 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2922 in the name of Fergus Ewing on sea fisheries and end-year negotiations. Can I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Fergus Ewing, cabinet secretary, to speak and move the motion 13 minutes, please. It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to speak up for the Scottish fishing industry in this debate. In doing so, I am very cognisant of the fact that I am succeeding Richard Lockhead, who was a champion of the Scottish fishing industry for a great many years. I am very pleased that we are joined in the gallery today by distinguished leaders of the Scottish fishing sector, Michael Bates of Scottish Seafood and Bertie Armstrong of the leader of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Scotland's fishermen are held in great regard across our country. Colleagues across all parties look to the proud industry as the embodiment of the very best of our country. That is why I was honoured to be asked by the First Minister to become the cabinet secretary with responsibility for fishing. In that role, I will do everything that I can to help the rural economy to grow and to create prosperity. Naturally, that includes the fishing industry, which is an integral component of the weft and weave of many of our rural communities, including the great port of Peterhead, which I was pleased to visit the fish market early on Monday this week. I was delighted to see that the catch by tonnage was at record levels and a tribute to all involved. It is important that we take the time in the chamber to acknowledge the importance of the autumn quota negotiations for the fortunes of the Scottish industry. Let me summarise where we have got to in the negotiations process this year. We now have a full set of scientific advice from ICES. Overall, it paints a reasonably positive picture of 2017, with increases advised for a range of stocks such as Saith, Haig, Monkfish, North Sea, Norway Lobster, Rockall Haddock, Mackerel Blue Whiting and Lantos, Scandian Herring. As usual, there are other stocks where the advice is more difficult. In the west, the fortunes of cod, whiting and herring remain stubbornly intractable. In the North Sea, there are cuts advised for Haddock, herring, cod and whiting. For the latter two, cod and whiting, the cuts are particularly challenging, given that they are being phased into the landing obligation in 2017, when reductions in quota will increase the risk of choking the mixed fishery. I should underline the Scottish Government remains committed to the ambition of elimination of discards, but in implementing the discard ban we must also tackle the challenge of choked species. We must protect the livelihoods of our fishermen and we must prevent a situation where our fleet is unnecessarily tied to the key site, where there is still quota available to fish. We are working hard to address those challenges and we are playing an active role in the regional groups in which we have an interest to drive forward the development of innovative policy solutions to choke risks. We should not be afraid to be radical where the situation calls for it. I raised this very issue with other fisheries ministers at the November Council in Brussels. In addition, following the effective end of the cod recovery plan and an end in which I shed no tears, I welcomed that cod days at sea will be a thing of the past. That should help the fleet to adapt to the landing obligation by providing the scope to move to different grounds to control catches of certain stocks. Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Would he consider agreeing with me that one of the ways of catching for the market and catching in terms of the quota that is there, that is unused, would be a more collaborative approach between our fishermen working in real-time in terms of the data that they have available to them and the quotas that are available, and that might be something worth pursuing in future in terms of reducing discards as well? Cabinet secretary. Well, yes, I do agree with Mr Scott that there are a great many measures in which the choke problem can be ameliorated. Obviously, quota swaps are one method of doing that. Interarea swaps are another method of doing that. Flexibility and measures of flexibility are an additional way of doing that. Measures that control effort or designed to limit effort, and measures that enable smaller fish to escape are all a combination of measures that are required. However, I am very pleased that the member has raised it, because it has given me the opportunity to agree with Mr Scott and others who rightly raise that as possibly the most serious issue that faces the industry at the moment in relation to the common fisheries policy. I am grateful to Mr Scott for doing that, and if I can find my place, I will revert at this point to the script. Returning to the autumn negotiations, they will also have a critical role to play by making available in 2017 additional quota top-ups to cover catches of fish that were previously discarded but will now have to be landed. Of course, what stands between the scientific advice and the final quota for next year are the negotiations where balances and compromises sometimes need to be found. This year's talks are now well under way and have already delivered some strong results. The coastal states talks for mackerel took place in October and delivered an excellent 14 per cent increase for 2017. At current prices, that equates to a value of around £218 million for Scotland, an increase of around £28 million on 2016. However, the coastal states talks on blue-whiting and atlantoscandian herring have been less satisfactory. Although they agree total catches for 2017, they failed to agree each party's share of that. Uncoordinated and unilateral quota are inevitable and risk continued overfishing this important and valuable stock. Last week's negotiations between the EU and Norway delivered a pair of important agreements. On the one hand, an agreement was signed that ring-fenced shares and access arrangements for blue-whiting and atlantoscandian herring in 2017. Although I am pleased that this will prevent a repeat of the inexcusably opaque events that we saw at last year's December council, disappointingly, the agreement also increased the level of Norwegian access to our waters next year—access that Scotland has to bear the burden of policing. Conclusion of the parallel whitefish agreement followed late last Friday evening. That brings certainty on quota levels for some of our key North Sea stops and allows fishing to begin on 1 January. I am very pleased that this Government's involvement in the negotiations successfully turned around proposed cuts in North Sea cod and whiting to deliver increases of around 17 per cent for each. That respects the scientific advice and continues to move those stocks towards MSY fishing levels. Importantly, it provides a bit more time for the industry to adjust to the phasing of those stocks into the landing obligation next year. In addition, we secured a significant overall 53 per cent increase in North Sea safe. That will provide the best possible platform from which the stock will be phased into the landing obligation in the North Sea in 2018. However, alongside those positives, the new agreement contains some disappointments. In particular, my view is that the cost of the deal was excessive. The European Commission chose to give away to Norway some 110,000 tonnes of blue whiting, primarily a Scottish stock, with very little direct tangible benefit being returned to the Scottish fishing industry. As a result, I took the decision, fully supported by the UK Government, to oppose the overall package on the table. However, the commission chose to ignore the views of the second-largest contributor to the package and signed the agreement anyway. Moving on, the EU pharaoh talks are under way, as I speak. In return for the essential quota and access opportunities to pharaohese waters, this agreement provides for our white fish fleet. Pharaohese vessels may fish a number of their quota in our waters, including mackerel. Although I accept this as part of the agreement, I cannot accept how the level of pharaohese access was fixed in 2014, done by a private deal by the commission without any consultation with member states. However, I am hearing today from my officials, and this will be of interest in particular to Mr Scott, that at the on-going EU pharaoh talks in Brussels, that the issue of the level of pharaohese access for mackerel is now back on the negotiating table rather than being fixed. Nevertheless, it will be very challenging to deliver a reduction from the existing 30 per cent. The issue is now again being discussed in the negotiations, and that is a significant step forward. Finally, this year's negotiations reached their conclusion at next week's December council, which I will attend, and which will negotiate the remaining stocks that are faced solely by EU fleets. My focus at the council will be to ensure that good scientific advice is converted into actual quota to resist cuts where those are scientifically justifiable reasons for doing so, and to continue to secure other outcomes linked to tackling future choke risks. Of course, I cannot talk about fisheries without referring to the result of the now not-so-recent European referendum. I acknowledge that many in the fishing industry voted to leave the EU, and I understand why that is the case. The common fisheries policy has not been a success for Scottish fisheries, and I recognise that there are opportunities outside of the EU for our industry. I am very pleased that we have worked very closely with Bertie Armstrong and his colleagues on all those matters over the past months, and I fully intend to press the UK Government to ensure that we make most of those. Indeed, a few weeks ago, I wrote to Andrea Leadsam urging her to confirm that she would not give away permanent access to Scottish waters to European fishing vessels in any exit deal, for we must not give up control over our waters and give away access, our most valuable asset, on a permanent basis. Rather, we should negotiate access to our waters on an annual basis, as indeed do Norway, the Faroes and Iceland. It would be totally unacceptable for the UK Government to use access to our waters to solve problems with quota in English waters, as they seem to hint that they may wish to do. However, we also acknowledge the risks that Brexit will bring and the potential damage that it can do to the industry. In 2015, Scotland exported £438 million of seafood to the EU, and we benefited from 50 EU trade deals. That is why we must avoid a hard Brexit and the UK should remain a full member of the single market. It is also why it is so important that we get our fishing industry on the most sustainable footing now, so it is in the best place possible to cope with whatever the future brings. It is clear that the autumn negotiations are a complex process. This year, they are taking place in an increasingly complex political landscape. What is simple, however, is my pledge to explore and seek to activate all options open to us to secure the best outcomes for our industry. I will work tirelessly to ensure that this year's talks deliver the best possible deals and have Scotland's best interests at their heart. In conclusion, I look forward to listening carefully to the amendments that were put forward by the other three main parties. I want to say that I will listen with great care and, with having in mind the clear desire in our fishing communities that this Parliament speaks with one voice, so I hope that the Opposition spokesman is able to persuade me of their particular cause so that that unity can emerge this afternoon. I now call Peter Chapman to speak to a move amendment 2922.1. Mr Chapman, eight minutes are there about a little time in hand, so I can be a bit relaxed for a while with the times. I am always pleased when you say that you are relaxed. I am particularly glad to be leading today's debate, as the impact of year-end negotiations is of huge importance to my constituents in the north-east region. It is fair to say that the towns of Peterhead and Fraserborough are the two towns in Britain that are most reliant on fishing and fish processing for their prosperity and that, over the years, they have suffered as our fishing industry has declined. Before anyone accuses a buck and loon like me of being parochial, it is not just my corner of Scotland that will be watching these developments closely. They have an impact right across Scotland. One of the key factors behind the Scottish fishing industry's recent success is the willingness that our fishermen have shown in moving to more sustainable fishing methods. They have, time and time again, taken the tough decisions that have replenished our stocks of fish, but those decisions have come at a huge cost to those communities over the years, as boats have been scrapped and fishermen have had to find other jobs. There was a time when there was a great deal of fear over the future of cod stocks, and it was the determination of our industry to keep fishing sustainably that brought those stocks back up to the healthy level that we see them at today. Our fishermen have pioneered new technology, such as nets designed to allow younger fish to escape and the targeting of species. They have proved that they are innovative, forward-looking and are leading the world in these new nets and techniques. It is this ability to innovate that comes from an understanding of the need to protect a long-term resource that makes our fishing fleet the envy of the rest of Europe. Of course, there are still a great many challenges facing our fishing industry. To go back to cod, the extension of the discard ban to cod and whiting, if mishandled, could have a serious detrimental impact on a real success story of Scottish fishing. This SNP Government has a responsibility to make sure that Scottish fishermen are not unfairly penalised as the industry comes to grips with the landing obligation. Last week, just when all looked well and many of us were ready to celebrate a successful year-end negotiation, a last-minute intervention from Norway threw into sharp relief the disservice that the EU does to Scottish fishing. The EU traded away 110,000 tonnes of blue whiting to Norway, up from 75,000 tonnes last year. Those are fish that will be caught in UK waters and will have a direct negative impact on boats working out of Scotland. They traded it in exchange for Arctic cod. The UK delegation voted against this deal, but of course we were outvoted. This cod will be of great interest to Portuguese, French and Dutch fishing crews, but it is totally useless for our industry because our fishermen do not fish there. Post Brexit, the UK will have far greater control over who fish is in our waters and the rules governing them. We will only trade away fish for other tunnage that our fishermen can catch and have a market for. That is the sea of opportunity, which Berthie Armstrong and his colleagues throughout the industry are so keen to see. I know that the member and I were both at the North East Fisheries Development Partnership, and I think that there was broad agreement in the room that the red line in all negotiations should be that no decisions about foreign access to new fishing opportunities should proceed our getting control of them. Does the member agree with that position that was expressed there? Peter Chapman That is exactly what I am saying. Post Brexit, we will have that exact control, and that is what I have been emphasising in the last couple of minutes. I read with interest Fergus Ewing's comments on yesterday's P&J, where he was blaming the CFP for the last-minute Norway deal. Quite right. What I do not understand is how he squares that stance with his desire to keep the fishing industry subject to the CFP by us remaining in the EU. He says that he is worried about the UK Government selling the fishing industry out in Brexit negotiations, but I would argue that it is this SNP Government's policy that ignores and disrespects the desires of Scotland's fishermen. If the SNP Government position is that we should give away our quota for the benefit of other EU nations, then one has to wonder how they define standing up for Scotland. Gail Ross Talking about definitions, maybe the member can explain what expendable means, because that is certainly what the Tory said that our fishing industry was in the 1970s. Peter Chapman You could well be like Gail Ross in that quote, because that was long before any of us were involved in this thing, and maybe that was correct at the time. But what we are doing now is looking forward to the opportunities that are coming down the road, not what happened 40 years ago. If the SNP Government—no, where are we? Scottish fishermen see the future as one outside the EU, and the SNP position of staying tied to the EU, even at the cost of a second independence referendum, is seen as a complete betrayal by our fishermen. There was a time when the First Minister's predecessor, Alex Salmond, understood the anger and frustration that the CFP provoked, and his commitment resulted in a bill to Parliament for the UK to leave the common fisherist policy back in 2004. Nicola Sturgeon now runs the SNP, and what she said on the CFP was equally clear. She said, and I quote, the reality is that it is essential to get rid of the CFP, which is disastrous for Scottish fishing. Well, I can't be the only one who is curious what has changed. These mixed messages and support for a vital Scottish industry betrays the true objective of the SNP, and its primary concern, which, of course, is separation. It doesn't matter how pressing an issue is, it doesn't matter how important it is to stand up for Scotland's key sectors, the only thing that matters is creating more grievance that allows the SNP to push for a second independence referendum. I have to admit that I was shocked and angered when I heard Alex Salmond on national TV at the weekend gleefully saying that a constitutional crisis would be welcome. He was referring to the court case regarding the triggering of article 50, but for any politician to welcome a constitutional crisis shows just how dangerous Salmond has become. He will sink to any levels to further his dream. It just goes to show that the SNP will say anything and do anything to achieve their dream of separation, no matter the cost to Scotland. Presiding Officer, we have a great UK team fighting our corner in the year-end negotiations. The problem with those negotiations is that the EU has to work on behalf of 28 countries under majority voting. It is inevitable that the UK will not always win every fight around that table. That is why, when industry leaders talk about the sea of opportunity that Brexit presents, I take them seriously. We will be a sovereign nation controlling some of the best fishing waters in the world. Our decisions and our trade-offs will be done with the UK's best interest at heart, not those of EU nations. In that moment, nearly 60 per cent of fish caught in our waters is caught by non-UK EU fishing boats. We have such a great opportunity to put our fishing industry first. Great strides have been made by our industry, but there is more that can be done once we have left the EU and the CFP. If only the SNP could see the opportunity Brexit brings to our fishermen and embrace it, I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Chapman. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment 2922.2. Ms Grant, seven minutes and a little bit. This debate is as much an annual event as the negotiations that we are debating. If we were setting up such negotiations afresh, we would not do it like this. We might hope that if Brexit has one upside, it is this that the annual negotiations surrounding quota and total allowable catches will not happen like this in the future. However, historic negotiations with Norway and the Farrows do not fill me with high expectations for that. Going forward, our fishing communities are clear that they want rights to UK waters. However, they will also need access to European markets, and those two things will require further negotiation. However, that is for another day. We are still part of the EU, and those negotiations are just as important today as they have been in the past. Can I firstly turn to our amendment? Marine Scotland operate marine protection vessels, formerly the Scottish Fisheries Protection Fleet. Those are the people that ensure that the negotiations are adhered to the negotiations that we are talking about today. The work of those crews, the crews of those vessels are specialists, and they need an understanding of the fishing industry. Some years ago, Marine Scotland were having difficulty in recruiting and retaining crew, and therefore they paid a retention bonus of £5,000 to keep them within the service. Even with this bonus, their salaries were lower than those of other publicly paid seafarers. For instance, a chief steward for Marine Scotland earns up to £29,579 a year, while with CalMac the same post has paid £37,675 a year. A seamen working with Marine Scotland earns up to £25,543 a year, while at CalMac they earn £32,998. Because of the downturn of the oil industry, Marine Scotland now appears to think that crew are ten a penny and they are removing that bonus, it has been halved and it could disappear altogether next year in total, a £5,000 pay cut. However, there are still huge issues recruiting staff, and I am concerned that if we get back to the situation that we had in a number of years ago, vessels will have to tie up because they will not have the required staffing levels to sail safely. There is simply no reasonable excuse for the Government to pay those working in Marine Scotland less than the going rate for the job, and it is bad for seafarers, it is bad for their families and communities and it is bad for Scotland's fisheries. A Marine Scotland employee told me, I feel the skill set that we have as being ignored compared to the job that we do, and I do not see why CalMac and Marine Scotland are on two different pay scales. Those jobs are tough, spending weeks away from family, they need experience and expertise, and yet Marine Scotland cut their salaries without any negotiation. While we are putting more pressure on those crews, we treat them abysmally, preferring to pay agency staff to fill the gaps rather than reward loyal skilled crew. If we are to ensure a future of the industry along with the conservation of the fishing stock, we need crews working with fishermen rather than inexperienced crew working on short-term contracts. Permanent crew are not there for the money, they would not be there if that was what they were after because they were paid much more elsewhere, but they have built up an expertise working with the fishing fleet and they are invested in the industry. That is what we are asking for, that those crews get a fair pay settlement, not a pay cut, in order to show them that we all value the role and the work that they do on our behalf. Presiding Officer, turning to the larger debate on the discard ban, the incredible waste of throwing dead fish back to sea because boats do not have enough quota left to land them has been debated frequently. Surely it is a moral waste when there is so much without enough food to feed themselves? Does nothing for conservation of stocks because the fish are already dead when they return and at best an easy meal for seabirds and other predators, but does nothing at all for the species or indeed the environment? Therefore, we, like many others, advocated a discard ban. Not a ban that would stop fishers working, causing hardship to those at sea and processors on land, but a ban that would allow bycatch to be landed and used. A ban that neither punished nor rewarded boats that had caught it inadvertently. My understanding is that the current ban is to be extended to white fish this year and it falls short of that aim, albeit that it is being faced in, but we need to deal with any potential issues before they arise. Discarding at sea is to be banned and anyone doing it is open to sanction and indeed charges and ultimately a boat could be stripped of its licence. To legally land bycatch, you must be able to access quota for the species that make up that bycatch. It could be argued that if that quota was readily available, it would have never been dumped as bycatch in the first place. Therefore, it must be recognised that bycatch is made up of fish that has no quota easily available to allow it to be landed. Those fish are regarded as choke species. There is sometimes trading quota available, but there is a concern that that will be hoarded by countries for their own use and will not be traded widely enough to allow everyone to continue to fish. If trading does not happen, bycatch or choke species will become illegal to land and will attract severe penalties. Therefore, crews may discard in order to keep on working and that is illegal. The fishing industry is investing in new technology and gear to enable them to fish in a more targeted way. Technology is developing and we must invest more in the science to get the best possible solutions because avoiding choke species altogether is always the best outcome, but it is not all our interests that we have healthy fish stocks. However, we need a system in place that allows everything to be caught to be landed and where there is no quota for bycatch, then there must be a way of landing it. It could be a way of flexible fines, a fine could be equivalent to the sale price of the choke species with an allowance for the time and the fuel spent in landing it. That way, crews would be able to land without penalty but also without reward, making it unattractive for them to target that species. It is a careful balance and it would need to be struck, but a solution must be a fine to allow fishers to land bycatch without being unjustifiably punished for abiding by the discard ban. Presiding Officer, these debates happen every year, but they are as important as ever despite Brexit. Suffice to say that we all want the best deal for our fishing industry, a deal that ensures stocks are protected for the future generations but also allows the current one to make a living and for all of us to have fish to eat. Our coastal communities are vulnerable and they need a stable industry for their survival. It is not just the crews and the boats that depend on a fishing industry, it is the process and workers on shore. To speak to a move amendment 2922.3, seven minutes and a little bit more. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to see the cabinet secretary here today. I must confess that I was quite worried when I read the press and journal like Peter Chapman on Monday morning or Tuesday morning rather because there is a very fetching photograph of Mr Ewing in the press and journal in Mr Stevenson's constituency with his foot at a jaunty angle on the edge of the pier there. He looks like he was just about to jump in. Fisheries policy, I am sure, can do that to any minister, but we are very grateful for the fact that Fergus Ewing is with us here today. I wanted to start at the other end of the debate. There is no doubt that the great majority of fishermen voted leave in June and no wonder. The common fisheries policy run by Brussels is top-down, ineffective and indeed woeful. It is not common. It does nothing for fish stocks and is rarely even a policy, but one decision the then European Fisheries Commissioner took encapsulates why the industry literally hates the CFP and indeed Brussels too. Faroe and Iceland decided some years back to prosecute the mackerel without quota. The EU did nothing other than wring its hands. Years of negotiations went nowhere and in that time the Faroese industry built up a catching track record of mackerel, a high-volume, high-price species caught, of course, in a clean fishery. What then happened? The EU rewarded Faro for years of illegal fishing with an international quota, a quota that meant a cut in mackerel caught by Shetland and Scottish pelagic vessels. Fisheries managers and politicians all expected the industry to accept that. Well, they didn't. The huge leave vote against the EU in fisheries has been building, I suspect, for decades, but that sell-out of our industry's interests over Faroese mackerel quota was, for many, the final straw. There is no way, Presiding Officer, that I, as a constituency member or indeed Mr Ewing, at his most persuasive, will convince the catching sector that the EU acts in the industry's interests. That is without even mentioning days at sea and all that went with that. That is today why my amendment asks the Government to begin work on a Scottish fisheries policy that will be needed irrespective of whatever happens with Brexit. I have made many a speech condemning the CFP for all its manifest failure, so I am not going to add to that today. Far more importantly, the industry wants a policy that is better, local fisheries management, proper, accountable and understood science and a flexibility, as others have already mentioned and the minister mentioned, to the reality of the fishing grounds using such techniques as real-time closed areas. My amendment makes two further points, so I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider, and I recognise that he has already touched on those points this afternoon. First, the EU-Faroese talks that are under way just now in Brussels, we need our Government to resist any further access to EU waters for the Faroese to catch mackerel. The Government needs to keep the pressure up on this, and I am grateful to the minister for his remarks earlier on. He will understand the argument. Shetland and indeed Scottish fishermen are sick of watching Faroese boats catch mackerel in EU waters and then exporting the fish to Russia. Parliament knows why there are trade embargoes on fish to Russia because of what happened in the Crimea two years ago, yet the Faroese product, this mackerel, is not covered by those EU trade sanctions, so it can use a mackerel quota that is obtained illegally to sell fish that our boats could catch to Russia. You could not really make it up. Who is responsible for that? I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that there are no further proceedings in that area, and those EU Faroese talks end up in the right area for our industry. Secondly, the reality of the discard ban. The landing obligation—or, frankly, we all know it, the discard ban—cannot work in its current form. The North Sea is a mixed white fish fishery boat's catch more than one species at one time. The Government knows that. The cabinet secretary certainly knows that. The RSPB briefing for today's debate makes that point to all but in a different way. There is not, as other members have said, enough quota of certain species, and that will certainly include cod from 2017. The reality next year is that boats will be forced to stockfishing as quota for one stock will be exhausted long before others. It is why in the northern North Sea in Shetland Waters cod had a confwiting quota matter that bit more because of the catch of the local boats in the islands. Government and even the commission know that, on the choke species issue, there is still much to be done to resolve that, yet we are pressing on as if there is no problem. The cabinet secretary will be familiar with article 2.1 of the basic Brussels regulation, which says that the CFP shall ensure that fishing and agriculture activities are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits. This is cherry picking. There is no basis in law for favouring one article over another. Why does the discard ban keep rolling out with the reform? I say to my environmental colleagues that this policy is the worst of all worlds for all of us. It is a discard ban that does not work. It means limited information on what is being discarded, and it leads to questionable stock assessments. Poor science helps none of us, particularly the industry. The cabinet secretary, I think that I am correct, has declared that no Scottish boat will be tied up as a result of choke species. I agree with him, and I just want to ask today he will clarify how, during 2017, the regime will ensure that that happens. We need to ensure that the discard ban operates. I suggest that it needs to be modelled on the more sensible and workable arrangements in Norway, and we need to get our industry out of a bind that was a knee-jerk reaction, if we care to remember this, to our celebrity chef, I should quickly add, grandstanding one night in telling. That is bad enough politicians' grandstanding, but, celebrity chef, we really should draw the line at. Two final points, Presiding Officer, if I may. Firstly, Scottish fishermen have expressed their extreme disappointment at the blue-whiting catch arrangements for next year, finalised at last week's EU-Norway talks. I accept that the Scottish negotiating team voted against it. The minister made that clear today, and he was right to, but the deal will see an increased access arrangement for Norway, which will enable them to catch 68 per cent of their blue-whiting allocation to the west of the UK, compared with 61 per cent before. On top of that, there will be an additional 110,000 tonnes of blue-whiting to Norway, in comparison to the previous 75,000 tonnes. I think that that answers, to some extent, Peter Chapman's question about Norway. All my experience of these debates over the years is that, if there is one thing about the Norwegians, they certainly know how to negotiate. Finally—I am just finishing this point, if I may, Mr Scott—finally, the cabinet secretary certainly has my party's support in extracting an agreement from next week that helps fishing businesses at sea and on land from next week's EU council. Occasionally, some of us hark back to the days of the somewhat more confrontational debates that used to take place on these matters, but frankly not that much, because the industry needs stability and an ability to plan for the future. That is the cabinet secretary's task. We support him in that. I move the amendment in my name. I have great hopes for today's debate. In that spirit, I start by congratulating colleagues on the Conservative benches for the candor in the amendment. They make note that everyone is prepared to acknowledge failures in negotiation that have been shared between the UK Government and perhaps the Scottish Government. However, if we acknowledge that if we are not succeeding, we have hope of going forward. Indeed, fishermen in Scotland have expressed their disappointment about the blue-whiting catch allocation. Seven percentage points given away today, just as control over our waters was in 1983 at the end of the 10-year derogation. That leads me to saying that we might usefully look at a little bit of the history of the goddess to where we are today. The reason for doing that is so that we do not repeat some of that history. The original commitment to surrender our fishing rights out to 200 miles came in 1971. It was effectively entrenched into law when Ted Heath signed the Treaty of Accession on 22 January 1972. That is the important point. Only after that was the actual treaty published and subject to democratic scrutiny. The most objectionable part of the treaty was that fishing decisions could be made by majority, sometimes a qualified majority. The issue of opening up the result of negotiations before we get committed to them so that parliamentarians can look at them is perhaps one in another context that we will return to at a later point. The fishing negotiations that we are talking about today are so unsatisfactory that even landlock countries in the EU can essentially block our interests. The SNP has recognised all that from the very outset. That is why we have opposed the common fisheries policy in all its forms from the beginning. I hope that we will get to a position of a reasonable consensus in this chamber. My very first speech here in June 2001 well up the road strictly. The words that I quoted then from this Parliament's European committee are equally relevant today. We should try and get everyone to speak with one voice. There are tensions that should be buried for the common good. That was advice from the Parliament's European Committee in 2001. It is still good advice today and I hope that we are able to do that. It is worth saying that my colleague Donald Stewart, who was the leader of the SNP in 1982, in the Westminster debate preceded the formation of the common fisheries policy in the current form, said on the record then of fishermen. They have been betrayed, the result was the catastrophe. We see that that is a view that was shared. Austin Mitchell, another great champion of fishing communities, was a labour motion that was being debated, I should perhaps have said. It also spoke up in similar terms. As indeed did some, but not a majority of Conservatives. Certainly, when the vote came at 7 o'clock at night, the Conservatives voted down a motion which would have been a proper sense of where we were at that point. The thing that we have got to grab hold of as well is that fisheries negotiations are not just a matter for those who catch fish. They are also a matter for our processors. In my constituency, processing is a major source of employment—many thousands of people—and people in that industry wait equally anxiously for the outcome of each year's negotiation. It is no small matter for Peterhead and Frisbar where the contribution from landings was over £150 million last year. That is nearly £4,000 per head of population, a substantial matter indeed. However, it equally matters to constituents in the south of Scotland, in Imouth and, of course, Mr Scott's constituents in the farthest north. In 1997, my political colleague Dr Alan McCartney published a considered proposal for the reform of the CFP. There are a couple of things in it that throw some light on how we got to where we are and that we might take notice of. One of the things that Alan McCartney highlighted was the Spanish act of succession of 1985, which essentially eliminated the ability for the UK to veto results. In part, that arose between a difference between the Spanish version of the treaty, the language was different, and the English language of the treaty. The Spanish language missed out the word solely, and it was the one that was used when the decisions were made. I see Travis Scott nodding, so he is familiar with it. Sometimes it is very simple little things that can get us into real difficulties in the long term. He went on. It is interesting to say that the 1997 paper that Alan McCartney produced might form a useful basis for the policy that we might adopt now. Others might take a different view. However, one of the things that he wrote about was what was needed. A new framework whereby coastal states with the greatest historical interests in specific fisheries would be able to take key control and management decisions relating to the fisheries in the waters of their coasts. Of course, he was seeking to get change in the common fisheries policy. It is quite clear that the dynamic in politics and practical affairs today is somewhat different, and there might be a particular opportunity that will come. I know that others are going to speak about choke species. That is going to continue to be something that is a matter of importance to our communities. One thing that is an issue in the current arrangements is that not enough of the fish caught in our sector is landed for the benefit of our communities, and the process is in our communities. It is not irrational for fishermen to go and get the highest price that they can, be that in Norway or elsewhere. However, we have to bear in mind that our quotas were given out at no cost. If we have a new quota because of new opportunities, we have to look at a new way of doing things. Ultimately, fish is a delicious, healthy way of eating. There is a vast network of fishing chip shops across the islands for giving us all access to fish. That is what I most enjoy about fishing, but this debate is a key opportunity for us to join together. I hope that at 5 o'clock we can all agree a common position to the benefit of fishing communities, fishermen and Scotland and the UK as a whole. Here we are again, the annual series of summits that determine next year's fishing quotas for the EU, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic fishing fleets. We await the lobbyists, the politicians, the commissioners, council officials, European Parliament staffers and journalists at the annual two-day all-night bun fight at the Burlay among emerging exhausted, waving the various deals and agreements that they have wrestled over. It is, of course, in the main all affront. The summit is for the British fleet at least a rubber stamping exercise, with the major deals already having been agreed with little fanfare. For our west coast fleet, the major decisions were taken in Ireland last month at the meeting between Norway, the Faroese and the EU, where the catch limits for the key North Atlantic stocks of mackerel and herring were decided. For our North Sea fleets, the big decisions were taken in Norway at the EU-Norway summit, with deals struck over cod, haddock, whiting, coley place, North Sea mackerel and herring and blue whiting. That does not mean that there are not surprises to be sprung in Brussels. Who can forget last year's summit meeting, where the fishing world, expecting a quick and easy meeting, was caught on the hop by the Norwegian Government's last-minute demands against all scientific advice for a much greater share of blue whiting? A situation only partly resolved at 2 in the morning by a European Commission Feta Complee behind closed doors that left the stock with no overall tack or percentage shares and made the claim by the EU that we were all moving towards maximum sustainable yield for all stocks somewhat laughable. A place British fishermen bound to collective bargaining by the EU at a disadvantage to their non-EU cousins. Only last week in Bergen, Norway secured another increase in their blue whiting share off the west coast of the British Isles, in return for an increase in the EU's share of Arctic cod. But British boats do not fish for Arctic cod, they fish for blue whiting. The Portuguese, French and the Dutch fish for Arctic cod. Equal access to a common resource, indeed. One thing the Brussels summit does do is to put the fishing industry at the centre of our national discourse, one of Scotland's oldest, most iconic and vital sectors, unfairly targeted for perceived overfishing, as Tavish Scott alluded to. Subject to ever more stringent regulations such as the pending deep sea fishing regulation and the discard ban, ignored by the Scottish Government when asking for help to prepare for the discard ban and abandoned in Europe by the SNP who missed key votes affecting our industry, who can forget last year when the European Fisheries Committee with the support of the SNP's free green alliance in conjunction with UKIP that will be UKIP, voted to give the European Commission delegated power status over the landing obligations, meaning that the discard ban for all demersal stocks would be introduced a whole year early. UKIP at least were in the room, their representative later claimed that he didn't really know what he was voting for, but the SNP was absent. Stuart Stevenson calls for one voice, and I commend the motion and the amendments where they call for support for our innovative, pioneering and hardworking fishing industry. It has been the representative bodies of that industry, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the producer organisations, Catherine Stack in Brussels, their predecessors, the hundreds of individuals around this country who, working with government to European Union scientists and innovators, have made the Scottish fishing fleet and associated shoreside operations the most innovative, forward-thinking and sustainable fishing industry in Europe. It is an industry that has made many sacrifices over the last decade to secure the return of a sustainable cod fishery. Many fishing vessels were decommissioned and many fishing careers ended due to the cod fishing restrictions of the early 2000s, but this painful sacrifice and the subsequent voluntary adoption of new fishing practices has secured a regrowth in the cod stock. So much so, it is now within a hair's breadth of being reclassified as a sustainable stock by the Marine Stewardship Council. It is an industry that pioneered new nets to reduce discarding practices in the North Sea, not because they were forced to but because they know that industry's wealth is judged not only by its income but by the health of its resource. It is an industry that pioneered the voluntary use of CCTV monitoring on boats because they had to be seen to be working in a lawful and sustainable way. It is an industry that has worked with Marine Scotland on the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on-board observer scheme, ensuring that fisheries management decisions are based upon informed advice and not guesswork or estimates. It is an industry that has created the most professional and well-equipped support network of scientific policy, non-executive and voluntary bodies to promote dialogue between regulators, legislators and fishermen in the world. We are pleased to back much of that motion, calling for the best possible deal from the fishing negotiations, which I have every confidence will be delivered by George Eustace and his team. We very much support the Scottish Government in its efforts to achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland's fishermen, coastal communities and wider seafood sectors. Our amendment notes the blue-whiting issue and also seeks to recognise the real opportunity of sustained economic benefit for our coastal communities and every seafood sector presented by Brexit. However, such benefits can only happen if parliamentarians from all parts of the spectrum join together and throw their support behind our fishing communities to ensure the best possible deal for fishing. As we give that support, let us in this chamber never forget that tonight, as on every night, there are those out on the boats willing to risk all weathers, to risk life and limb, to put food on our tables—something for which I am sure all in this chamber are eternally grateful. I grew up in a village that was quite literally built by fishing. Ullipull on the shores of Loch Broome was founded as a herring port in 1788 by the British Fisheries Society. There is a lot less herring landed there today, but it is still one of the 10 major fishing ports in the UK. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have such a vast and rich sea to fishing, and we must value it. We must use good quality scientific research to inform our stewardship so that we can realise the industry's full potential. Scotland's seafood sector is already one of our great strengths and one of our most successful exports, and Scottish seafood has already achieved much in building its reputation as a product renowned the world over for pristine quality. In 2014, it made up 60 per cent of all food exports to the EU. Fishing is at the heart of coastal communities all over Scotland, and as a Highlands and Islands representative, I represent many of those communities. The industry has provided much-needed jobs in my region. Take Shetland, for example. In Shetland, fishing is a bigger contributor to the economy than the oil industry, and unemployment there is low. I have stated before in the chamber that Shetland lands more than a fifth of the UK's fish, more than England, Wales and Northern Ireland added together. That is why the Scottish Government will always stand up for fishing. The industry may only be a small part of the UK economy, but it is absolutely vital for Scotland. I think that it is important to address Brexit in this debate, because it has been argued that Brexit is an opportunity for the fishing industry, and that prospect caused many of the people in fishing communities to vote for it. I do not doubt that there should be opportunities for fishing post-Brexit, but, like many people in my community, I fear that the UK Government will once again consider the industry expendable and, once again, barter away our interests. Are we expected to believe that fishing rights in Scottish waters will take precedence over passporting arrangements for London's financial sector? As well as opportunities with Brexit, there may be some risks. It is clear that the EU is a valuable market. The shellfish that is landed in Aleppo goes straight to market in France and in Spain. I hear people expressing concerns about losing investment in harbour infrastructure and the viability of fish processing if EU nationals cannot work here. EU funding also supports the science data and compliance cost that is necessary to manage and support the industry. I have to say, though, that it will be hard for me to have grown up in Aleppo and not share some of the concerns about the common fisheries policy. At the moment, fishermen in my constituency are finding the landing obligation really challenging. Everyone agrees that the discard ban is a laudable aspiration, but in a mixed fishery it is really hard to achieve. With new fish species being added, the chance of choke species occurring is high and the unintended consequence of having boats tied up is really hard to take. As you can imagine, the people in my community want to ensure that boats keep fishing if possible. When you tie up a boat, it is like closing down a business. It is important that we strike the right balance between the urge to fish as much as possible and the need to plan for sustainable management of our fisheries, which we cannot afford to deplete. It is my understanding that the UK fisheries minister, Mr Eustis, could, at any time during his tenure, started discussions on changing shares and negotiated better quotas for choke species. If he had done so, many, if not all of the challenges facing the industry in relation to the discard ban would already have been alleviated. I was pleased to hear that Mr Ewing is working on a solution to this vexing problem. After the quota negotiations are completed, I would urge Marine Scotland to ensure that final allocations of the quota are conducted as speedily as possible. The earlier our boats have certainty about the final allocations, the more effectively they will be able to plan for the coming year. I would ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that this happens more swiftly than in previous years. I would like to conclude by offering my support to the cabinet secretary with the negotiations. We are well aware in the highlands that Fergus Ewing has a strong record for getting into the nuts and bolts of industries and listening to everyone involved. He is a strong record of standing up for Scottish industries. He stood up for Scottish steel as minister, and more recently he stood up and protected the workers at Fort William aluminium smelter during the sale of Rio Tinto. I have no doubt that he will ensure that our fishing industry gets the best possible deal from any negotiation. I, too, wish the cabinet secretary well on his negotiating trip with the UK delegation. Reaching an agreement on our shared stocks is a challenge that is made more complex by competing demands. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening speech today, balancing and compromises sometimes have to be found. However, I support the Scottish Government to seek the best arrangement for our coastal communities with respect to the pillars of science and sustainability. Protecting and enhancing our natural marine environment goes hand-in-hand with a strong, resilient fishing industry. Furthermore, the context of global food security and food carbon emissions shows the value of the fishing industry as a more carbon-friendly and important source of nutrition for much of the world than other forms of protein, making up 15 to 20 per cent of global protein intake. Changes to our climate can alter delicate habitats and balanced ecosystems. I seek assurance from the cabinet secretary that Marine Scotland will be secure in funding to monitor this, protecting the industry and the marine environment from adverse climate effects. I look forward to the upcoming climate action plan as well and expect it to offer some greater commitment to blue carbon and the opportunities there. In this debate last year, I argued strongly that strong partnerships are all levels and a determination to work together would move us towards a future positive. Brexit means that we are now in a very different position face today, and I am listening carefully to the comments from across the chamber on that. Face with much uncertainty, but that sentiment about regionalisation still stands. At risk of repeating myself and colleagues, fish know no borders, whatever the outcome of the EU referendum results, Scotland must uphold the values of collaboration and ensure a future of high-quality, sustainable regulation and, consequently, a thriving fishing industry. Perhaps thankfully, those negotiations are for another day, and this December the focus should be on implementing current regulation and setting our fishing stocks and industry up for a bountiful and sustainable year ahead. I too recognise the work of the fishermen represented in the gallery and those who are not able to be here today because they are working for the industry. Again this year, North Sea cod provides a good news story in many ways. The stock shows signs of continued recovery thanks to the transition and actions of our fishermen and could be certified as sustainable next year, as we have heard from other members. Welcome news for fishermen, the environment and, of course, the hungry. When our fishing policy is anchored in biological, social and economic data, we give our environment and industry the best possible footing. Congratulations must also go to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for their recent success at the Green Energy Awards. In conjunction with Skills Development Scotland and Moray Offshore Renewables Limited, as many will know in the chamber, the Federation has enabled fishermen to upskill and shift into offshore wind sector in the Murray Firth. I applaud those outstanding efforts. Scotland's fishing fleets have unique skills and knowledge that can add value to many other sectors as well, if and when there is a transition needed in the future. I stress the word if. The fact remains that the fishing industry has faced a number of limitations and requirements to enable a durable industry. In this context, it is vital that paths to diversification are clear for businesses and communities. I want to focus for a few moments on the Marine Maritime Fisheries Fund, which is instrumental in this aim, protecting sustainable growth and financing projects for job creation, offering significant support in economic diversification. Reinforcing the community-led approach to sustainable development of fishing areas is hugely important. The EMFF can empower young people by aiding start-ups or training for the unemployed. It can progress family businesses by training members and spouses of those in the fishing industry. Smaller-scale fleets can be advised on additional routes of income within other maritime sectors, and support like this can gel coastal communities together and fortify them for the future. It is essential that the EMFF support continues beyond article 50. Our fishing stocks are only a sustainable source with proper management, and the EMFF is a valuable resource to ensure that the industry understands the complex challenges that it faces and is supported in those. The fund has been made, if I can be regional, for a few moments. It has made an impact as well as across the country in the Scottish Borders, and the Fourth Fisheries Local Action Group has delivered £1.05 million of funding to support the diversification of catching and processing, the development of tourism and food and drink, and the expansion into opportunities in offshore wind and renewables. I also encourage any SME community group or harbour trust across Scotland to consider applying for funding. The landing obligation is indeed a quandary for both fishermen and implementers, but it is another important step in the future proofing of our marine environment and industries. In 2007, 47 per cent of all-white fish catches in the North Sea were discarded. Last year, I understand that that was brought down to 16 per cent. An inspiring turnaround, and thanks to measures taken by fishing them cells. The wastefulness of throwing back, as we have heard from Rhoda Grant and others, is a practice that is truly shocking in a world where people go hungry in our own country with food banks, and we must make sure that that is avoided and that ways are found to deal with it. I will end by supporting the amendment by Rhoda Grant on a fair pay settlement that recognises the experience and skills of marine Scotland staff and the risks that they take as do fishermen. I hope that the cabinet secretary today will be able to support the Scottish Labour motion. I wish all the fishermen around the coast of Scotland very good luck for the winter season and the dangers and the challenges that they will face to put a whole range of fish, some of it very new, interesting and exciting on to our plates. Again, I wish the cabinet secretary good luck in the negotiations. Our national marine plan talks about clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. I hope that we will all be supportive of that position. My colleague Gil Ross alluded to the term expendable earlier, and I was going to mention that. It is certainly the case that our proud industry, as the cabinet secretary referred to, was never expendable and should never be expendable. It was not right then and it is not right in the future. However, I have to say that I gain the impression from a lot of the discussion not in the chamber today but in the press and elsewhere that some people view this as payback time if Scotland leaves the EU. The leave campaign talked about escaping the disastrous CFP and claiming back our fish. That is a very highly simplistic approach. Devising any new management regime will be much more complicated than that for a number of the reasons that have already been alluded to, the mobility of the commercial species that are fished, which travel through the waters of several countries during their lifetime. It is crucial in everything that we do that we determine the distribution and abundance of fish stocks from independent research, not just from landings—that is important. That would include the key spawning in nursery areas and migration pathways. A North Sea, which has frequently been mentioned in the debate, is bounded by seven countries. The EU, the UK, Scotland and the Nieder Coastal Communities have a shared responsibility to manage that. In the position of the Scottish Green Party, we want to protect those vital stocks, and we would seek to have the CFP extend powers for regional management bodies that would help stakeholders to work together to prevent unsustainable exploitation of fish stocks and actively recover the habitats that make up our marine environment. Supporting prioritising high-value, low-impact fishing methods that support coastal communities—it is important that we mention the communities—is not some abstract industry that supports the land-based communities, too. Although that is not hugely relevant to today's debate, we would also want a moratorium in the EU. John Scott I am concerned that no one has yet mentioned, without wishing to reincarnate Jamie McGregor, the west coast fisheries and the depletion of the stocks that seem to be a continuing abiding problem. The minister touched on it, but I wonder if the grievance of any answers to that problem appears to have been intractable for as long as I can remember, and since it does not appear that anyone has managed to resolve it yet, do you have any ideas how the depletion of stocks might be reversed in the west coast fisheries and the Firth of Clyde? John Finnie Well, not personally, but what I would commend to Mr Scott and I come on to commend is that everything has a scientific basis, rather than a simple commercial exploitation basis. That is what we would commend. Indeed, the cabinet secretary in one of his comments talked about respecting scientific evidence, which is very important. The role that Scotland's marine protected areas play planning based on scientific evidence with them, too, and it is important that communities are engaged on that so that the protected areas are something that is done with communities than is often seen as done to communities. I know that there are conflicts between groups and, certainly, Scottish Green Party supports sustainable fishing, and if you do not have a fishing industry where there historically was one, then clearly that has not been a sustainable fishery. We are very concerned about the destructive methods of dredging, which damages the environment, and it would also refute the nonsense about plowing the seabed to restore it. Anyone can see the damage that has been done. There is ample video evidence out there about how marine areas can recover. We have seen it in some of the restricted areas in Wester Ross, and what we want to do is view our maritime resources as an entire community resource. Likewise with representative bodies, much has been made of references to the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, but, of course, they do not speak for the whole industry, and I commend the role that the Scottish Creel Fisherman's Association plays, indeed the Fisherman's Federation's, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will have engagement with all bodies, not just that single body. We have seen over the weekend his talk of efforts to evade the scrutiny that is absolutely vital to ensure that our marine stocks are maintained. Marine monitoring is vital. For that reason, we will, of course, the Green Party will be swotting the Labour Party amendment tonight because the important role that those staff play in preserving our fishing stocks. As has been said, there should be no situation when there is any loss of remuneration for the important public employees, and public servants who work in very hazardous circumstances. There are some positives that have come out of the common fisher's policy. I know that many have derided it, but it is undoubtedly the case that there have been some benefits. Not everything can be transferred into pounds, shimmings and pens on the key side. The situation with discards has often been referred to here, and, again, the benefits of sustainable fishery is one of the benefits of a discard ban and the potential to increase overall fishing revenue and resilience. It is about selectivity and much has been made in comments past about the innovation that has been put in place with gear, and we would certainly support that. There are clear economic arguments for that. In the time that I have left, I would like to commend just some of the briefings that have been received and that have been alluded to by the WWF, the RSPB, and that catch limits are in accordance with scientific advice. We may all have our wish to see maximised catches, but, as Mr Scott has alluded to, historically there has been a fishery and there is no longer a fishery that shows that that method did not work, and certainly some of the tactics employed in the 70s and 80s have contributed to that. That is important because we need to retain our reputation as a supplier of high quality and sustainable food. I think that I will just close at that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As an MSP that represents fishing communities on the east and west coasts and believes passionately in their future, because those technical, international discussions with experts that we have been discussing have far-reaching ripples on homes and communities in Skye, Lochaber and Rossshire. It has been a privilege to meet and chat to fishermen working with different gear in Malig, Keil, Keilac and Pertrie and Och and their families over the course of the last few months. That speech is largely based on conversations with representatives of the industry in those communities. I have also spoken to those who transport the stock and the processors and suppliers of our finest world-renowned seafood, scallops, langoustines and lobsters to name just a few, and sadly most of which are exported. Despite the high renown in which the produce of our seas is held globally, it is delivered despite a legislative system that hamstrings our fishing industry. The economic consequences are arguably not half as grave as the social impact on communities. The loss of a few boats in coastal villages such as Malig impacts on everyone—the harbour, the ice factory, the knock-on effect for transport operations and so on. We do not wish to see young families leaving or deciding not to relocate to rural areas because there are no jobs, which could also adversely impact on schools. In terms of the question earlier from Mr Scott about depletion, I personally think that we need to involve fishermen more rather than imposing legislation on them and we need more effective monitoring at sea. Although I recognise that remote electronic monitoring will only be effective if it applies to every boat in a particular area, I would like to see it being used more. In terms of boosting those figures, we need to make better use of existing resources and technology to monitor that and to involve fishermen in understanding how we reverse that depletion. It is vital that the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary fight to ensure that the negotiated settlement promotes sustainable fisheries and has the best interests of Scotland's fishermen, coastal communities and wider seafood sectors at its heart. In this period of uncertainty about our future in the EU, we all need to do all that we can to make it easier, simpler and more profitable for our fishermen and to support strong trade and high consumer confidence in Scottish seafood. Without a market and the EU is a significant market, there is no fishing. Without fishing boats, it is irrelevant whether or not there is a market. I recognise that many, although not all, fishermen voted for Brexit in the hope that it would result in a fairer deal and more control, which are legitimate ambitions. However, I would say that it will be the same UK Government negotiating the Brexit deal that has negotiated for Scottish fishermen for decades, and only a few months ago with the current Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Mundell, said in relation to the outcome of Brexit, there is no way that we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. Now, I humbly and honestly confess at the outset that I have found the history and the current legislation for the fishing industry in Scotland a baffling concoction of rules and regulations. A system is of little use if it is impossible to comply with. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is working hard to develop solutions to choke species so that our fleet is not placed in impossible positions. In terms of landing obligations, fishermen require time and support to make the necessary adjustments to the new requirements. Scotland has huge potential to market high-quality sustainable seafood, and we must continue to work hard on providing confidence that this is the case. I welcome the Scottish Government's pledge that, in next week's negotiations with the EU Council, the Government will support catch limits in accordance with sound scientific advice, and it comes back to my earlier point and a point that Mr Finney made well, that all of this must depend on sound science. However, although we must take a long-term view and implement sound measures for sustainable fishing, recognising the importance of fishing to our economy, I finish where I started, and that is to say that we cannot lose sight of what we are really talking about here, and that is protecting livelihoods, families, communities and schools and shops. In other words, we are protecting a sustainable population. The task before this Government now is to champion our fishermen in the wake of the Brexit vote, in the wake of uncertainty, and in the wake of my personal total lack of confidence in this UK Government to negotiate a deal that benefits our Scottish fishermen. I would like to see the cabinet secretary, and I am pleased that he said that he will do that, keep the UK Government's feet to the fire to make sure that they do not treat our Scottish fisheries as dispensable and non-essential in Brexit negotiations. I agree that there is a sea of opportunity here, and I would urge the Opposition members to get behind Mr Ewing's motion today and to work together to make Scotland a European leader for fishing. Thank you very much. As has always been the case since the EU's common fisheries policy came into existence, the position of UK fishermen is negotiated on their behalf by the EU, while Norway, as a sovereign nation, negotiates in the interests of its own fishermen and coastal communities. In this latest round of EU-Norway fisheries negotiations, we again have the same old tiresome story—the EU failing to stand up for the interests of the UK and a particular Scottish fisherman. Instead, the EU buckled to the demands of Norway over access to North Sea fisheries. The negotiations gave rise to an increase in the Norwegian quota for blue whiting next year, but there is no reciprocal uplift for UK fishermen. Therefore, the European Commission in its wisdom has signed a deal that gives 110,000 tonnes of blue whiting to Norway and increases its access to Scottish waters. That, Deputy Presiding Officer, is entirely unfair on hard-working Scottish fishermen. I would like to make some progress, but I will take interventions. It is therefore no wonder that our fishing communities voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. In so doing, they voted to take back control of our waters so that UK fishing interests can be directly represented at the negotiating table, and we can take a leaf out of the Norwegian playbook in making fair deals that actually benefit our fishermen. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Norway's book and become an independent country, and then we would be able to sit at the table ourselves. Does the member agree? We can sit at the table ourselves with the powers that will return to this Parliament, so I hope that that is now an endorsement from the SNP benches that powers will come to this Parliament and MSPs can make those decisions and we can represent our own fishermen. In the current landscape, we are shackled by the EU's labyrinth of rules and red tape. We have a situation where 70 per cent of UK fisheries resources are in the hands of the EU, worth a total of £1.6 billion. That has been devastating to our fishing industry. 60 per cent of the UK fleet has been scrapped due to the loss of resources. Employment is halved with there being no major fishing port between Peterhead and Plymouth. At the same time, other European countries have built boats with EU grants to fish in our waters, resulting in over £1 billion of fish being caught by foreign boats in our waters. Over 60 per cent of fish quotas in British waters are in foreign hands. That is quite simply madness. To put it another way, the UK owns 70 per cent of the EU's fishing grounds, but only 15 per cent of the quota. As I am sure that Alec Neil, if he was in the chamber today, would agree with me, and no doubt some sitting on the SNP benches this afternoon would too, the decision to leave the EU gives us a golden opportunity to be a major player in the fisheries sector, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. We will have the ability to introduce an environmentally friendly, economically beneficial fisheries policy, determined by members sitting in this Parliament who understand, appreciate and support our local fishing communities. One of the big differences, of course, is that the Norwegian fishermen actually sit in on the negotiations. It is not just perhaps a matter for parliamentarians, but for those who are the experts, who are generally the fishermen. Didn't the First Minister dispute the point that powers over this area will come to this Parliament and MSPs sitting in this chamber will make decisions on what a Scottish fisheries policy would be instead of incoherent, ineffective and democratically deficient policies currently devised by unelected commissioners in Brussels? Are fishermen most certainly want us to seize the opportunities presented by a post-Brexit landscape? Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, said that leaving the EU would give our fishing fleets the ability to recover proper, sustainable, rational stewardship through our own exclusive economic zone for fisheries. Mr Armstrong continued that, for Scotland's economically important fishing industry, we believe that the new opportunities presented by the referendum results are overwhelmingly for the better. The fishing industry across the UK is speaking with one voice in calling for politicians both north and south of the border to support their common cause, which is that Brexit offers a real opportunity, a sustained economic benefit for our coastal communities and every seafood sector. To work together to deliver the opportunities of Brexit, rather than squabble about the process or, in the case of this SNP Government, do everything that it can to keep Scotland in the EU selling out of fishermen to Brussels, the SNP keeps telling us that they believe that Scotland should be independent—it was highlighted in recent interventions—to govern our own affairs. Yet, on fishing, they are not just happy to forfeit the power to decide policy in Scotland by elected MSPs in favour of unelected EU commissioners but are actively working to achieve just that. The SNP is completely out of touch with the most crucial Scottish industry. Its current policy stance will short-change our hard-working fishermen. Perhaps now is the time for members, such as Stuart Stevenson or perhaps even Richard Lochhead, to use this opportunity to clarify their position. Are they part of Alex Neil's magic circle of nationalist Brexiteers? Yes, absolutely. Stuart Stevenson? Has the member signed my motion, which will be subject to a member's debate in about a month's time, which supports the sea of opportunity initiative by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which addresses precisely the points that the member is making? Ross Thompson That is not actually an answer to the point that I made about whether or not you voted to leave, Mr Stevenson. Clearly, your answer is that you still want fishermen to receive their orders from Jean-Claude Juncker and sacrifice their industry on the altar of ever closer EU integration. We all know that Alex Neil did not want to rock the boat by coming out in favour of leaving the EU before the referendum vote, so now that it has passed, where are the rest of them? Today's Herald reports on the national centre for social research, which says that more than a third of SNP supporters have voted to leave. Therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, statistically, there are some sitting in the chamber now, so come on. You cannot possibly leave Alex out on his own all at sea on this one, or are you going to abandon him like you are abandoning the fishing communities of Scotland? Deputy Presiding Officer, the SNP campaign on the premise that they are stronger for Scotland, but it seems that they are just stronger for Brussels when it comes to this issue. This Parliament can show our support for our fishing communities by working together to seize the sea of opportunity that lies ahead. Tavish Scott did not want to talk about the common fisheries policy in depth, but when I saw that there was to be a debate about fishing, I was reminded of an essay in the Scottish Review written by Shetlander, Robert Lowes, in 2004. He likened the EU common fisheries policy of the time to a birthday cake, so I am going to do something a little bit different with your indulgence. Imagine a large plump fruit cake, a grand birthday cake, candles, icing, everything—a cake that anyone would want to taste. Who gets this birthday cake? Well, to be fair, everyone around the table who has come to the party should get a slice. So who divides it up? Not the host, who might have favourites amongst the guests. A cake commission will have to be set up, and they will divide it up. Fine. However, one of the guests demands a slightly bigger slice, because in the past he always got a slightly bigger slice. Well, this will have to be proven, says the cake commission, from past cake records, and if we are actually getting around to measuring slices, how big is the actual cake itself? To avoid squabbling, scientific evidence of the exact size of the cake will be required at each and every birthday in the future. Another guest is watching his waistline. He decides that his slice is just too much for his reduced appetite, so he will eat only part of it and sell the rest to his neighbour who, it seems, has an insatiable appetite for cake. Ah, yes, but when we come to divide up next year's cake, how is that slice reckoned? Did it belong to the full man or the hungry man? Could it be used as an argument for the hungry man to get a larger slice and the thin man to get less the next time round? The guests are getting greedy, so it's agreed to make tea plates smaller and even remove a few altogether to try and cut the demand for cake. Then a real dilemma. Someone else is knocking on the door. Someone, known to be incredibly hungry, who has travelled some way to come to the party. The guests can't exclude him from the party—that would be very rude—but, if this hungry person comes to the table, there will be less cake than ever to go round. So new sharing rules must be devised. The new arrival is stalled as long as possible. Questions are asked about the new guest's entitlement to come to the party. Who invited him? While all this goes on, he starts quietly buying up all the surplus cake crumbs that he can get his hands on so that, when he does get through the door, he can knead it into a sizeable lump and insist that this is his historic slice, ready for when next year's cake appears. Fishing as an industry has historically been one of the most important in Scotland, and my constituency, indeed, my hometown of Wick, saw one of the most remarkable periods in Scottish fishing—the boom of the herring industry. It would be remiss of me not to mention that today. It was during the 18th, 19th and early part of the 20th century that Wick was the largest herring port in Europe. By 1865, records showed that 1,100 vessels from Wick and the surrounding areas were engaged during the herring fishing season. Herring fish lived in vast quantities in the waters around Scotland and was a relatively easy catch. The final years of Wick's association with the herring industry was during a short period following World War 2. By 1953, it was all over, overfished, and almost 200 years of the herring industry became resigned to the history books. Coming back to the present day, Scotland is still placed to have the best fishing in Europe. We export over £400 million of seafood to the EU every year to a market of 500 million people, and no matter what happens, we need continued access to that market. There is still cake in the form of the EU common fisheries policy, which saw reform in 2013. In 1973, we were sold a harry by the UK Government when Ted Heath said that fishing was expendable. I commend Fergus Ewing's efforts to ensure that fishing continues as a key priority for Scotland. I echo Claudia Beamish's calls of thanks to our fishermen and to them to stay safe. Edward Mountain, followed by Emma Harper. I have a little time in hand, so I could give extra time for interventions. Presiding Officer, I am sorry that there will be no stories about cake from me. It will just make me hungry and might shorten what I am going to say. No one is going to stand in this chamber and downgrade the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland, not only to Scotland, but of course to the whole UK. It is not just the value to the economy that is important, but it is the great value in terms of social, cultural heritage to say nothing of the jobs that it provides in the fragile, rural areas of Scotland. As the cabinet secretary said, the fact that Scotland makes up just about 8.6 per cent of the UK's population and landed 78 per cent of the UK's total catch illustrates the importance that catch is to Scotland as well as the UK. Before I go any further, I would like to reiterate that I believe that it is important that we look to the management of this wild resource across the human boundaries that we have imposed and look at the big picture. Fish within the UK's territorial limit may be in Norway's territorial limit tomorrow. Fish do not need passports and they do not respect national or nationalist aspirations. As I make this speech, I believe that EU officials will already have made agreements with non-EU countries such as Norway. The most recent EU Norway talks, I believe, ended last Friday to agree their catch limits and their quotas, as we have heard, on fish such as cod. That means that all, and I do not really mean all that is left to do, is for the EU to decide who gets to catch what within the European Union and over what they have a jurisdiction over. Before I discuss the negotiations, I want to mention a few important figures that are important to the Highlands. First of all, in relation to fisheries, as I believe Gail Ross pointed out and Mary Todd pointed out, there are very important onshore industries that rely on them. For example, in Scrabster Harbour, one of the top landing ports of the UK, situated at the most northerly mainland port, it is an ideal place for the people to work the north and west of Scotland. It not only lands white fish, as we know, but shellfish, lobsters, scallops and prawns. A multitude of vessels go in and out and utilise the port handily, and an estimated value of landings is in excess of £20 million. However, that port is not just important to the fishermen. The businesses support them. For example, Dee Stevenson, who ran a fleet of 30 lorries and employed 55 people, delivered fish and produce across the whole of the UK and into Europe. It is a leading business, and it is vital not only to Scotland but to the UK economy and as well as the wellbeing of Caithness. It is not alone. There are other firms in the north, such as Bannermans of Tain and Ferguson Transport, two excellent hauliers to whom fish and fisheries are very important. Indeed, I should point out, as has already been done, that Scrabster is not the only port in the Highlands. Many others play their part in the fragile areas. The negotiations that are going to be undertaken between Council and the sovereign states are critical. It is important that the UK stands together to get the best deal for Europe, so that Scotland's predetermined share of the UK quota can be as high as possible. That seems to be a little point to me and what has happened in the past with the nature of people fruitlessly posterising on the sidelines over catches. The EU law says that negotiations are for sovereign states to conclude, and therefore the team must be pulled together in one direction. Whilst travelling in one direction, it will be a winning formula. To try and pull in two different directions will be an absolute recipe for disaster. I therefore welcome the points that Fergus Ewing made and the approach that he appears to be taking to work within the UK. I would briefly like to mention the discard ban. I could never and will never ever see the point of throwing dead and edible fish back into the sea. I therefore am pleased that the ban itself is being phased out, and I am pleased that the discard ban will be extended to all tax pieces by the end of 2019. However, I am seriously concerned by the way the landings of fish that would have been discarded is being addressed, and I want to see considerably more work and effort being put into resolving this. Looking to the future, it is important that we are mindful of 2020 and Brexit. Let me be clear, and I will be clear as some other people in this Parliament are not. I did not vote for Brexit. I voted to remain, but I accept the democratic decision of the UK, and I will not be like the private James Fraser of Dad's army and, like some people in this chamber, are and run around saying that we are doomed. Unlike him and unlike some people in this chamber, I do not crave more power and cave in when I am challenged on it. We have a future, and I believe that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation believes that we present ourselves and Brexit does with a sea of opportunities. We should grasp that. What we should do is take, as I have said before in this chamber, a can-do attitude and look for the positives and not for the negatives. Bertie Armstrong, I believe, said that there were encouraging results from the tax that were agreed last year. We need to take those opportunities and build on them. However, I would also point out and remind George Eustis that, in moving forward, we have to ensure that we are not outflanked by the EU, who want to secure their position and compliance post 2020. Our fishing industry is too important to be used as a pawn in a chess game, and I will always stand up for our fishermen in ensuring that it is not. John Finnie. The shared EU citizens in our constituency are too important to be used as a bargaining tool in this Brexit debate. Mr Finnie raises a point that the vote was across the whole of the UK. It was a decision taken by the whole of the UK, and I agree to abide by democratic decisions. I am afraid that, if you are not prepared to abide by democratic decisions, one has to be asked why, at the end of the day, you are a politician. I would like to briefly mention, before I conclude, if I have time, a brief mention of the inshore fisheries. There is a lot going on there, and there will be a lot going on in this Parliament regarding inshore fisheries, and I believe that the Scottish Government is going to bring forward legislation regarding those. I would urge the Scottish Government to do as they are suggesting that Europe should do now and base their decision and policy on scientific grounds, and make sure that the science is good to support what we are suggesting that our inshore fisheries can do. In summary, I believe that we have opportunities here to reverse the decline in landings that we saw in 2015. We can also reverse the decline in the fishing vessels that has dropped in the same period. We need to accelerate the small increase in employment that has occurred in the same period. We need a successful outcome, which will only be achieved by a night in front of those negotiations, which will mean that our communities across Scotland and the UK can look at a better future in terms of jobs, economic activity and sustainable production. I remind everybody that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity. Gail Ross might have cake, but I have pie. This pie is the Marine Socioeconomics project pie. Statistics percentages and facts about fishing and the economic impact of our product that is brought to the market are represented in this pie. 0.2 per cent is the GDP that Scottish fishing contributes to the whole of the UK, but that equals £770 million. We might see that as quite small, but that piece of my pie represents jobs, homes, communities, the livelihood of people and the people in the coastal communities. I think that that is really important. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, marking the importance of recent and on-going negotiations for Scotland's fishing industry. As the cabinet secretary remarked in his opening speech, the Scottish Government remains committed to eliminating discards through the reformed common fisheries policy. However, I was equally pleased to hear him highlight the importance of protecting the livelihoods of our fishermen by safeguarding their right to fish when there is still quota available. Striking the difficult balance between sustainable economic growth and environmental conservation has always been a challenge associated with the rural economy, and we are fortunate to have a cabinet secretary who understands that. While the negotiated settlement must aim to eliminate discards and tackle the challenges that are presented by choke species, we must also be mindful of the difficulties presented to the fleet in complying with the legislation and support them to make the necessary adjustments. Becoming a member of the European and External Relations Committee has served me well in recent months as a rural MSP, so much of what occupies us after June's referendum result has serious implications for the industries at the centre of our economy. As I have mentioned with my pie, fishing is yet another example of that. While it is important to acknowledge why some of the industry voted to leave the European Union and to explore opportunities out with that union, I was not one of them by the way. I voted to remain, just get that in the record, for Mr Mountain, who is now not in the chamber. To explore the opportunities out of that union is not an insignificant task facing us now to ensure that Westminster does not negotiate away Scottish waters to European vessels with any exit deal. Historically, Scotland's fishermen have been shamefully treated by successive Westminster Governments during annual fisheries negotiations, and that cannot be allowed to be replicated in deals struck as we are taken out of the European Union. Will the member take her intervention? Yes, I certainly will. Stuart Stevenson We heard previously from Ross Thompson his objection to what he described as unelected commissioners making decisions. They are, of course, approved by the European Parliament, their appointments. Does the member think that it would be even more regrettable if unelected members of the House of Lords who are not approved in their appointment as ministers by Parliament were to have any role whatsoever in fisheries negotiations? Emma Harper I thank Stuart Stevenson for that intervention. I would rather have us sit round the table negotiating for our fishermen on behalf of our fishermen so that the Scottish voice is heard at any negotiating table. Historically, our Scotland's fishermen have been treated badly, but, despite landing almost 80 per cent of fish caught in UK waters, Scotland receives only 40 per cent of the UK share of the EU fisheries fund. Despite being strategically placed to have the best fish in industry in Europe, we have never been allowed to lead for the UK and European fishing negotiations where it is appropriate to do so. The Scottish fishing fleet was betrayed by the Tories in 1970s when the UK signed up to the common fisheries policy. Let me finish the paragraph, please. The Scottish fishing fleet was betrayed by the Tories in 1970s when the UK signed up to the common fisheries policy. Papers from the Scotland office showed how our industry was treated as expendable, which Mr Chapman agreed with sometime in the wording earlier. I will take your intervention. Edward Mountain Thank you very much. I am pleased that you took an intervention. I just ask the member if he could explain to me what the European law is regarding the negotiations at council. Does that have to be done by the member state, or is it done by anyone? Emma Harper I am not a member of the European Union. I am not part of any negotiations. You know that I am a new member of this chamber, so I am at this present time unaware of how the negotiations occur. However, I would be happy to provide you with that information or clarity as we proceed. The member must take an intervention, it must be helpful. Yes, I will. Stuart Stevenson The member perhaps is not aware that, while it is, of course, the member state that negotiates, there have been examples where the Scottish Minister has led as a UK minister representing the whole UK. For example, in education, where Mike Russell led for the UK in councils, so it is entirely proper and established practice for Scottish ministers to lead UK delegations in European negotiations. Emma Harper Thank you, Mr Stevenson, for helping me. I would be happy to rely on your expertise in the future, because I think that it is great having you in the chamber. I will buy my beer later. It is vital that we reject any attempts to undermine the sector in Scotland during the next few years of important negotiations with the EU, and I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary is pressing Ms Lidsam on the issue. I was less heartened to see that, in recent correspondence George Eustace MP, Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, reaffirmed his intention to work with the Scottish Government throughout those negotiations. It is conditional that we, only in the condition that we, and this is his quote, strive for a fair deal that benefits the UK as a whole. I think that he could have said a deal that benefits the UK and Scotland as a whole. The Minister of State's language does not give me hope that Westminster is any closer to acknowledging the disproportionate contribution that Scottish fishermen make to the UK wide sector. The EU represents the largest food export market for the Scottish fish and seafood. Scotland exported fish and seafood is worth more than £438 million to EU countries last year, and that represents nearly two thirds of our food exports. The fishing industry and the ease of market access is of huge importance to Scotland. As with the farming sector, one of the crucial issues here in relation to our exit from the European Union is the protection of the right of EU nationals to continue to live and work here. Those individuals make up a large proportion of the workforce in the processing sector. If we were to lose part of our processing capacity in Scotland because of labour shortages, we would lose landings, we would lose exports, we would lose revenue and we would jeopardise hundreds of local jobs. Of course, a raw deal for Scotland's fishermen will have a domino effect across all sectors, which are key to the rural economy. For example, in my own region, where the food and drink sector is so important to the livelihood of many, we have renowned seafood restaurants. Scotland's seafood sector is one of our greatest strengths and has built its reputation on a product renowned to the world over for its pristine quality. Scotland is strategically placed to have the best fishing industry in Europe. I encourage the Scottish Government to be committed to doing all that it can to make that a reality. I hope that all parties in the Scottish Parliament will today support the Scottish Government's effort to achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland's fishermen. Thank you. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call Tavish Scott. Around six minutes, please, Mr Scott. Deputy Presiding Officer, we now know what Stuart Stevenson is here for, and he is here to provide backup for colleagues across the chamber when they are working at the intricacies of member state representation at the European level. I am also very grateful to Gail Ross for giving us the birthday cake analogy. Probably the best illustration of fishing policy hasn't really changed much in those years, since that was first written. The best illustration of the reality of what that is. However, it gives me a chance to say a couple of things about my own part of the world in terms of Shirtland. We tend to play around for who has got the most fisheries-dependent community and who is the top port of Agnesadir to others who represent Peterhead in one capacity and other. The reason that Lerwick describes itself as the top port when it comes to fishing land is that it is on a map. I cannot remember which chairman of the Port Authority many years ago thought of that, but heaven forbid we've dined on it out on it for years ever since. Most seriously, I want to say a couple of things about two boats, because just this week, Lowry Irfan, his crew and shareholders launched a new Antares, which will ply the seas in the coming years. A magnificent new vessel for the Scottish pelagic industry, and certainly for Paulsy, it is quite an addition to the fleet. Earlier this year, a young whitefish crew took the resilient to sea in our coastal waters, in the island's coastal waters, a very strong sign of encouraging investment for the future. I also want to briefly reflect the point that the cabinet secretary made in writing his opening remarks about Peterhead and the grant assistance that the Government have applied to that particular port. He might want to clarify in his wind-up too that not only Peterhead, but many other ports have benefited in the past from that particular EU funding stream. Many hope to do in the future, even in the period that is left until whatever happens with Brexit happens. Certainly, Lowry Irfan has very strong aspirations around a new fish market. The irony of irony, of course, is that that was to be built to EU standard. We don't even know what that will mean in a few years' time, but the point is more important that those grants that have helped shoreside facilities, and many members have mentioned the processing industry here this afternoon, and rightly so, are important investments for those businesses. If the minister could clarify that, that would indeed be helpful. I also want to mention the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Skalloway because of the science work that has gone on there for many years. Dr Ian Napier published a report that got not just national, but international attention just a month or so ago in reporting the scale of landings from EU waters, in other words, in this context Scottish and waters further to the south, that are taken by foreign fishing boats, the definition of foreign as being other EU nationals in this context. It is important that that analysis is going on. That analysis happens because of the scientific weight of places like the NFC, Marine Centre in Skalloway. I want to recognise that here as well today. Can I pick up a few points that have been made firstly on that processing industry? John Finnie made a fair intervention earlier on about the importance, and Emma Harper has just rightly mentioned it, about the importance of EU systems. Of course, it's not just our boats that rely on people from different nations, not just EU nations but nations from further afield as well, but it's also the processing industry. Emma Harper and John Finnie, by inference, were quite right to point out that our processing industry would really struggle where those people are not in the industry. It is important, it is actually really important that that is clarified as a matter of some urgency. I have this hope—and gosh, it's probably only a hope—that now, and tonight in the House of Commons, the Commons will vote for an amendment on our labour motion, which will mean that the UK Government has to publish a plan on Brexit. That's a good thing. I hope that not only does it deal with fishing but it also deals to some extent with when the plan is published, of course. It also deals with this point about EU nationals as well. I know that Ross Thompson was in full rhetorical mode there, as he always is, but what he and his colleagues also need to recognise is that the fishing industry also needs access to single markets. The Conservative benches need to—and maybe in the wind-up they'll cover this—but the Conservative members need to make clear that that is what they want to see as well, because that single market is essential for the processing sector of the Scottish fishing industry. Much of our white fish—a great majority of our white fish and members who represent constituencies in the north of Scotland who have been eloquent on this point—goes to Boulogne and other fisheries markets across France and in other European nations. That single market, in that sense, is intensely important to that industry, no matter how again the shake-up of Brexit happens. Liam Kerr made some good points about what the industry has done on mesh sizes on square mesh panels. Some of us have been around here a long time. I remember debates on square mesh panels last thing whole afternoons. I kid you not. On us, such things are real-time closures. However, Mr Kerr's point was proper, and that is that the industry has done a lot, and that needs to be reflected in what happens in the future and in the demands that are placed upon it. One final point on Brexit. In the fishing news just the other day, Andrew Oliver, who is a hull-based solicitor, wrote a pretty informative version of what will need to happen in terms of the European—in terms of the member state and our own Government here in Scotland having fisheries law and motor point enshrining it in new law here in Scotland. Mr Oliver suggests that this could take 20 years. For all who say that this is instant, easy and famous—few do say that, but for those who try to say that this is all instant, easy and incredibly straightforward, read this article about the reality of transposing fishing legislation that has been built up over many, many years into Scots law, into our own domestic legislation. It will not be a straightforward process. That is why today, again, I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to take forward fisheries plans for the future, because this work has to be done and it has to be good on with. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that this has been an important and mainly constructive debate with well-informed and insightful contributions from across the chamber. As a sign of our cross-party working on this important issue, Labour will be supporting the Government motion and the two amendments. As we have heard previously, the 12 December marks the annual EU quotin negotiations in Brussels. Of course, the livelihood of our fishermen are dependent on the outcome of the talks. The 28 fishing ministers of the EU states will, of course, be involved in frenetic talks and in compromises and in amendments in late-night bleary-eyed sessions in Brussels. Whether that is in perfect system is the best way of managing and sustaining our fisheries is debatable, a point that was made by Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishmen's Federation in Tuesday's Scotsman. Like others, I welcome Mr Armstrong and his colleagues to the galley this afternoon. However, no one can argue that there is an easy path to balancing the technical scientific advice with the social economic impact on our fishing communities. Dr Stephen Mackensen, who is the chief scientific officer of the Scottish Pallagic Fishermen's Association, is teaming up with scientists and fishermen to work out the size of fish stocks using, among other tools, fishing vessels and ecosounders to measure fish abundance. He said that this approach helped to foster mutual respect between fishermen and scientists, which can only bode well for the future management of our precious fisheries in the 21st century. That is, I believe, a very important debate. Given that, as we have heard, Scotland is a key player among Europe's fishing nations and accounts for around two thirds the total fish caught in the UK. Given the fact that nearly 5,000 fishermen are employed in Scottish-based vessels, that is a key economic resource for Scotland generally and for the Highlands and Islands and the Northeast specifically. However, the big picture is a world with global food shortage, while on our doorstep we have fresh, affordable and varied food stock for domestic and crucially the European markets. Richard Lochhead, who is in the chamber, said in February this year that the fish dumped in the North Sea last year is enough to feed Macedonia, Slovenia and Botswana while we all know that thousands, indeed millions, are starving in the developing world. However, looking at local level, it is clearly in the local communities that are hard for working fishermen are providing the backbone of the fishing industry. There is a long time representative of the Highlands and Islands and I am well aware of the distinctive traditions, the customs and the close-knit communities that the pursuit of fishing has created along the coast of Scotland. Although the majority of the fishing industry operates from major harbours with large, efficient fleets, we should not forget about the small coastal communities whose residents have lived with the salt of their sea and their blood for generations. I thought that this was a very good debate. My colleague Fergus Ewing had a very insightful speech and mentioned, particularly, rather to my shock that he was being a radical. I have known Mr Ewing for many years and I could describe him in lots of ways. Radical was perhaps not the word that would jump to my mind, but I believe that tonight he will be radical and will support Labour's amendment at five o'clock. I can always live and hope, Presiding Officer, if nothing else. He made some, I think, very useful points, particularly about the key issue, about good scientific advice, must be turned into quotas. I think that Peter Chapman spoke very well on a very thoughtful speech, particularly highlighting Peter Head and Fraserborough as crucially important harbours. I think that he made a very interesting point about fishermen moving to a more sustainable fishing method. The key for the future, in respect of our views on Brexit, is that innovation is the king. I totally agree with Mr Chapman on that. My colleague Rhoda Grant made an interesting point, of course, that we are still in the EU. Let's not forget that. We haven't yet recorded article 50, and we will be debating that for many years to come under different models. She mentioned, which is summed up in our amendment, the key issue about marine protection vessels and the point about the £5,000 per re-attention bonus being reduced by half. I think that there's a good trade union and Labour generally needs that in the widest possible term that we should be supporting. I would ask colleagues across the chamber if they would consider supporting that point today. Tavish Scott is a member with tremendous experience in fishing for many, many years and has made a very strong criticism about discard, which I agree with. His key point was looking to stability and ability to plan in the future. I apologise to other members—I am not able to mention it because I am conscious, Presiding Officer—of time. I think that you could argue in this debate that Brexit is the ghost at the— Excuse my interrupting, but you can have a little more time if you would like to, Mr Struth. Thank you. I'll use the next 40-minute speech that I had very far this occasion. But you could argue, of course, that Brexit is the ghost at the feast in this debate, and although I don't have time to discuss a last Brexit in detail, one of the course-finding principles of the common fisheries policy was equal access to waters. As Andrew Oliver, which I think that Tavish Scott quoted, a lawyer writing the fishing in news in July this year explained, the EU will fall on its obligations under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas, as a result of Brexit. As members will be aware, this is an international convention that is unrelated to EU membership and defines the responsibilities of nations on the use of the world's oceans and gives us guidelines for the management of marine resources. Having said that, having full access to the European maritime and fisheries fund for the Scottish fishing industry is absolutely crucial. The total budget, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, was around 107 million euros, and the chancellor said on 13 August that I am confirming that structure and investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement and horizon research funding grant before we leave the EU will be guaranteed by the treasury after we leave. However, in Marine Scotland, as the cabinet secretary is aware, the Scotland's lead agency for fisheries has set an early final date spend for EMFF projects. Can the cabinet secretary news wind up confirm that that is still the case? Has it been conveyed to fishermen and is he confident that we will be able to spend this entire budget, which in my view is vital for the industry? In Scotland, our fishing communities often exist in a franchise balance with onshore and offshore livelihoods at stake, requiring any significant changes to be viewed with a careful and critical eye. When looking towards the future of the industry, we know that sustainable development of fisheries is beneficial environmentally, socially and economically, but we still must proceed with caution. Our fishermen are some of the most resilient workers in the whole of Scotland. Whether the adversity they face stems from the high seas or from EU regulations, Scottish fishermen will rise to the challenge. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to close for the Scottish Conservatives. I want to start by thanking members on all sides of the chamber for their contribution this afternoon. It has been generally a consensual debate. As my colleague Liam Kerr said, it has put Scotland's fishing industry at the centre of our national discourse. In terms of GDP, although the industry is only worth the small percentage of the Scottish economy, it is the lifeblood of many local communities. Last year, more than 4,800 fishermen were employed on Scottish registered vessels and there was a welcome increase in the number of active fishing vessels registered in Scotland. Since taking up my role, I have met many fishermen, industry leaders and processors, visited the leading scallop port and businesses in Cacubrie and the Peterhead fish market to witness the slick market operation and see some of Scotland's finest catch. On that note, I am sure and all my colleagues from this side of the chamber welcome the Cabinet Secretary's announcement, albeit long awaited, the £5 million to modernise and enhance the Peterhead port, Europe's largest fishing port. Like many colleagues, I want to play tribute to those who work in our fishing industry, an industry that has played a huge part in the culture of Scotland, often with a lack of recognition of not only the economic impact but the social impact on the very fabric of our rural coastal communities. Sadly, the importance of fishing communities is often only seen when tragedy strikes and I have personal experience of the devastation felt by fishing communities when a boat fails to return to port, such as the Marell or the Solway Harvester in my hometown of Cacubrie. Fishermen work in the most treacherous conditions, but I have never been afraid to rise to the challenge, whether it be in stock management or getting their heads around the often complicated regulations that flow from Brussels. Presiding officer, it seems likely that the final agreement at next week's meeting will be a mixed bag for Scottish fishermen. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has already voiced concerns at the proposed whiting catch arrangement. That agreement has already alluded to and will see increased access for Norway to the Scottish fishing waters, enabling them to catch 68 per cent of their blue whiting catch allocated to the west of the British Isles, and at the same time as benefiting from an additional transfer of 110,000 tonnes of EU blue whiting. That is disappointing news for the Scottish fleet that landed over 30,000 tonnes of blue whiting last year, with a value of more than 6 million. However, the disappointment is not simply that those arrangements will mean that they are not able to catch the same next year. The bargaining of blue whiting is merely a symptom of the uneasy compromise that defines those annual negotiations. Under the whiting arrangement, Norway will hugely benefit from Scotland's fishing waters, while countries such as France and Portugal will benefit from the EU's trade-off. That is quite literally a prime example of the EU selling Scottish fishing waters down the river. According to a report by the University of Highlands and Islands, more than half of the fish and shellfish caught in the UK's EEZ is caught by fishermen from other EU countries. What other country would give away half its natural resource? It is not normal and, quite frankly, it needs to be rebalanced. With Brexit, we have a perfect opportunity to do just that. I thank the member for giving way. If leaving the CFP as seen as the silver lining in the Brexit cloud, do the Conservatives recognise that for the wider seafood sector, on-going membership of the single market is essential and, therefore, the UK Government should back Scotland's call to ensure that that is delivered for Scotland's industries, and particularly our seafood sector, which exports two thirds of the product to Europe. I think that everybody on this side of the chamber will agree that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those markets that they have, both in the UK and in Europe and the rest of the world, are protected. We will do everything that we can do to ensure that those negotiations reach that outcome. I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary that he wished to see the end of the days when boats are tied up and when the code is still available. The discard regulations need to be looked at at the same time as the advances in net technology that are led by our very own Scottish fishermen. Rhoda Grant, we will be supporting our amendment because Marine Scotland has a critical and crucial role to play in enforcing the regulations, and the Government needs to ensure that Marine Scotland is fit for purpose to protect and ensure sustainability of our fish and shell fish stocks. Tavish Scott talked a lot of sense, and I share much of his concerns. However, we will not be supporting his motion, including a call for Scottish fisheries policies irrespective of the breakfast set outcome. It must be tea time. Talking of fish suppers, we were treated as normal to a real fish supper rather than a dog's dinner from Stuart Stevenson over the dog's dinner that the fishing policy has been in the past. I welcome him echoing the call for one voice. Indeed, we need to look at the history and the mistakes that are made in the past to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. Marie Todd and I agree that how important fishing is to our coastal rural constituencies and her call for the balanced fisheries management, which was also echoed by Claudia Beamish. John Finnie played the green card and I agree that science and good science needs to continue to be used. John Scott's helpful intervention highlighted the difficult relationship currently and the existence between commercial and environmental bodies in our MPA-designated waters, and we need to find a solution to sustainable fisheries. Gateforbes also touched on the importance of research and technology. Gail Ross was rather flummoxed after Ross Thompson's contribution, and her cake, although not a fish cake, was the basis of her contribution. However, in this great British bake-off, Ross Thompson definitely came out as the winner. Emma Harper, unfortunally, could not resist the Westminster bashing and rather forgot that today it is the EU that is currently the problem with our fisheries. Once again, I was glad to see Mr Sievensson come to a rescue as he appeared to be a fish out of water. Dave Stewart gave a very balanced contribution looking not only at the economics but also at the socio-economic importance of fishing in our small coastal communities. Ross Thompson and his contribution spoke about the possibilities and opportunities that Brexit presents for our fishing industry. As he said, the biggest prize will be the control of our waters so that UK fishing interests can be directly represented at the negotiation table by the UK, not the EU, who, as next week's agreements will demonstrate, appear to buckle to the demands of other countries such as Norway at the expense of our hard-working Scottish fishermen. At such an important juncture for our fishing industry, the Scottish Government have a choice to make. So far in this series of Brexit debates, the SNP have chosen to advance an agenda of gripe and grievance at every opportunity, but we have urged those benches to get round the table and work with the UK Government to secure the best deal for Scotland. Today I make that plea to the minister again. I was delighted that he acknowledged in his contribution that we need to look at Brexit as an opportunity and it is not an excuse to bash Westminster at every opportunity. Those prizes on offer for Scotland's fishing industry are huge, securing them with reaffirmed Scotland's reputation as a supplier of high-quality sustainable seafood. The interests of Scottish and UK fishermen should always be at the forefront of future negotiations. On behalf of the Scottish Fish Service, I wish to wish George Eustace, our cabinet secretary and the Scottish fishing industry representatives from Scotland every success and next week's negotiations in Brussels. Thank you, Mr Carson. I hope that you enjoy your tea when you finally get there. I now call Fergus Ewing up to about a minute to five, please, Mr Ewing. Thank you. During this debate, I learned the very sad news that Alex Johnson MSP has passed away. Where he is here, he would have been a very jovial and reasoned presence, and he was a doughty fighter for the north-east of Scotland, so we will miss him. Especially of us old lags, Presiding Officer, that have been around since the class of 99. We pass on our thoughts to Linda and his family. I want to start on a positive note in the substance of the debate, which is that after listening to the arguments presented by Labour, Conservatives and Liberals, and despite some efforts to prevent me from agreeing to support their motion from time to time, I am happy to say that the Scottish Government will, with some reservations as to the wording and some technical aspects of each of the three amendments, be supporting them. The reason we are doing that is that it is important to demonstrate to the fishing communities that, other than some different views and perspectives, we are essentially all behind them in securing the best deal in the negotiations. That has been the way of it in these debates over the years. We all respect the science, the stock sustainability and the importance of that, as John Finnie pointed out, particularly today, in the debate. We support the protection of the economic wellbeing of our industry and the contribution that it makes to rural communities, as Kate Forbes said, and we pursue our commitment to achieving discard-free fisheries. John Scott made a telling intervention right at the start of the debate. Separating out some of the other points on the political mist that descended upon us from time to time of the debate. I thought that I would start off with what I hope is a consensual note that we will be… Well, certainly to Mr Rumbles. I am very glad that he is accepting the Liberal Democrat amendment that calls for a plan for fisheries. When do you think that the minister will be able to outline to Parliament when he thinks his views about how fisheries in Scotland should operate once we leave the European Parliament? When do you think that he will be in a position to outline that? Fergus Ewing. Well, I am happy to set out the principles that I think would apply. I do not actually think that there would be much that would divide us in setting out principles that would underlie that approach. I do not think that that is a particular challenge. I am happy to do it, but, with respect, I would say that the real purpose of this debate is, whilst I support the sentiment on that part of the amendment to Mr Scott, the real purpose of this debate is to look at the particular task that faces us, and we are still in the EU of getting the best possible deal for Scotland in the circumstances. I think that that was a task that, by and large, most members applied themselves. Of course, there are many important aspects at the moment where the EU does make a positive contribution and references have been made by Mr Stewart to the EMFF, and I think that Claudia Beamish, as well as various other members, Mr Mountain mentioned it as well. I was pleased to formally announce the £49 million project for major upgrades to Peterhead. That is a very practical contribution, because I saw for myself on Monday that the existing market in Peterhead is absolutely packed and full, so the boxes are three high. That means that the buyers can only be expected to take on trust what lies in the bottom box. It is quite impossible with auctions taking place every 30 seconds to do more than have a cursory glance at the top two. The space that is needed and the money that is given is very well used and much needed. There has been £77 million of more than 1,200 projects safeguarding 8,000 jobs from the EMFF. That is not a minor provision. That has been part of a strategic support for the fishing industry that is funded from the EU. Moreover, as Mr Stewart pointed out, between now, well, till 2014 and 2020, the seafood and marine sectors will receive €107 million in direct assistance supporting research, development and structural reform, and yes, I confirm that we will, of course, and we are applying ourselves to utilising that to the maximum. It is not often that Governments underspend their budgets, I have to say, in my experience at any rate, but the point is that this fund makes a massive contribution to the fishing sector. I think that it is reasonable to say—I do not expect an answer today, that is not reasonable—but it is reasonable to say what will replace the EMFF. If there were to be Brexit, what has the UK Government said about the support for food and fisheries? Support is not at a nugatory level, but at a very substantial level indeed. In that regard, I was very pleased to spend Sunday evening in the company, among others, of Jimmy Buckin, the TV skipper and great company. I mentioned Jimmy because, as well as consuming some of his fish from the amity on the menu at the Buckin Braise hotel, which I commend to everybody, excellent meal with Jimmy Buckin's food on the menu, but he has also devised a separator net that separates out and allows juvenile fish to escape. This innovation is one of the ones that was mentioned by Mr Kerr, as important in the fishing industry, and its fishermen themselves are coming up with innovative ideas. Have a look at Jimmy Buckin's separator net on the YouTube, if you wish. Those efforts are pursued and are assisted by EU money. Liam McArthur I could take him from the east to the west coast, and there have certainly been efforts there in technical measures. However, the by-cat rules are causing real problems, particularly in the targeted monk and safe fisheries, because of the by-cat of cod. His reasonable suggestion is that I would not expect an immediate response now, but will he undertake to look specifically at that issue and see how it might be resolved? Yes, I am aware of that issue, and I am happy to confirm that we will continue to look at it. The EU is also important, as was pointed out by Richard Lochhead, my predecessor, in a most telling intervention that the EU is a market, and it is the largest food export market for Scottish fish. It amounts to £438 million and nearly two thirds of the total value of food exports to the European Union, and access to a common market of more than 500 million people. I was pleased to hear that Mr Carson gave what seemed to be an unqualified support for the importance of continued access to the market on an unqualified basis. If that is the Conservative policy, I think that we have seen some progress made in the debate. I am happy to hear Mr Carson if I have misstated him in any way. However, that was the most welcome clarification from the Conservatives that they are unequivocally in favour of continuance of membership of the free market. We did not get clarification response to Mr Finnie. He is not intervening. We did not get clarification about the counterpart measure raised by many members, namely that, for the fishing sector, just as the farming sector, just as the tourism sector, just as the forestry sector and every other part of the rural economy, people who work in Scotland, who are from other parts of Europe and who are most welcome to do so, as far as we are concerned, are an essential part of the capacity of the fish processing sector. That point was made by a great many members. I do not think that it was made by any Conservative members—maybe that was just an omission—but it is the truth. So, sooner or later, I think that we do need absolute clarity from the UK Government, so that we can put this unfortunate issue to rest. I know that that is causing huge concern, and I met a lady after a constituency surgery in a hotel in my constituency who hailed from a European country, and she said that if there was no clarity soon, she would have to consider marriage as the final option. I do not think that the point was directed to me in particular—it was more of a general proposition. In conclusion, returning to fish, I am delighted that we will all unite behind the efforts that will be made next week by those who are arguing in Brussels at length for the best possible deal for the Scottish fishing industry. I am very pleased that all members will unite behind that cause this evening. That concludes our debate. Before we take the next item of parliamentary business, I am afraid that I have to bring some very sad news. That is to inform the chamber that our parliamentary colleague Alex Johnson has died. I know that all of us who had the good fortune to have known Alex over many years will be very saddened and touched to hear of his death. There will be an opportunity for Parliament and for MSPs to express our sympathy and our condolences, but I also know that, on behalf of all of us, we would like his family to know that we are thinking from them at this difficult time. The Parliament will now consider a business motion 2953 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 2953. No member has asked to speak. I put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 2953 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move on block motions 2954 and 2955 on the approval of SSIs. Thank you. The question comes at decision time to which we now come. The first question is that amendment 2922.1 in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 2922 in the name of Fergus Ewing on sea fisheries and engine negotiations to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that amendment 2922.2 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that amendment 2922.3 in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2922.3 in the name of Tavish Scott is yes, 85, no, 0. There were 30 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2922, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 2922, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, is yes, 83, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2954, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The final question is that motion 2955, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time and we will now move to members' business, in the name of George Adam, on Paisley, a city of culture. We will just take a few moments to exchange seats.