looking forward, the UK Government has set out how it sees a sustainable future for the fishing industry as part of its 25-year environmental plan. There are positive early indications that change can come, change that is sensible and provides benefits not only to the industry but to our natural environment and our wider economy, too. The price is clear. A present UK vessels catch just a third of the fish stock taken from UK waters. If that proportion was to increase to the levels seen in countries such as Norway, we could see an extra £1 billion of catch filter through the industry. That is the time for us to consider the challenges that the industry faces that we can address now. To give just an example, as Tavish Scott mentioned, Shetland has raised concerns with the Scottish Government about freight capacity on the ferries from the islands to the mainland. The sad reality of this problem is that last year the industry reported over £2 million of seafood being left behind at the harbour in Lerwick due to a lack of freight capacity. With the new northern isles ferry tenders coming up, the Scottish Government has an opportunity to be bold and planned for the future in relation to the fleet, and I hope that it will seize that. This year's negotiations are at a time when the Scottish fishing industry stands on the brink of a real opportunity, an opportunity unlike any that we have seen in decades. Ensuring that we have the infrastructure in place for expansion will be an important domestic priority, one that will touch on this Parliament as well as the local authorities in areas such as Shetland. I recently signed up to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's new sea of opportunity pledge demonstrating my support to be out of the CFP two years from now. I look forward with optimism to better years ahead for the Scottish fishing industry and for the sector across the highlands and islands. We now move to the closing speeches. There is a bit of time in hand that would be nice if the closers could wax somewhat lyrical. Up to eight minutes, please, Mr Scott. I would also help you to read out at some length the agreed record of the fisheries consultation between Norway and the European Union. It does go back to 2016, but if it helps, it goes through a number of interesting issues across a number of species, including of course cod and haddock, but some we have not mentioned so far such as saith, whiteing, place, herring—oh, we have mentioned herring—angler fish or monks to those of us who live this world, horse mackerel, Norway pout and Kaplan. There are many more minutes that one could add to a speech on fishing by simply reading a Norwegian translation or rather an English translation of the Norwegian text, including red fish in the Norwegian economic zone. Little has been said about that so far, but there is a very interesting Latin pronunciation here, which I can maybe leave Donald Cameron to deal with in his wind-up speech. Most seriously—of course— Mr George Stevenson. Yes, Nacky Rookie Norse. Tavish Scott. He's got that wrong, actually, but I'll not. Wrong species. Some colleagues have spent some time in their opening remarks talking about how many times they've spoken in this debate over the years. I tend to forget how many times I've spoken in this debate, but I thought the best introduction was Maureen Watt's in citing the finny-branking Christmas present concordiat, which goes back some years. I don't know if the cabinet secretary is going to reveal his Christmas present strategy this year, but I rather reckon that he'll be the one buying the presents for Marie Gouchin on the next weekend in Brussels, not least to which, because he'll be finished rather earlier than that particular one that I remember finishing on Christmas Eve when they're all worried about getting the last plane out of Brussels, which is certainly a moral of the story. The important aspects to this debate have been about the day-to-day impact of the December council decisions that will be made. I think that the less important parts of this debate today have been the ritualistic running through of yet another discussion about Brexit. I just want to deal very briefly, if I may, with the amendments. On the Green amendment, I take the argument that Mark Russell is making, but I do believe, like others, that that amendment would be, as it were, appropriate to mention all the other vessels that fish in coastal waters around not just the UK but, in this case, Scotland too. That would be the appropriate way to do that. His speech in Fenistermark Ruskell seemed to me to concentrate much on scallop dredging and measures on the west coast of Scotland, possibly arguably, than deep sea. Nevertheless, for that amendment to be supported today, it would need to have mentioned all vessels rather than just the Scottish fleet. On Rhoda Grant's amendment, on the Labour amendment, I take up to a point her arguments around ownership models and what Governments should and should not do. I am not a great believer in Government and must do everything on fishing policy or fishing ownership. The other aspect that I suggest to her that needs some further thought is that producer organisations play a very heavy role, certainly in my part of the world, in exactly what she has described. The allocation of quotas, ensuring that monies are reinvested, because what happens in Shetland is that quota leasing policy allows money then to be reinvested in new tonnage and in new entrants. I entirely take her point about new entrants. She is absolutely right about that, but what we are after, in that sense, is ensuring the right model. That may differ according to different parts of Scotland and the different fishing arrangements. We have a share ownership model in Shetland. I appreciate that. That is entirely different from the one in the northeast, where there is a different more vertically integrated structure to the ownership of the industry in the catching sector, but, nevertheless, I think that needs some further thought to become a practical policy. On the Conservative amendment, I cannot support an amendment that is just about Brexit rather than about the fisheries council. That is what this debate should be about entirely, of course, except that there is a wider debate happening right now and we cannot get away with it. My concern about what the UK Government thought had negotiated and what we thought was going to be put to a vote at 7 pm tonight, which now is obviously not happening, is that fishing is not in the withdrawal agreement. There is no legally binding text to do with fishing. When I asked David Lidington, in all intents and purposes, the Deputy Prime Minister at the committee here in Parliament a week or so ago why fishing had not been included either in the withdrawal agreement and therefore was in the political declaration, he said that that was a matter of down to the negotiations. Indeed, it is a matter of down to the negotiations. That is the point. The UK Government did not get what they said they were going to get. We can all do the language of this and that and the next thing about this. When it comes to it, the fisherman at home asked me why it was not in there. If it was so important to the UK Government, why did it not successfully have that in there? It is not for the Scottish Conservatives to answer that. That is for the UK Government to answer. However, I think that the very least that the Scottish Government should do is not defend something that the fishing industry asked for and did not actually see happen in the outcome. For that reason, I am certainly not afraid to support Mr Chapman's amendment. I did agree with his point on blue-whiting. However, my understanding of that issue and the cabinet secretary will know this better than me, is that there is a fairly complex business model involved in the blue-whiting quota and how that is traded involves the Dutch and the business expertise that they have. However, to all intents and purposes, it seems to me that we end up losing blue-whiting quota, which the minister acknowledged in his morphing remarks. Quite a number of parts of the Scottish catching fleet then have to lease back in safe, which comes through a circuitous route back into Scotland. The cabinet secretary understands that argument, and the more he can do on that to assist the Scottish fleet both on the pelagic and on the whitefish side, the better. That was the point that Peter Chapman alluded to as well, and it is certainly important for that. The other point that I thought Rhoda Grant made, importantly, in the context of what is happening next year—and the year after, this is the point that Lewis MacDonald went on to develop as well—is that, in 2019, of course, depending on what happens next March, there will be no Scottish minister, whether it is Mr Ewing or anyone else. There will be no UK minister, indeed, involved after March. We have been given some assurances—or rather, I should say, the industry has been given some assurances about officials keeping in touch with their opposite numbers on the European Commission. However, the most damning assessment of the future is that there will be no minister at the council next year in the way in which Mr Ewing will be this year to represent Scottish fishing interests. That is a great triumph for the UK Government and for UK negotiation. Do not tell me and do not show me what a disaster it is, because it will be without precedent. Whatever you may think of the common fishes policy, it is better to have ministers there representing our industries and not to have ministers there. However, that is the practical impact of what is currently being negotiated. For the love of me, I cannot imagine anyone who wants to defend that approach. One other point, if I may, for the cabinet secretary is that there now have to be some very serious preparations for no deal, not least for the point that Alistair Allen made, because the prawn catches that he represents in his constituency and also down the west coast, and the logistics chain that gets all that across the channel builds into something like two-thirds of the catch in this country that ends up in Europe. If we have no deal, which now has to be some degree of risk to that, there will be delays. Gordon MacDonald is quite right about that. There will be delays on that crossing the channel. The Government of the day will have to find ways to assist the industry in that. That is why I thought Lewis MacDonald's phrase, the fog of uncertainty, was rather apt one for this debate. As much certainty as we ever have for a cabinet secretary going to these annual negotiations and knowing what is being sought to achieve, most of us would broadly agree with his negotiating strategy and wish him well on that, there is a fair degree of uncertainty, the fog of uncertainty, about next year. That, for the industry above all else, both the catching and the processing industry, must be the biggest cause of concern. Mark Ruskell, around eight minutes please. It has been an interesting debate here this afternoon. The tone has perhaps been a little bit more thoughtful than I had expected. There has been a few moments where there has been some heated discussion, but perhaps the chamber has expended its quota of emotional Brexit energy already this year. The last of the debates that we will have in December ahead of the annual horse trading in Brussels between the ministers has become an annual ritual, as Lewis MacDonald pointed out, alongside perhaps a spot of Christmas shopping with Rona Branquin. The question is what will happen next year. Will we have this debate ahead of the bilateral discussions with Norway, ahead of the tripartite? As the cabinet secretary spoke about in his initial comments, the dynamics now are very different to having UK and Scotland at the table in the European Union ahead of these talks. We have to find a way to exert perhaps more soft power now on the periphery of the debates around the reform of the common fisheries policy. That is difficult when ministers will not be at the table. Perhaps the most appropriate time to have this debate in future years may be when the science actually comes out. Mr Chapman does not like the science, or rather he does like the science when it relates to safe, hake and megram, proposing increase in quotas, but does not like it when it applies to cod, haddock and whiting recommending reductions. I disagree with that assumption. I do like the science. The science is very important. We have to look after the science because we need an industry that is sustainable going forward. I never said that. I did say that cuts to some of our most important species, given that the landing obligation is coming in, could be very difficult for the industry, but I never said anything against the actual science. Mr Chapman likes the principle of science. He just does not like what the science sometimes tells him in relation to stocks that need to be reduced. Mr Scott again talked about the science, the IC's science. He said that some of it was on quite a shugly peg. It had not been peer-reviewed. I accept that sometimes errors will creep in with science, but I point to the IC's website, where it talks about how it produces scientific advice. It says that reports of all expert groups preparing the basis for IC's advice are peer-reviewed by a group of independent experts. We have the scientific institutions, as Stuart Stevenson pointed out. We have had IC's for 100 years. I am sure that he will be producing a member's debate on the topic very soon, where we can look at that glorious 100 years of history, but we have the science. We perhaps do not have the ability to always listen to the science. The reality is that the science does get tested to destruction. It goes through the process of the regional advisory councils, where fish is another stakeholder of the opportunity to debate it. Having a debate in this chamber, when we know the state of the stocks, the state of the science is an important thing to do every year. One thing that would improve on our knowledge of stock assessments is that we are undertaking more monitoring. That is the point of the amendment that I am bringing forward today. It would underpin our ability to understand what is the maximum sustainable yield for the various fish stocks that we have, and, indeed, shellfish stocks. We have a commitment to ensure that MSY underpins the exploitation of all our fish stocks by 2020. It is important that we support that, and we can do that through monitoring. I was pleased to get some qualified support from around the chamber for my amendment. The Tories suggest that it does not go far enough that we should be including foreign fleets in that. I will take that point. I put it back to the Tories now about how they intend to then influence the CFP on those kinds of reforms. I would be quite happy to send a joint letter on behalf of myself and Mr Mountain to the EU commission to see if we can influence some soft power on the direction of the CFP from the outside, acting like a lobby group. I would be happy to do that, but it is harder to do when we are outside the CFP. I will take it into mention. Edward Mountain. Sorry, just to be clear that post the common fisheries policy, those boats that come into water that are controlled by Scotland will have to be issued licences, as I understand it, by the Scottish Government. One of the restrictions on the licence could be that they have monitoring gear. I do not think that it needs the EU to do that. Perhaps it needs the cabinet secretary to do that, and perhaps he will acknowledge that. That is a good point, but of course we need regulatory alignment across the EU. That means that Scottish boats have vessel monitoring when they fish in other waters as well. That is the point of having a common fisheries policy, is that fish swim between borders and we need to have alignment between coastal states. In many ways, Mr Mountain is making an argument for more integration, more policy integration across the European Union, which of course I support. Labour parties say that perhaps this amendment around vessel monitoring is going a little bit too fast, but I would hope that Rhoda would acknowledge the urgency of adopting vessel monitoring, certainly for sectors such as scallop dredging. Her colleague Claudia Beamish acknowledged the tragedy that has happened in Loch Karan and said that there were decades' worth of damage caused in just a few days. It is important that those sectors adopt vessel monitoring. It is important that the larger fleets, the pelagic boats and the whitefish sector also adopt that vessel monitoring. There will be benefits for the industry, and a number of members have pointed to that, including Angus MacDonald, who has been a constant champion for vessel monitoring in many debates. We have discussed the issue of access to markets and access to waters. As has been mentioned by many members, Maureen Watt and Angus MacDonald again. Of course, it would have been absolutely unthinkable, Presiding Officer, for the EU to have agreed to any deal that had excluded EU 27 boats from UK waters, while at the same time allowing 80 per cent of the UK's sea fish products to travel to the EU tariff-free. You cannot separate markets from access to waters. There have been members in the chamber who have been saying this for years and yet some parties have been under a delusion that suddenly we have a sea of opportunity and we can choose the rules for market access, as well as choosing the rules for access to waters. It is simply not possible to reflect on the comment that was made by Alasdair Allan's constituent. Prawns need to make it to Europe alive. Absolutely. Unless that happens, there is no market. If there are trade barriers and delays, there is no market. That will mean that communities around Scotland will suffer. I am almost approaching eight minutes. I will briefly reflect on the Labour Party amendment. We will, in spirit of co-operation, be backing the Labour Party amendment. It raises some thoughtful, important thoughts around community leasing and about how we ensure that communities get the economic benefit from quota. Rhoda is right that tough decisions have been made. Communities have felt the pain in previous years. It is important now that communities, in their broadest sense, see the rewards from quota and the rewards from this industry. I think that the most important thing is to keep EU membership alive. That is why we will not be backing the Tory amendment this afternoon. That is why the judgment on article 50 yesterday was so tantalising, because it keeps the options alive for continued EU membership and the options alive for the sustainability and health of our fishing industry. Before we move on, two things I would like to say. First of all, could members please always refer to fellow members by their full names? It is nice to be friendly but for the benefit of the official report and for people who may be watching in. The other thing that I would like to say is that members should always be aware of when closing speeches are beginning and endeavour to be in the chamber for the start of those if they took part in the debate. I will now move on to Rhoda Grant for around nine minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken in this end-year negotiations debate, so I cannot join the bidding war that was going on this afternoon. However, I would know that it is an important debate that we have every year. The fishing industry might be a small part of the UK's GDP but it is a huge part of our rural economy and we very much need to protect it because it sustains many communities. The damage to the industry is also damage to fragile economies. If you take, for instance, that Shetland gains more from fishing than it does from oil and gas, it just shows the importance of fishing in our part of the world. We must also bear in mind the dangers of fishing and make it as safe as possible. I think that when we have these debates, sometimes we forget that fishermen are putting their lives at risk—a point that was made by Finlay Carson during the debate and I think that one we need to emphasise. I think that too often we hear of tragedies at sea and we must invest in research and development into the safety of our fishing folk to make sure that they can catch fish but that they can also return home to their families safe and sound after doing that. Can I turn to our own amendment? I think that it was a question by Tavish Scott and I think that I need to clarify what we are talking about. The allocation of quotas and models of working both in Shetland and the Western Isles is really what our amendment is talking about. It is this kind of ownership that allows fairer distribution of quota and when more is available it also allows new entrants to come in as well. Therefore, it stops quota being sold off to the highest bidder but makes sure that it is retained within the communities for their economic development rather than enriching the few. We have seen how that works very well in Shetland where they have retained much of their fishing and are actually capitalising in that industry. As we have heard today, we are actually seeing increases of landing that we need to be better prepared for and hopefully I will have a chance to come back to that infrastructure question later on in my speech. Can I also turn to the green amendment? Mark Ruskell talked about the costing £3,500 to fit a vessel with monitoring equipment. That can be a huge amount of money for a small vessel. When there is little or no gain to having that kind of equipment fitted to a static gear boat, I do not see the point of extending it to static gear boats. All it will do is create hotspots by making their catches publicly available. Mark Ruskell. I thank Rhoda Grant for giving way. Rhoda Grant does not acknowledge that the MFF provides 90 per cent of the funds for the installations at the moment. The data that would be gathered by vessel monitoring would be useful for the shellfish sectors as well, because it would enable data that could then be put into modelling to establish an MSY for those sectors to ensure that they have long-term sustainable health. Rhoda Grant. Those sectors are sustainable. In fact, they have led the way in sustainability, such as the notching of lobsters. Those fishermen know where their catches are. They guard those secrets very carefully because that is where their living comes from, but they are also very willing to take part in sustainability options, as I said, the notching of lobsters. Monitoring is a step too far for them. Our concern with that amendment is not that it only applies to Scottish vessels because larger vessels can already be tracked and monitored, but the amendment is applying to the smaller vessels who already engage in good practice and are possibly a little over the top for those vessels. I have sympathy for the amendment in that it is concerned, as Claudia Beamish pointed out about illegal dredging. Therefore, I would have no difficulty for mobile gear vessels of whatever size to be fitted with monitoring equipment to help us to make sure that the damage that we have seen is a small minority of the community that are creating the damage. Unfortunately, it leads to the whole community being tired with the same brush and therefore we need to stop that happening. However, we also need to value our small under 10m boats and their value to the community, as Maureen Watt pointed out, because those are the boats that sustain our communities. A number of people talked about Brexit, and while I was trying to avoid it, I do not think that we can go through this debate without coming back and talking about what has been said today. The deal that we have on the table at the moment is the wrong deal for the fishing industry. I said that, and nothing that has been said today has changed my mind on that. I think that Lewis Macdonald was quite clear in his speech where he said, during the transition arrangements, it is the EU that rules. We have no say in what happens, and if we do not negotiate a comprehensive fishing agreement that builds on the CFP with Europe, we will be subject to levies on all fish that are imported to Europe from the UK. That is tying our access to water with access to markets, and that is unacceptable. I should also point out that, having spoken about creole fishermen, it is those fishermen that sell predominantly into the EU and have most to lose by tying access to markets and waters. The big issue in the debate is the choked species, and we need to find a solution to that. We have been talking about this year on year for many of the fishing debates, and yet it seems no closer to finding a solution to it. I think that we have to do the swaps that Tavish Scott talked about in his debate, but we need to make sure that the quota that we gain for choked species remains in public hands, so that all have access to it, so that we can continue to fish and catch the quotas that we have. As I said in my opening speech, I support the Liberal Democrats amendment on science. I think that people have argued that we know about the waters and the science as good. Actually, we know very little about the seas surrounding our country, and we need to develop that understanding. Therefore, it is important that we build on that knowledge using the institutions that we have and also make sure that what we are basing our understanding of catch us on is peer reviewed, because we need to take seriously the information that we have to make sure that we protect stocks, not just for just now, but also for future generations. I think that it would be absolutely wrong if we do not do that. If I can turn quickly as well to infrastructure, again, Tavish Scott talked about shipping from Shetland, and that is a big issue for Shetland. As Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about in his speech, fish were left behind on the harbour not being able to get off island. I wrote to the transport minister about that and had an assurance that the new tender would allow for expansion to allow the fishing industry to expand in Shetland and get their catch off island, which is most importantly. However, we also have to build on processing. We need the processing infrastructure to make sure that the catch that we land adds value and that we then encourage people to have careers in this industry. We have to provide the infrastructure for them to live in those areas as well. Of course, as Lewis MacDonald pointed out, our processors are extremely worried about Brexit, because they are the ones that will have to deal with the trade tariffs and levies if that happens and we go into a backstop arrangement. A quick final plea for Claudia Beamish's European Maritime Fisheries Fund, which Claudia Beamish talked about. She said that she is having to get and leave alive from the Presiding Officer for using first name's apologies. It is an important fund and it will be good if the Cabinet Secretary in summing up could talk about what he foresees taking over from the fund that will help our fishing communities. We all wish the Cabinet Secretary well in those negotiations. Indeed, we hope that they are finished in good time to allow them to go home and do their own Christmas shopping and say to Mary Gougeon that pleasure. We believe that the heart of those talks should be sustainability and making sure that we have fishing available for our future generations. Donald Cameron, for around 11 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was nice to have more time, rather than less time, indicated from the Presiding Officer's chair. I welcome the opportunity to close for the Scottish Conservatives in this important debate. I note that I closed the same debate for my party during last year's debate. Back then, I said during my speech that the current Brexit negotiations will undoubtedly be a long process to get the right deal that works for the fishing sector in the country and that we must not allow our fishing industry to remain shackled to the common fisheries policy that has scarred coastal communities. I firmly believe that, through that negotiation process, the UK Government has ensured that taking back control of our waters has been at the heart of those negotiations. I do believe that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that accompanies it delivers on a promise made to fishing communities right across Scotland, as do the guarantees made by the Prime Minister herself in person. We will be leaving the common fisheries policy. That is more than symbolic. It is a reality that we will not only become an independent coastal state by December 2020, but fundamentally it will be for us to decide who fishes in our waters and on what terms. That is hugely empowering for our fishing communities. As the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has said, the declaration gives the UK the power to assert its position as an independent coastal state with full unfetter sovereignty over our waters and natural resources. I would like to reiterate the remarks that others have made about yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State, because I think that it is worth repeating. The UK Government have tabled amendments to the fisheries bill, which will ensure that there is a legal obligation on the UK Secretary of State when negotiating a fisheries agreement with the EU to pursue a fair share of fishing opportunities than the UK currently receives under the CFP. The UK Government is also investing additional £37.2 million of extra funding to boost the UK fishing industry during the implementation period on top of existing EMFF funding. That too has been welcomed by the SFF. Stewart Stevenson? Is it not the case that fishermen were promised 100 per cent control? Of course, recognising that having 100 per cent control gives one the opportunity to trade and negotiate with others is something quite different from the phrase that the member has used, a fairer share. It could be argued that a fairer share is 1 per cent more than we currently have. What the fishermen were promised was 100 per cent. Let me quote from the Prime Minister herself on the floor of the House of Commons on 22 November this year. She said that we would be an independent coastal state that control over our waters so that fishermen get a fairer share of the fish in our waters, and we have firmly rejected a link between access to our waters and access to markets. The fisheries agreement is not something that we will be trading off against any other priorities. As I was saying, the UK Government will also create four new schemes comparable to the EMFF to deliver funding for each nation in the UK. In terms of the fisheries bill, I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments that he sees broadly positive outcomes. Unlike the agricultural bill currently in Westminster, I detect a very welcome and constructive attitude from the Scottish Government to the bill. Importantly, the bill will empower the Scottish Parliament to lead on our own scheme. We are devolving more powers to this Parliament. As Edward Mountain mentioned, we will be able to regulate resources to ensure conservation of the maritime environment and marine environment, the Scottish Government will have power over licences and devolved administrations will be able to transpose regulations. I hope that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that when he closes for the Government. There remains a striking contradiction at the heart of the SNP's position on fishing. On the CFP, Mike Russell told the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee last year that the common fisheries policy has not worked and we need to get alternatives to it, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater with the Europe that actually works for us. On the one hand, he wants to lead the common fisheries policy, but on the other hand wants to remain a member of the EU, which includes CFP membership. Or in December 2016, when the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, was quoted as saying that the common fisheries policy has not been a success for Scottish fisheries. I recognise that there are opportunities outside of the EU for our industry. I agree, and I think that there are others across the chamber. In fact, people have been explicit about the flaws in the common fisheries policy. There are flaws that exist by remaining in the common fisheries policy and the possibilities that exist for Scottish fishing when we leave the EU are endless. Yet his Government and the SNP seem hellbent on trying to keep us in the EU and in the CFP. I would like to turn to other issues beyond Brexit that have perhaps been slightly lost during this debate. On the issue of the annual fisheries negotiation, which is the purpose of this debate, we do, as a party, wish the cabinet secretary the best of luck in his role at that meeting and hope that he can achieve positive outcomes for the fishing industry and our coastal communities. Like him, we agree that there is concern among the industry around the reductions in quotas of major stocks. We note that the position of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, in particular, states that the reductions are unhelpful, at least, and that it is really problematic at worst. They come at a time when the landing obligation comes fully into force. At the same time, we recognise the need that we should be able to promote a sustainable fishing industry that works for both fishermen and the environment. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I know all too well the importance of this. We had a great debate during the Crown State Bill about kelp harvesting. I was inundated with emails from concerned constituents, some of whom were from fishing communities. I know that there are strong feelings around the conservation of our marine environment. Beyond that, I would also like to make a plea, and I believe that there are members across the chamber that have recognised that in their speeches—Alistair Allen and others—that, when we speak of our fishing industry, we ought to acknowledge the areas beyond the North Sea, and we must look at the industry holistically. I know that my North East colleagues will not mind me saying this, but the interests of the area that I represent are slightly different to theirs. Inshore fisheries that concentrate on shellfish are often forgotten about in the debate, but are absolutely critical to the local economy. I accept, and I hope that Tavish Scott will forgive me for venturing out of the deep sea and into the insure that is slightly off the issue of the December negotiations. However, there are almost 1,800 shellfish vessels in the Scottish fishing fleet, which is almost 88 per cent of the total fleet. The main player in this regard is the Prawn and Scallop fleet, which is the mainstay of many remote communities from the Mull of Kintar northwards up the western seaboard. In the western isles, shellfish landings account for some 90 per cent of total landings, with whitefish accounting for the remaining 10 per cent. In our Garland Bute, Creel fishing and Static Scallop fishing are also prominent and, likewise, are contributors to the local economy. It is therefore important that we engage with the totality of that sector when looking at any new legislation on sustainability as they will have a vital role to play, as well as the wider fishing sector. I recall that, in the 2016 manifesto of the SNP, there was a commitment to an insure fisheries bill, and I wonder if, at some point, the cabinet secretary could update the chamber on that. Ultimately, we need a thriving and healthy fishing sector that ensures that stocks remain at sustainable levels and that our waters are protected as much as possible. After all, in 2017, Scottish Festals landed 466,000 tonnes of seafish and shellfish, with a value of over £560 million. I would like to summarise, in a few seconds remaining, what other colleagues have said. Peter Chapman spoke with great authority about the immediate issues. Choke species are a continuing problem, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of that. However, I remember listening to contributions this time last year about choke species, and there is still, obviously, a real concern around that. I hope that that can be addressed. I was very struck by something that Rhoda Grant said in her speech, which is to remember the health and wellbeing of those in our fishing fleet. It strikes me that we are almost a year on from the tragedy that beset the ship, the Nancy Glen, in Loch Ffine in January this year, which I asked the First Minister about during First Minister's Questions in January this year. That is still a tragedy for the families affected by those deaths. They belong to small community in Tarbet, and far from the security of this chamber, it is so important that we remember those working on our boats in very dangerous conditions sometimes. The other members, Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell, spoke about sustainable fishing, and I think that I have hopefully covered that to some extent. In terms of the amendments, we will be supporting the Government's motion, and we will be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. In terms of the Labour amendment, regrettably we will not be supporting that. It is our view that we have to wait before committing to how quota is divided up, and it would be premature—and I particularly concentrate on the last sentence of the Labour amendment—in our view that we made any commitments to how that happens at this stage, although we are very mindful, indeed, of the need to promote both new entrants to the industry and smaller community-based vessels. Likewise, with the Green amendment, we are very sympathetic. We condemn any kind of illegal fishing on those benches and, of course, advocate for the use of increased technology if that can assist that battle. However, as other colleagues have mentioned, we feel that it should apply to all vessels and not just Scottish vessels. To meet the point that was made by Mr Ruskell, we believe that, if we can operate international agreements, especially on crime and policing, without requiring to be a member of the EU—which we do—that can occur in terms of something like illegal fishing. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, slightly over time, the Scottish Conservatives wish that the cabinet secretary will, in his role at negotiations, strongly believe that there is a benefit to leaving the European Union for our fishermen rather than keeping them in the CFP. We must take advantage of the benefits that will result, and the fact that we will become an independent coastal state, we will decide who fishes in our waters and what terms. That is the prize that we hope everyone can get behind. I call Fergus Ewing. Up to 12 minutes, cabinet secretary, will take us to decision time. Unless my risk-ma-take is flawed, I believe that this is the 20th fisheries debate that we have had. I have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions of members across the chamber. In particular, if I may say so, from some of us who have been around since 1999, including ourselves, I hesitate to use the phrase old hands, but we have benefited from the experience of several members who have participated in the debates over many years and have built up a knowledge and understanding of the issues involved. I am very grateful for the wishes from across the chamber, the good wishes to pursue success in the current negotiations. The debate is first and foremost about that work and that is the main theme of the debate. Inevitably, understandably and quite properly, members use the opportunity to raise all sorts of issues on fishing. That is absolutely fine. I will try to turn to as many of them as I can and address the key points. Before doing so, I want to touch on some of the other issues that are involved in the negotiations. As a responsible Government, we have to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the interests of marine industries and coastal communities. It cannot always be assumed that the UK Government in the negotiations, either in December or throughout the year, will necessarily pursue Scotland's interests. Sometimes it may not do so, sometimes it may be reluctant to do so, and on other occasions it may be reluctant to do so with sufficient vigor from our perspective. For example, at this year's EU-Norway talks, the UK Government has once again been all too willing to use Scottish blue-whiting in exchange for Arctic cod from Norway. That is despite the assurances from the UK Government that their focus would be to restrict the use of blue-whiting in favour of other currency stocks and prioritise inward transfers of North Sea stocks at this critical time. As we have heard on many occasions, not one single kilogram of Arctic cod comes to Scotland. Rather, 100 per cent of the benefit goes to a single UK-based, non-UK-owned company. To rub salt in the woodland rather than fishing at all, that company then swaps it with other countries for fish that it then sells back to Scotland. Something that fellow old hand Tavi Scott spelled out in his speech. I thought that it was worth making the point. Without malice towards my colleagues in the UK Government, I have enjoyed, I think, a workman-like relationship with George Eustace, who has attended the last two years of negotiations. We approach it in a constructive fashion, but it would be very naive to assume that just because we are in the UK, that means that the UK delegation always see absolutely eye to eye with our perspective—they don't, quite frankly—and recognising that is important for members. I have been, since having the privilege of being Scotland's fisheries minister, committed to getting the job done. In the first year in 216, where we were met with the challenges of the landing obligation, as many members, most recently Donald Cameron has mentioned, I ensure that we received all eligible top-ups to help our fleet to succeed. We also ensure that the science industry survey work on west of Scotland herring could continue by securing a rollover of the survey total allowable catch, having faced zero catch advice. Other achievements include the introduction of flexibility provisions for Haddock and Ling, which allowed the transfer of quota between the west of Scotland and the North Sea. Interarea transfers are a very important tool that can be used in order to address the problems arising from the landing obligation, namely choked species. Domestically, I challenged George Eustace to bring to an end the decade of top slicing of North Sea whiting that our industry has endured. I expect that this year that practice will end. I have drawn attention to Mr Eustace to the importance of doing so in a letter that I sent off to him just this week. Last year, we had welcome increases in the five main North Sea stocks of Cod Haddock whiting saith and nephrops. This year, those same stocks are facing reductions with the exception of saith. However, there is welcome use on the west coast after a large cut of the nephrops quota last year, which I know caused great concern in the west coast. We now look forward to an increase in that same TAC. That highlights the unpredictable nature of those world-face stocks and our need to be able to respond as necessary. We have overcome a few such hurdles in the talks that have already concluded. We have, for example, found solutions for North Sea hake, linked to an increase in next year's quota and utilising quota flexibility between the North Sea and the north-western waters. I could add that part of that work related to meeting that I had with Commissioner Vella in Brussels was around June, when we made the point that there was a very serious choke issue in relation to North Sea hake, where we felt that the commission's assessment of the signs had not followed the stocks, which had migrated north in very large numbers. We have made some progress on some of those issues, but it remains that we face, as members have said across the chamber, a very difficult year, with a very challenging set of scientific advice, which, as usual, we must respect when negotiating outcomes. Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. I think that the landing obligation in choke species is perhaps the main one, and I would like just to say a few words about that, which I hope will clarify the approach that we take. First of all, it is important to say that we are committed to sustainable fishing. Stewart Stevenson made the point very clearly that the current days fishermen are stewards of fish for future generations. Stewart Stevenson made that point and he is absolutely right. Every fisherman knows that if they overfish now, they are taking away their children's inheritance. Fishmen themselves understand the importance of sustainability and the principles behind the landing obligation to reduce waste, to improve accountability, to safeguard sustainability, as Mr Ruskell, for example, mentioned, is absolutely correct. That means that we have to respect the signs. As Tavi Scott said, we have to be ready to question, to challenge, to scrutinise, to carefully examine the signs. I was very interested in his remarks about suggestions that might improve that. I would say that, in fact, there is already quite a lot of good work going on, where ICES advice, for example, is quality assured by its own processes. Marine Scotland scientists are at the heart of international science effort and they are well respected. Marine Scotland supports an ICES interbenchmark in 2019 to take a fresh look at the macro science and data, but his remarks were very positive and thought-provoking. In order to tackle choked species, we need to devise solutions that are practical. I believe that those solutions exist. They need to be solutions that are not so complex and complicated that fishermen cannot understand. The issue is serious. We share industry concerns about the need for solutions to be in place. There are a variety of solutions such as swap, by-catch, technical measures, inter-area flexibility and others. Officials held a meeting with stakeholders on 6 September to work through options, and Marine Scotland officials and others attended a meeting of the FMAC, the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group on 13 November. All those measures are taken extremely seriously. We are in the Scottish Government to resolutely focus on the day job. That is because it is extremely important that we perform it. I am acutely aware—as members have said during the debate—that the choked species issues are perhaps the greatest practical challenge that we face. I just wanted to spend a little time to assure members that not only are we taking that as our top priority for the talks next week in Brussels, but we have laid the groundwork and we have achieved some success on matters that looked even worse several months ago throughout the year. I think that Rhoda Grant made a very thoughtful speech. I am inclined, albeit that we have some questions about the technical details of the amendment. Nonetheless, in the spirit of showing that the idea that we support new entrants is very important, it is time that we recognise in principle that that is something that we should be doing. Therefore, we are happy to support Labour's amendment. In relation to Mr Ruskell's amendment, although there are some infelicitations and draftsmanship, I made it clear in my comments to Claudia Beamish last week. In a speech that I made in October when I made the announcement, I said that tracking and monitoring is a good thing. It is a good thing for conservation and for fishermen. Tracking is where the vessel is and monitoring is what they are doing at the time. Therefore, the vast majority of fishermen who, as many members have said, are law-abiding and carrying out vital work to their communities have nothing to fear and everything to gain. I suppose that I have to mention Brexit. It does spoil the pre-Christmas spirit to raise the Brexit blues, but I think that what has happened now is that the Conservatives have over-promised and they are now under-delivering. That is the nub of the issue at the end of the day. The spectacle down south of what is happening at Westminster, the display of disarray, is now so acute and evident that it is almost painful and embarrassing, quite frankly, to watch. In Scotland, we are getting on with the job. I was very pleased that members of all parties wished as well in the negotiations next week. I thank them for those good wishes and myself and my officials shall do everything that we can to get the best possible deal for Scotland, our fishermen, our fishing communities around the coast. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on sea fisheries and end-of-year negotiations. We will return straight to decision time. The first question this evening is that amendment 15096.4, in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on sea fisheries and end-of-year new negotiations, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.4, in the name of Peter Chapman, is yes, 26, no, 83. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 15096.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division again. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 84, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Our next question is that amendment 15096.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 62, no, 31. There were 17 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 15096.2, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the final question is that motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, on sea fisheries and end of year negotiations, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. And the result of the vote on motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, is yes, 67, no, 26. There were 17 abstentions. And the motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, in the name of Angela Constance, on the 60th anniversary of the ultrasound scanner invented in Scotland. And we'll just take a few moments for members and the ministers to change seats.