 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1.1.1.2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of—I think I missed it—a one there. 1.1.1.1.2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a stage 3 timetable for a forestry and land management Scotland bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button. No one has done so, so I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. As no member has asked to speak against the motion, the question is that motion 1.1.1.1.2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed. Moving on. The next item of business is an urgent question. I have several members wishing to ask a question here, so I am going to ask people to ask a question, not to tell a story so that I can get everybody in, because then we are going to topical questions. The first question is cake forms, please. The Scottish Government, what is responses to the Scottish fishing industry's concerns regarding the terms of the Brexit transition agreement between the UK Government and the EU? Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, yesterday's announcement was a surprise to no one. We have warned about this happening and so it has come to pass. The Tories have sold out the Scottish fishing industry once again, and Ruth Davidson should be shame-faced for her fastest broken Brexit promise yet. On 11 March, Ruth Davidson issued a statement jointly with Michael Gove that said this. The Prime Minister has been clear that Britain will leave the CFP common fishes policy as of March 2019. It is outrageous that Ruth Davidson and Michael Gove could have issued such a misleading statement last weekend when they must have known what was about to happen. The only thing that is clear now is that Ruth Davidson's credibility lies in ruins. She must apologise for her broken promise to our fishing industry. The Tories have negotiated the worst possible outcome. We will be in the CFP not as a partner at the table but at best consulted with. For that matter in 2019, it is a crucial time for fisheries negotiations. Just as the Conservatives infamously deemed Scotland's fishermen to be expendable in the negotiations going into the common market in the 1970s, now they are betraying the industry in their deal-making on the way out of the EU. Kate Forbes. I represent fishermen on the east and the west coast, many of them formally represented by the cabinet secretary. Does he share his sense of betrayal at this deal? Yes, I have the honour of representing fishermen in Kate Forbes constituency now in the port of Malleaghan came to respect them. They do difficult work, as we know, perilous work. I think that they will see this as a very clear betrayal. They were promised that the UK would be out of the CFP in March 2019, not once but in several occasions. Now we find that we will remain in the CFP and be rule takers rather than rule makers, bound by legislation not in the interests of sensible management, such as the key issue of choke species that threatens the viability of the Scottish fleet from 2019 onwards. What deeply concerns me is that the interests of the Scottish fishing industry have been given so little consideration by the UK Government throughout the Brexit negotiations and that those who profess to represent their interests have been shown to be entirely toothless. Kate Forbes. The cabinet secretary will have heard the suggestion from the Scottish Tory MPs that we should move on because the deal is done and focus on 2020, which I have to say that I find that quite unforgivable, especially after, in the words of fishing representatives like Simon Collins. I quote the failure of our negotiators to stand up for the fishing industry's interests has destroyed our trust in our government. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that? I do agree. What has happened is completely unacceptable and it adds insult to injury. The UK Government must now reconsider and seek sensible pragmatic arrangements that do not sacrifice the interests of Scottish fishermen. In doing so, perhaps a sensible start point to discussion on future relationships that do not lead to any expectation that Scotland's quota shares or access to waters will be used as a bargaining chip or permanently traded away as part of a Brexit deal. Peter Chapman, followed by Colin Smyth. I share the disappointment, but we should be clear that we will become an independent coastal state. It is happening. The SNP has been against Brexit from the start and we want to rejoin the EU in a heartbeat. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that current SNP policy is to rejoin the EU and rejoin the hated CFP? As the member knows, we have always opposed the CFP and, moreover, Michael Russell's proposals in the Brexit negotiations in Scotland and our place in Europe specifically stated that, in that scenario and our proposals, we have come out of the CFP. We have got absolutely nothing to regret or apologise for. What we are witnessing is a complete betrayal of the Conservative Party of the promises that were made, which incidentally persuaded people to vote for Brexit in the first place, and now we see that those promises are gradually unravelling. The first to unravel is the date. The next, I suspect, will be the substance. I have asked Andrea Leadsom, Michael Gove and George Eustace face-to-face over the table in discussions time and time again. Will you give an unequivocal assurance that the UK Government will not trade away permanent access to our exclusive economic zone, our fishing rights, as part of a Brexit deal? I have had no answer to that question whatsoever. Colin Smyth, followed by Tavis Scott. It is clear from the exchange already that Scotland's fisheries are being used as a political football by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government's supporters. The UK Government has failed to keep the promise that Scotland's fishing communities would no longer be in the common fisheries policy after March 2019, while the Scottish Government want it both ways, conveniently forgetting that its policy is to go straight back into the EU. Yes, that means back into the common fisheries policy. Does the cabinet secretary not accept what Scotland's fishing communities need as an end to this political bickering and for the transition period to be used to work with our fishing communities to negotiate the best deal possible to ensure that we support our fragile coastal towns? No, we have got your question. I want everybody in, please. I also secure tariff-free access to the vital of the EU market. I can tell you that the fishermen do not want to end up in a situation where the choke species problem says that vessels are tied up, are tied up at harbour, and they desperately require to have their voice heard at the table when these vital matters are being dealt with. Having attended the negotiations in Brussels both last December and the December before, I can assure you that those are absolutely vital matters. Yet, because of the deal that the Conservative leadership in London have entered into without, apparently, the Scottish Tory MPs having any influence whatsoever, that deal will mean that we will be mere consultees rather than partners and equals at the table. That surely should be disturbing to every member of this House. Tavis Scott, followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the fury of the industry in Shetland towards what has happened over the last few days, can the cabinet secretary shed any light on how decisions over the macro rollover or species rollover on the discard ban and on choke species will be taken forward? If there is no minister in the negotiating room in Brussels, who speaks for Shetland fishermen? Tavis Scott makes a very good point precisely because of the specific terms of the deal that has been agreed to by David Davis on behalf of the UK Government. The extraordinary position is that we will be in the CFP but out of the discussions, we will be bound by the rules but have no chance to input towards those rules to protect the fishermen in Mr Scott's constituency or anywhere else. That is quite a preposterous outcome. It is a ridiculous outcome. The key thing is this, Presiding Officer. The fact that any UK Government could ever agree to it is proof positive that Scotland's fishing interests do not really matter very much to them. John Finnie, followed by Gillian Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Game Party are not fans of the common fisheries policy. Cabinet Secretary, whatever the future holds, will the Scottish Government insist on evidence-led decisions about our important fishing stocks, rejecting the hoover up bonanza promoted by Scotland's Tories? Yes, I entirely agree with that. Mr Finnie makes an important point, and I'm glad that it's been made in this debate. We have to have a fishery policy that is based on sustainable fisheries. Overfishing has been an acute problem in the past. The system of maximum sustainable yield of total allowable catches and quotas is based on evidence. It is based on the scientific evidence, and that is the correct basis for a sustainable fisheries policy. I am happy to agree with Mr Finnie's approach on those matters. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it doesn't matter how many meetings Scotland's Tory MPs have with Theresa May? It's now clear that there's no influence whatsoever in which can, in any way, protect or promote the interests of Scottish fishing. He mentioned in his answer that this deal is the worst possible outcome for Scottish fishing at the most crucial time. Can he expand on what he means by that? I can expand. It's that we will have no influence on the decisions, but the decisions will be taken by the other EU states. I'm not responsible, I'm pleased to say, for the conduct and views of the Scottish Tory MPs. However, I did notice with interest that Mr Douglas Ross said this about the decision. He says that there is no spinning this as a good outcome. It would be easier to get someone to drink a pint of cold sick than to try to tell us that this was a success. I'm not sure that he's got a way with words, but I don't really think that he's going to get very far with the Prime Minister. Thank you. That concludes urgent questions. I'm now moving on to topical questions.